New Delhi: Jai Bhim director T.J. Gnanavel on Sunday, November 21 issued an apology for hurting the sentiments of “any particular community” and expressed regret to those he offended, the Indian Express reported.
In a statement, written in Tamil which he uploaded to Twitter, the filmmaker stated that he took full responsibility for the film and the ensuing controversy and that it was unfair for the offended community to target actor Suriya, who plays the protagonist in the film.
Following its release on November 1, Jai Bhim drew heavy criticism in Tamil Nadu from the Vaniyyar community (a backward caste in Tamil Nadu) in particular which alleged that the film painted it in a negative light and that it made “false, malicious and defamatory” statements against the community.
Also read: Vanniyar Sangam Sends Legal Notice to Makers of ‘Jai Bhim’, Seeks Rs 5 Crore in Damages
The film is a fictionalised re-telling of a past incident where a man from the Irular tribe died in police custody. Suriya plays the role of retired Justice K. Chandru who fought the case as a lawyer in 1993.
While Chandru’s character’s name has been retained, several real people that the film portrays have had their names changed, including the police sub-inspector who tortured the Irula man. In fact, changing the policeman’s name to Guru (short for Gurumurthy) from Anthonysamy was on of the features of the film that the Vaniyyar’s took particular objection to, alleging that this name change was intended to target the community.
Moreover, in one scene in the film, a calendar in the background bears the symbol of an agni kudam (fire pot), a symbol which supposedly belongs to the Vaniyyar community, while the policeman in question tortures the victim. This, too, was seen as an attack on the community.
In his statement, Gnanavel noted that he did not know that the objectionable calendar hanging in the background of the scene in question would be construed as an attack on any particular community and said that it had only been chosen to represent the time period in which the film was set, 1995.
The statement reads that the calendar was not spotted by the post-production team or in various screenings of the film before its actual release on Amazon Prime Video. “If it had come to our attention then, we would have changed it before the film came out,” the statement said in Tamil.
Gnanavel also noted that, after the calendar was brought to his notice by various social media users after the film’s release, changes were made as soon as November 2, “before anyone had asked”.
On November 15, the president of the Vanniyar Sangam, a caste body representing Vaniyyar interests, sent a legal notice to the makers of the film which included Gnanavel, Suriya and his wife and a producer of the film, actor Jyotika, production house 2D Entertainment Private Limited, which is run by Suriya and Jyotika and a representative of Amazon, where the movie was being shown.
In the legal notice, the name-change of the police officer as well as the calendar bearing the caste symbol were mentioned, in particular that the film made these changes even while maintaining certain elements from the real world incident, thereby alleging that these decisions had been made to deliberately undermine the Vaniyyars.
The notice demanded an unconditional apology from the makers of the film, the removal of references to the Vaniyyar community and the payment of Rs 5 crore in damages to be paid within seven days of receiving the notice.
Subsequently, Suriya also received a number of threats after a leader of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), a political party that represents Vaniyaar interests, announced a reward of Rs 1 lakh to anyone who attacks Suriya. Armed police were deployed at the actor’s residence following the threats.
Also read: Actor Suriya Provided With Armed Police at His Residence Amid ‘Jai Bhim’ Row
In his statement, Gnanavel also took objection to the demands that Suriya take responsibility for the problematic scenes, noting that, as the director of the film, the mistakes were his sole responsibility.