Filmmaker Anubhav Sinha, whose propaganda film Article 15 which shamelessly attempts to further enforce the old shackles of caste identities, was released today hasn’t taken the criticism to his film that well.

While the movie claims to have been inspired from ‘true incidents’, the trailer made it clear that it was based on the infamous Badaun hanging case where two young girls were murdered in a village in UP.

In its attempt to be ‘inspired’ from the Badaun case, the movie seems to have taken wide liberties with facts. The case got wide attention in national and international media, bringing shame for the then Akhilesh Yadav government in UP because it was highlighted as a case of upper caste atrocity against Dalits.

The accused were named Pappu Yadav, Avadhesh Yadav, Urvesh Yadav, Chhatrapal Yadav and Sarvesh Yadav. Chhatrapal and Sarvesh were policemen. The police department was accused of showing leniency to the accused in the case due to political pressure from the Samajwadi Party which was favouring the Yadavs. Even the police investigation was severely criticised and the people had demanded a CBI inquiry.

- Advertisement -

The CBI had later stated that their probe indicates that the two girls, aged 14 and 15, had committed suicide and they were neither raped or murdered. The five accused were all given a clean chit.

However, Sinha has made great efforts in his movie to take a widely publicised crime and paint it in colours of casteism that suits his political narrative. In the trailer one can see the invisible ‘Mahant ji’ (a probable sly at Yogi Adityanath) who is a Brahmin, is painted as the all-powerful root of evil in the movie. Also, the over-emphasis of ‘upper castes’ and Brahmins being the sole cause of all atrocities seems to be the central theme in the movie.

The attempt to pick a highly publicised crime and paint it in anti-Brahmin, anti-upper caste colours is unfair, even in the name of artistic liberties. The Badaun case had no brahmin angle. Changing the ethnicities and identities of a highly publicised crime only reeks of narrow political agenda, an agenda which is dangerously partial and divisive.

When audience (usually filmmakers make the moral high ground and say how they have made the film for its audience), started questioning Sinha on the microblogging site Twitter, he lost his cool and started abusing those who criticised his film.

Who the FUCK are you??? I mean who the FUCK??? https://t.co/WASmj1YJZ3 — Anubhav Sinha (@anubhavsinha) June 28, 2019

Ravi Kumar on his part had politely asked Sinha to remove the part that the film was inspired from true events considering he has taken creative liberties. However, Sinha thought a response to this polite criticism is the ‘F-word’.

Go get the meaning of FUCK OFF!!! https://t.co/RXfMDrOV4J — Anubhav Sinha (@anubhavsinha) June 28, 2019

The abuses to critics of his film don’t seem to be stopping.

Go get a fucking name first you manhole lid. https://t.co/R6gakXZI3s — Anubhav Sinha (@anubhavsinha) June 28, 2019

Apparently, only praises for his propaganda make it to the category of ‘intelligent tweets’.

Get the FUCK out of my way as I scroll through some intelligent tweets. https://t.co/AasdlYXjuh — Anubhav Sinha (@anubhavsinha) June 28, 2019

Shut the fuck up MORON. https://t.co/pYA1SRcG9Q — Anubhav Sinha (@anubhavsinha) June 28, 2019

Go get the meaning of FUCK OFF!!! https://t.co/RXfMDrOV4J — Anubhav Sinha (@anubhavsinha) June 28, 2019

Prior to the release of his another propaganda film ‘Mulk’, Sinha who had earlier made the embarrassment called Ra.One, had claimed that terrorism was not started by Muslims. He was also caught requesting Pakistanis to watch his ‘Mulk’ movie illegally. Sinha, whose own shady money laundering attempts were recently highlighted seems to be on a mission to improving his public image by toeing ‘liberal’ propaganda. The incessant usage of F-word surely helps.