(a.k.a. Bandaa; A Common Man, Hindi; 2023)
Director: Apoorv Singh Karki
It is not about being religious or anti-religious, especially when it comes to a crime committed by a godman. Just because one utters something in favour of the accused does not mean he condones the accused's actions. Conversely, saying something against the victim does not indicate victim-blaming.
Director: Apoorv Singh Karki
This point becomes very relevant in the present-day context when we discuss the Hamas versus Israeli issue. Many join the increasing bandwagon and assert that if one does not condemn the Israeli retaliation (defence), one does not empathise with the Palestinian course but supports the Israeli killing of civilians and children. Never mind that Hamas is a terrorist group; they drew first blood (this time around) and used civilian human shields to defend themselves. Never mind that Israelites have to protect themselves, too. Life is not straightforward.
The film is based on a true event. A revered holy man is accused of rape by a minor. Whilst the public sentiments are that such a man of high esteem would not stoop so low as to commit such heinous crimes, his supporters are quick to employ scare tactics to threaten and even harm the prosecutor's witnesses.
Getting the case off the ground proved to be a Herculean task. The parents of the victim soon discover that the assigned prosecutor was trying to sell his case. That is how P.C. Solanki, the effable Jodhpur lawyer, comes to the picture on a pro-bono basis.
The case gets dilly-dallied over five years. The accused attempted and failed repeatedly to get bail and spent the whole duration under custody. Solanki came face-to-face with many famous men of law in the courts of Jodhpur and Delhi. Somewhere along the way, even the flamboyant Dr Subramaniam Swamy had to eat humble pie when his attempts at getting the holy man out on bail failed on technicalities. Before this episode, Swamy had boasted of not losing any bail cases.
While the filmmakers managed to grasp the viewers' attention through creative storytelling and excellent acting, the clincher came when the prosecution made his closing statement. He tries to justify his hounding of the man of God through the Hindu scriptures itself. This is akin to fighting fire with fire. Not that Solanki was a non-believer. He was regular with his salutations to Lord Shiva.
Solanki invoked Ravana's antic of impersonating a sage to abduct Sita as an unforgivable sin. Preying on helpless people's trust for self-interest is unforgivable.
In his understanding, in a conversation that happened between Parvathi and Shiva, Parvathi asked why Shiva refused to forgive Ravana. After all, Ravana had been his ardent baktha (worshipper). In defence, Lord Shiva allegedly reiterated, “There are three types of sons. One which is made inadvertently and can be forgiven. Next, there will be atrocities, which, some punishment, things resolve. Then, there is a category of unforgivable sin, where a person assumes a place to trust and the trust is used to wrong the person who trusts him!”
In my opinion, this edict can be exploited in our contemporary living as such. The society puts so much trust in people in certain positions. They go to meet them to solve their problems when society sanctions them to do so. A teacher, a doctor, a leader, and a priest are all people who hold certain esteemed positions in our hearts. When these professionals cross the Rubicon by misusing their position, their punishment must be harsh.
