Ideological Hegemony in 'Chand Grahan'

The Marxian concept of ideological hegemony theorizes the internalization of relationships of power and dominance within society; the strong oppress the weak psychologically by propagating their particular conception of right and wrong as the only acceptable kind of viewpoint that deserves to exist. The world-view of this segment of society becomes the norm, and ‘Chand Grahan’ effectively portrays the functionality of ideological subordination through the negative relationship between the press and the truth.

Kamal saahb tells his son, “Sach likhna hai to apna akhbaar chaapo, yahan wohi chappay ga jo chappna chahiye”. He further narrows down “jo chappna chahiye” to a pragmatic concern for the maintenance of his privileged position as the anchor of society; he questions, “Hum un logon ko kaisay naraaz kar saktay hain jin say humain faida hai?”, causing his patriotic, revolutionary son to quit the manipulative, power-hungry press business in search for a higher cause. Nasir’s idealism becomes tragically misplaced when he relates “siyaasat ka nafaa baksh karobar” as “ibaadat” for him, and he also gives voice to the ironic displacement of justice on account of his father’s antics when “shareef shehri aur badmaash main koi farq nahin rehta”.

By subverting the conventional idea of media being the propagator of reality and the patron of investigation, ‘Chand Grahan’ touches upon a harsh political reality, which is the depiction of forces like the press as puppets controlled by higher segments of society. Kamal saahb reveals this as the value of manipulating information as he says, “Duniya ki tasveer jo mera chota saa akhbaar dekhaata hai, wohi asal duniya hai”. A price is waged on the truth, and this price is consciously set incognito, and beyond the reach of the actual victims of the news that is manipulated. Jahania Shah’s murder depicts this kind of ideological hegemony to perfection; visits are exchanged between the feudal, bureaucratic and journalistic representatives of the status quo, and the truth is suppressed at all costs. Lal Hussain Shah orders the control of the police as he says, “Apnay banday ko lagwao case par”, and Babar saahb brings in the law through his phone conversation with his contacts, “Aap samajhdaar aadmi hain, ye maamla dabaa dena chahiye”. Throughout this interchange, Jahania Shah’s actual responsibility for the crime remains tragically irrelevant for his vindication.

This brings in broader political concerns, which is the validity of the state narrative when the depiction of news is so cautiously controlled and engineered for the benefit of the ruling power. This cruel reality is addressed through the figure of Ameer-un-Nisa later; while the noble sahaafis realize the importance of printing her story, the police steps in with the threat of physical and legal violence to crush this possibility. Nasir's claim, "Main aik aam shehri hoon, aur aam shehri ko poora haq hai ke wo police station main aa kay koi bhi report darj karwa sakay" becomes a meaningless, utopic desire in a severely disjointed political framework. The policeman explicitly states, “Case ko upar tak lay jao, wo sirf humaari baat maanain gay”, and even disparages the justice system by offering a bribe to Nasir and his friends to keep Ameer-un-Nisa’s story hidden.

This is reminiscent of an ongoing trend in the history of Pakistan; historical accounts of the Partition of 1947 have been unable to effectively capture a realistic portrayal of the trauma, displacement and horror associated with the events of this political expedition through a heartless reification of facts. In their article ‘Recovery, Rupture, Resistance – Indian State and Abduction of Women during Partition’, Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin draw light upon the ineffectiveness of the state narrative when they contrast the redundant accounts of “causes and consequences of the division” and the “many ‘mistakes’ and ‘miscalculations’ made” covered by official narratives to the “curious void” that emerges when attempts are made to look for social histories  that “try to piece together the fractured reality of the time and of the event itself from a non-official perspective, a perspective from the margins”. Objectivity becomes close to impossible when the actual truth is grappled with, and this really makes one question how true the reality we’re expected to believe really is. 

Ten episodes into the amazingly captured hypocrisy and manipulation of politics in ‘Chand Grahan’ and I’ve evoked signs of the Nasir in me; it’s very important to question the information you’re being fed to, and realize you have the right to speak up against it. If you’re an unconscious victim of ideological hegemony, it only takes one look at marginalized, unrepresented aspects of society around you to fuel a desire for change and revolution within you.