Muralitharan’s biopic exposes the festering wounds of Eelam in Tamil Nadu

Tamil actor Vijay Sethupathi, stepped out from the film titled ‘800’, a biopic of Sri Lankan spin wizard Muttiah Muralitharan following widespread opposition from notable film personalities, politicians, netizens, and his fans.

The reason behind the spate of requests and condemnations is that Muralitharan, though a Tamil himself, had openly supported the island government in its military offensive against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009, and the film is perceived to be an attempt to justify the actions of the island government.

While there was overwhelming opposition from the people, especially the youth, for Sethupathi’s proposed role in the biopic, there were a few supporters too. They accused the politicians of interfering in the artistic and commercial freedom of an artiste to choose his role in a film. Actor Radhika and her actor-politician husband R Sarathkumar were among the few voices that wanted Sethupathi to don the role.

With a sizeable section of Tamils considering the annihilated LTTE cadre as martyrs and a section of them still refuse to believe LTTE chief Velupillai Prabhakaran is dead, the actor chose to drop out of the biopic as he did not want to risk losing his fan base and people’s patronage for his films. In Tamil Nadu, after the elimination of the LTTE and the lack of any solution to the ethnic conflict, the issue remains an emotional one.

The lone voices which supported the actor were from the elite sections of society, those whose support is inadequate to ensure the commercial success of a movie. These elite sections have mostly been on the other side of the divide when it comes to large, emotive issues that have caught Tamil Nadu’s attention, be it on whether or not Jallikattu must be held, or on reservation for the underprivileged.

To view the conflict from the prism of political interference in matters of artistic freedom may not be right here. This is because the initial reactions and requests came from the film industry itself. Requests came from veteran film-maker Bharathiraja, director and writer Seenu Ramasamy (whom Sethupathi considered as a mentor), besides national award-winning lyricists Vairamuthu, director Cheran and lyricist Thamarai. The debate started in Kollywood, as the Tamil film industry is called taking after the misnomer Bollywood, as a conflict between justifying State-sponsored violence that saw the massacre of nearly 100,000 Tamils and commercial interests.

Netizens and the actor’s fans picked up the thread and hashtags such as #ShameOnVijaySethupathi and #BoycottVijaySethupathi trended on social media channels. The news development snowballed into a controversy even before politicians jumped the bandwagon. Following this Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) leader Vaiko, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) leader Thol Thirumavalavan and Naam Thamizhar leader and film director Seeman came out with statements requesting the withdrawal from the biopic.

Here it cannot be overlooked that some reactions have been extreme with some people even issuing threats on social media to the actor and his family members. This must not be condoned — protests need to be registered in manner that confirms the democratic standards set.

There are also suggestions to view Muralitharan just as a sportsman who had scaled great heights. However, how is it possible to view and celebrate sporting achievements in isolation, removed from the ground realities where gross human right violations have been recorded? When South Africa was banned from sports for Apartheid, sporting activities were also boycotted. The ban affected the lives of numerous South African footballers and cricketers — here, human dignity and equality were considered higher than sporting achievements. If South Africa was condemned for systematic racial discrimination, Sri Lanka has been accused of aerial bombings on its own citizens, killing innocent civilians indiscriminately.

What the controversy has brought to the front is that a large section in Tamil Nadu is against the Sri Lankan government, and the erstwhile LTTE is still viewed in favourable light. In 2011, the Tamil Nadu assembly had passed unanimous resolutions calling for a referendum among the Lankan Tamils on a separate Tamil Eelam, and an international probe into what is referred to as the ‘genocide of Tamils by the Sri Lankan government’.

Four years later, in September 2015, the UNHCR called for a hybrid part-international, part-Sri Lankan-tribunal to go into the war crimes of indiscriminate shelling, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and sexual violence allegedly committed by the Sri Lankan Army, and the reported recruitment of children by the LTTE. This in a way endorsed the Tamil Nadu assembly’s resolution.

N Ravikumar is a Chennai-based senior journalist. Views are personal.