Article 15 of director Anubhav Sinha's latest film takes place in Lalgaon, a fictitious village in Uttar Pradesh in perpetual darkness and half-darkness. Here, contemporary caste atrocities converge. The film, exceptionally for Bollywood, refers to the alleged rape and murder of two girls in Badaun and the flogging of Dalits at Una. This is reminiscent of Chandrashekhar Azad & Ravan & # 39; of the army of Bhim and Rohith Vemula. The film was hailed by critics, critics and protests from peripheral organizations representing upper castes. Although "Article 15" focuses on caste privilege and discrimination, questions arise as to the look and question of whether there are superior castes that speak to each other. to higher castes. Sinha, 54, answers a question about why a Brahmin policeman is the hero and about whether the Dalits became blurry and without any action in his film even as they make visible the atrocities committed in against them, as well as Charmy Harikrishnan. Edited excerpts:
Can I ask a question to everyone, Ayan Ranjan, protagonist of Article 15?
What is my caste? I am a Kayasth.
Your film takes a severe look at caste in contemporary India. Why a caste?
When I was 10 or 11 years old, at home and around me, I realized that people were judged by their last name. Even now, headlines that seem insignificant in the newspapers speak of Dalits, rapes, badbadinations, torture and discrimination against Dalits. This movie came out of a lot of anger.
Is it difficult or complicated to consider the atrocities committed against Dalits as non-Dalits?
I do not think so. I think it's good or bad people. I do not look at people as a subset. I do not consider myself a subset. I saw this as a human being horrified by society.
Why did you have a brahman as a hero?
The privileged must question their privilege. I find it more rewarding. This is not fun when the underdog asks why this is happening. I did not conceive it this way, however: to have a brahman as a hero. But I saw it and recognized it and let it go. For me, it's a good human being. The privileged must speak. Even in my previous film "Mulk", it is the Hindu stepdaughter who pleads in favor of the Muslim family (accused of terrorism).
Will you accept the argument that article 15 is more about Savarna's confrontation with caste atrocities than about the visceral experience of Dalit caste?
I'm sure some people can see it that way. You know, when writing the script, I had to choose between placing the "main script camera" inside of us to look at us or Ayan's shoulders to watch them. Both had a movie. Legitimate movies. I chose to place this camera on Ayan's shoulder because I wanted to emphasize our complicity of ignorance / inadvertence. Or, even completely advised complicity and inertia.
During the process, did you transfer the agony of suffering Dalit to the horrified Brahmin?
One does not give up the other. I do not see Ayan as a horrified Brahmin. I see him as a privileged man horrified. I wanted him to be privileged on both scales, social and structural, and then he had to take a stand, the burden being on him. Hence the final credit song "Shuru Karein Kya".