Singing in the Ruins: Radical Cry Against Exclusionary Nationhood in Ritwick Ghatak’s ‘Subarnarekha’.
- Ishan Das
Introduction : Ritwik Ghatak’s ‘Subarnarekha’ (1965), a haunting elegy to the human cost of Partition, transcends the boundaries of conventional cinema to interrogate the very foundations of postcolonial nationalism. Set against the backdrop of the 1947 Partition of India, the film dismantles the Nehruvian promise of a secular, egalitarian nation by exposing the fractures of caste, class, and gender that persisted beneath its utopian veneer. Through the tragic arcs of displaced refugees, Ghatak crafts a searing socio-political critique, juxtaposing the idealism of nation-building with the visceral realities of betrayal, violence, and systemic neglect. By weaving together avant-garde cinematic techniques, symbolic landscapes, and marginalized voices, ‘Subarnarekha’ challenges the myth of a monolithic Indian identity, urging viewers to confront the contradictions of nationalism and envision solidarity rooted in empathy rather than exclusion.
The Shadow of Partition: Nationalism as Unresolved Trauma
Ritwik Ghatak’s ‘Subarnarekha’ opens not with the jubilation of independence but with the silent despair of refugees trudging across a barren landscape, their faces etched with exhaustion and loss. This visual metaphor—a stark contrast to the triumphant imagery of Nehru’s “tryst with destiny” speech—frames Partition not as a historical milestone but as an unending nightmare. The Subarnarekha River, a recurring motif, embodies the duality of nationalism’s promise and betrayal. In Bengali folklore, rivers symbolize life and continuity, but here, the Subarnarekha becomes a site of rupture, its waters reflecting the blood spilled over arbitrary borders. Ghatak’s camera lingers on the river’s surface, capturing ripples that distort the reflections of characters like Ishwar and Sita, symbolizing how their identities—and the nation’s—are fractured by displacement.
The refugee camp, a makeshift world of tarpaulin tents and scavenged firewood, serves as a microcosm of postcolonial India’s failures. In one harrowing scene, a group of refugees huddle around a radio broadcasting Nehru’s speech about “redeeming our pledges.”And,in another scene after that some refugees read a daily newspaper’s report on the death of Gandhi.In a scene,where the zamindars came to kidnap refugees to work for them or just to torture them one ntionalist Haraprasad,urges students of his school to chant ‘Vande mataram’ slogan.The irony is palpable: the state’s grand rhetoric drowns out the whispers of those it has abandoned.Ghatak’s use of diegetic sound here—the crackling radio,the daily news papers,the howling wind—creates a dissonance between nationalist idealism and lived reality, a theme echoed in the works of postcolonial theorist Partha Chatterjee, who argues that post-independence elites inherited colonial structures of exclusion.The search for a ‘new home’ for the refugees portrays in the film actually reflects the real life pains of those displaced refugees.
Caste, Gender, and the Betrayal of Nehruvian Idealism :
The film’s critique of caste is most visceral in the relationship between Ishwar, a Brahmin intellectual, and Abhiram, the Dalit orphan he adopts. In an early scene, Ishwar teaches Abhiram to write his name in Sanskrit, a language historically reserved for upper castes.This moment, bathed in soft sunlight, seems to promise transcendence of caste hierarchies.But,when the mill factory owner Ramvilash came to know that his factory manager’s orphan brother is from a lower caste he threatened Iswar and mentioned that everything is based on caste and he now wants to fight in the election based on the agenda of caste.When Abhiram wants to marry Sita,Iswar shocked and his foreman Mukherjee warned him that if Ramvilash came to about that romance,he might kick Iswar from that job.And,after that,Iswar forcefully fixed a groom for Sita,but Sita fled on the of the occasion of her marriage with Abhiram.
Sita’s arc, meanwhile, exposes the gendered violence of nationalism.Forced into prostitution after being abandoned by her brother,and after the death of her husband Abhiram in a mass beating as he hit a child while driving his govt. Bus that actually happens for the faulty brakes of the government Buses then.Sita finally takes the path of suicide as her own brother Iswar one day came to her house at night and drunked,as he was told about a prostitiute there in who is none other than his own sister,Sita did not take a minute a takes her lwn life by slit her own throat Feminist scholar Jasodhara Bagchi notes that Partition transformed women’s bodies into “territories of honor”; Sita’s suicide, then, is not just personal despair but a rebellion against a nation that reduces women to symbols.
‘Unhomed’,In search of a ‘New Home’ :
The idealist Haraprasad,who blamed Iswar as an escapist,he himself lost 7 school teaching jobs in 8years for his idealism and his wife takes her own life by suicide as a reason of poverty.This shows the proce of idealism in those days.After so mich poveety Haraprasad says ‘Darkness can’t be the end,I go in search of light’.when Iswar wants to end his own life by hang himself,Haraprasad came on that spot,and says ‘How late is it?There is no answer’ he further added ‘I had protested,what protest?protest against what?’ and he also added that ‘whether you protest or run away.it makes no difference,we are body less ethereal,we are wiped out’..this shows the hopelessness of idealist’s in India that time.After seeing none hope,Haraprasad says ‘The way of the herd is truth,Indulgence is the way to liberation’.we can see the evolution of a idealist into a capitalist after there’s no ray of hope for fight.And,when Iswar acquitted from the death case of Sita,his nephew ‘Binu’ asked Iswar ‘will we go to our new home’..like when Sita asked him in her childhood ‘When will we reach at our new home?’..They both dreamed about a new home in the banks of Subarnarekha as it symbolises flow of life.
Legacy: ‘Subarnarekha’ in an Age of Ethnonationalism :
Today, as India grapples with laws like the Citizenship Amendment Act (2019), which exclude Muslims from nationalist narratives,’Subarnarekha’s warning feels prophetic.The film’s final scene—a boy singing amidst rubble—refuses resolution, mirroring contemporary struggles over belonging. Scholar Bhaskar Sarkar notes that Ghatak’s films “mourn the nation to remake it”; here, the child’s song becomes a radical act of memory, insisting that trauma must be acknowledged before healing can begin.
Conclusion : ‘Subarnarekha’ is more than a cinematic requiem for Partition’s victims; it is a radical manifesto against the mythologies of nationalism that fracture humanity in the name of unity. Ritwik Ghatak’s magnum opus does not merely document history—it interrogates the very soul of a nation, laying bare the rot beneath its polished ideals. By intertwining the personal and political, Ghatak reveals how caste hierarchies, gendered violence, and class exploitation are not aberrations but foundational to the postcolonial state’s exclusionary logic. The film’s unflinching gaze forces us to confront a haunting truth: the borders drawn in 1947 were not just territorial but psychological, calcifying divisions that continue to dictate who belongs and who is erased.
Ghatak’s genius lies in his refusal to offer solace. The haunting final image—a child singing amidst ruins—is neither a symbol of hope nor despair, but a provocation. It asks us to reckon with the cyclical nature of trauma and the urgency of reimagining nationalism beyond the confines of identity politics. In this child’s song, Ghatak plants a seed of radical empathy, a call to forge solidarity from the fragments of broken histories.
In the end,’Subarnarekha’ transcends its medium to become a moral compass. It challenges us to dismantle the architectures of oppression and rebuild a nationhood rooted not in blood or soil, but in the irreducible dignity of every human life. Ghatak’s legacy is a reminder that true freedom lies not in flags, anthems, but in the courage to see ourselves in the Other—to dissolve borders, both external and internal, and reclaim the Subarnarekha’s flowing waters as a metaphor for collective healing. The river does not discriminate; it carries all stories, all sorrows. In its current form, Ghatak finds the blueprint for a nationalism worthy of the name: one that flows, adapts, and nourishes, rather than divides.
References :
(A)Ghatak,Ritwik.Cinema and I.Ritwik Memorial Trust,1987
*Ghatak's own reflections on cinema,politics,and his artistic philosophy.Essential for understanding his ideological stance on nationalism,displacement,and humanism.He discusses Subarnarekha as part of his 'Partition Trilogy' and his commitment to representing marginalised voices.
(B)Ghatak,Ritwik.Rows and Rows of Fences:Ritwik Ghatak on Cinema;Seagull Books,2000
*A collection of essays,interviews,and scripts.Offers insights into his use of symbolism(e.g.,rivers,borders)and his critique of postcolonial India's socio-political failures.
(C)Bhattacharya,Sudipta,"Ritwik Ghatak and the Radical Project."Social Scientist,vol.44,no.7/8,2016,pg.65-80
*Discusses Ghatak's Marxist leanings and how Subarnarekha critiques capitalist modernity and exclusionary nationalism.
Comments
Post a Comment