Opinion | Anurag Kashyap’s Truths Deserve A Better Tongue
Anurag Kashyap doesn’t need to tone himself down. But he does need to tune into a frequency that allows his message to travel beyond echo chambers and Twitter timelines
Anurag Kashyap has never been one to mince words. Over the years, he has carved out a space for himself as cinema’s rebel conscience—one who challenges, questions, and pokes holes in the status quo. His filmmaking has always been disruptive in the best way possible, and when he speaks, you expect candour. You expect disruption. But increasingly, you also brace for the inevitable social media aftershocks.
The latest controversy surrounding his comments on Brahmins—and the fiery responses it triggered—feels less like a debate and more like a demolition derby. And yet, behind the chaos lies a kernel worth examining.
related stories
This time, the provocation came in the context of Phule, the upcoming biopic on Mahatma Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule, starring Pratik Gandhi and Patralekhaa. Kashyap has publicly backed the film, which aims to shed light on the legacy of the anti-caste reformers who fought for education, justice, and equality in colonial India. But as the teaser released, it began attracting vitriol online—particularly from caste-privileged quarters, with accusations that the film was promoting “division" or rewriting history. Around the same time, Santosh, a film about a Dalit woman constable, received severe trolling after it was selected for Cannes, with similar casteist commentary questioning its intent and creators.
Kashyap, incensed by what he saw as upper-caste fragility cloaked in faux patriotism, launched into a tirade on social media. His anger—fueled by years of observing systemic gatekeeping in the industry and society—spilled out in an unfiltered rant, calling out Brahminical entitlement in harsh, expletive-laden terms.
His larger point—a commentary on privilege, entitlement, and societal structures—is part of a much-needed conversation in Indian public life. These are discussions that art, film, and literature have long been incubating, and Kashyap has been one of its most consistent provocateurs.
But there’s a fine line between provocation and provocation for provocation’s sake. And increasingly, that line is getting blurred.
It’s not that he said something unthinkable—it’s how he said it. The coarse language, the sweeping generalisations, and the refusal to engage with nuance turned what could’ve been a productive conversation into a mud-wrestling match. The platform—social media—only amplified the noise. What should have been an incisive critique became clickbait. Kashyap didn’t just ruffle feathers; he ripped the pillow open.
There’s something to be said for anger—especially when it comes from someone who has built his career on interrogating systems. But for that anger to have impact, it needs clarity. It needs direction. When outrage becomes the language of choice, it limits the scope of dialogue. And that’s a disservice—not just to his ideas, but to the cultural conversation he claims to care so deeply about.
Anurag Kashyap doesn’t need to tone himself down. But he does need to tune into a frequency that allows his message to travel beyond echo chambers and Twitter timelines. His critique deserves a better container. His words deserve better framing. Because when he speaks truth to power, people do listen. But when the truth is buried under expletives and broad strokes, it risks getting lost in translation.
And that’s the real pity.
Griha Atul is a senior journalist with 16 years of experience. iews expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: