Internal Colonialism and Environmental Injustice: Reading Chakravyuh through Postcolonial Studies in the Anthropocene

This blog is assigned by Prof. Dilip Barad Sir, Professor and Head of the Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University. The blog is based on his research article, “Postcolonial Studies in the Anthropocene: Bridging Perspectives for a Sustainable Future,” which explores the intersections of postcolonial studies, environmentalism, indigenous rights, and global capitalism.

Introduction

The environmental crisis of the present cannot be understood only as a scientific or ecological problem; it is also deeply connected with histories of colonialism, economic exploitation, and unequal relations of power. In the Anthropocene, human activities have transformed the planet on an unprecedented scale, but the consequences of environmental degradation are not experienced equally by all communities. Formerly colonized and indigenous populations are often more vulnerable because their lands, forests, and natural resources have historically been subjected to exploitation and continue to be targeted by contemporary development and capitalist interests. Dilip Barad’s article, “Postcolonial Studies in the Anthropocene: Bridging Perspectives for a Sustainable Future,” explores this intersection between postcolonialism, environmentalism, indigenous rights, and global capitalism. The article argues for expanding postcolonial studies to address environmental destruction, resource exploitation, and the continuing forms of dispossession in formally decolonized societies. This perspective becomes particularly relevant to Chakravyuh, a film that engages with conflict, tribal communities, state power, and struggles over resources in Central India. Through the concept of internal colonialism, the film can be read as a representation of how colonial patterns of exploitation may continue within a formally independent nation.This is around 170 words. It gives us a strong academic opening and establishes the argument for the whole blog.

Article’s Theoretical Framework

Barad’s article brings postcolonial studies into conversation with environmental studies by arguing that ecological crises cannot be separated from histories of colonialism and contemporary global capitalism. One important idea discussed in the article is internal colonialism, through which patterns of domination continue within formally decolonized nations. Indigenous communities may still experience dispossession when their ancestral lands are taken for resource extraction and economic development. The article also draws attention to Vandana Shiva’s argument that colonialism and capitalist expansion have contributed to the destruction of ecological diversity and the weakening of sustainable local cultures. Another important concept is accumulation by dispossession, associated with David Harvey, which explains how capital can accumulate through the displacement of communities and the appropriation of their resources and rights. Finally, Dipesh Chakrabarty’s concept of the Anthropocene expands the discussion by showing that humans have become powerful agents of planetary environmental change. These concepts provide a useful framework for reading Chakravyuh not simply as a political conflict narrative, but as a representation of the relationship between land, indigenous communities, state power, resource exploitation, and environmental injustice.

Postcolonialism, Environment, and the Anthropocene

Postcolonial studies traditionally examines the cultural, political, and economic consequences of colonialism, but the environmental crisis requires this field to consider how colonial histories continue to shape relationships between people, land, and natural resources. Barad observes that the environmental crisis has encouraged postcolonial scholars to reconsider the limits of traditional postcolonial criticism. Dipesh Chakrabarty’s discussion of climate change is particularly significant because he argues that the planetary crisis cannot be understood only through existing theories of globalization, capitalism, or oppression. At the same time, the environmental question cannot be separated from histories of colonial exploitation. Vandana Shiva’s work, as discussed by Barad, establishes a connection between colonialism, capitalist expansion, and the destruction of ecological diversity. This becomes especially important in formerly colonized countries, where environmental degradation often affects communities whose livelihoods depend directly on forests, land, and other natural resources. Barad therefore argues for a broader postcolonial perspective that includes environmental justice, indigenous histories, and the continuing effects of global capitalism. The Anthropocene thus provides an important space for rethinking postcolonialism: environmental destruction is simultaneously a planetary crisis and a crisis shaped by unequal histories of power, development, and resource exploitation.

Indigenous Communities and Environmental Injustice

Environmental degradation does not affect all communities equally. In formerly colonized nations, indigenous communities are often particularly vulnerable because their lives and livelihoods are closely connected with ancestral lands and natural resources. Barad’s discussion of internal colonialism shows that although formal colonial rule has ended, colonial patterns of dispossession can continue within decolonized nations. Indigenous communities may be pushed to the margins while their ancestral lands are appropriated for resource extraction and economic development. This process produces both social and ecological consequences: communities can lose their land, livelihoods, and access to resources while the environment is simultaneously damaged. Barad illustrates this through the Narmada Bachao Andolan, where large dam projects resulted in the displacement of tribal communities and environmental damage. The article also points to Central India, where the extraction of iron and bauxite has produced environmental degradation and conflicts with local populations. Such examples demonstrate that environmental injustice is also a question of power: communities with the strongest cultural and material relationships with the land may have the least control over decisions concerning its use. Therefore, ecological destruction in postcolonial societies must be examined alongside indigenous rights, dispossession, and continuing structures of economic domination.

Reading Chakravyuh through Internal Colonialism

Prakash Jha’s Chakravyuh can be read through the framework of internal colonialism developed in Barad’s article. The film presents the conflict between the state, corporate interests, and Maoist resistance in the context of tribal regions of Central India. Rather than viewing the conflict simply as a law-and-order problem, a postcolonial reading draws attention to the deeper struggle over land, natural resources, identity, and political power. Barad explains that internal colonialism occurs when colonial patterns of domination continue within formally decolonized nations, particularly when indigenous communities are dispossessed of ancestral lands for resource extraction and economic development. This framework is particularly relevant to Chakravyuh, where the lives and interests of marginalised communities are caught within a larger struggle involving the state and powerful economic forces. The film can therefore be understood as exposing how the formal end of colonial rule does not necessarily end structures of exploitation. Barad specifically identifies Central India as a region where the extraction of iron and bauxite has produced environmental degradation and conflicts with local populations. In this context, the forest and land are not merely physical spaces but sources of livelihood, community, identity, and belonging. Their appropriation transforms an environmental conflict into a social and political conflict. The resistance represented in Chakravyuh can consequently be examined as emerging from conditions of marginalisation and dispossession. At the same time, the film encourages a critical examination of the complex relationship between state authority, development, resource exploitation, and indigenous resistance. It reveals that environmental questions are inseparable from questions of justice and power in the postcolonial nation.

Capitalism, Resource Extraction and Dispossession

The conflict represented in Chakravyuh can also be understood through Barad’s discussion of capitalism, primitive accumulation, and dispossession. Drawing on Karl Marx, the article explains primitive accumulation as a process through which wealth and resources are concentrated by dispossessing communities of their common property and transforming land and labour into commodities. Rosa Luxemburg further argues that capitalism constantly requires new markets, resources, and labour, leading it to appropriate spaces and resources beyond its existing boundaries. These ideas are relevant to the conflicts depicted in Chakravyuh, where struggles surrounding natural resources are inseparable from struggles over power and livelihood. Barad specifically observes that Central India has become a battleground for resource extraction, particularly iron and bauxite, resulting in environmental degradation and conflicts with local populations. The article later connects this process with David Harvey’s concept of accumulation by dispossession, in which capital accumulates through the dispossession of people and communities from their assets, resources, and rights. From this perspective, the environmental conflict in Chakravyuh is not merely a conflict over development; it reflects a larger struggle over who has the authority to control land and natural resources and who bears the social and ecological costs of their exploitation. The film therefore becomes a useful cultural text for examining how capitalist development can reproduce forms of colonial domination even after formal colonial rule has ended.

Resistance and Environmental Justice

The struggles represented through Chakravyuh can also be understood as struggles for environmental justice. Barad’s article shows that resistance to environmental exploitation is often simultaneously a struggle for indigenous rights, land, livelihood, and political recognition. The Narmada Bachao Andolan, for instance, demonstrates how environmental movements can challenge projects that displace indigenous communities and cause ecological damage. In Central India, Barad similarly discusses resistance to the extraction of natural resources and the marginalisation of indigenous populations. Chakravyuh resonates with this context by representing resistance within a region marked by inequalities between marginalised communities and powerful institutions. A postcolonial interpretation, however, should recognise the complexity of such resistance rather than reducing it to a simple opposition between good and evil. The film invites us to ask why communities become involved in violent conflicts and what historical and material conditions produce such resistance. From this perspective, resistance becomes a response to structures of exclusion and dispossession. Environmental justice therefore requires more than protecting forests or natural resources in isolation; it requires attention to the people who depend upon these environments and whose voices have historically been marginalised. This perspective strengthens Barad’s argument that postcolonial studies must engage with environmental activism, indigenous struggles, and the continuing dynamics of exploitation in the globalised world.

Conclusion

The reading of Chakravyuh through Barad’s “Postcolonial Studies in the Anthropocene: Bridging Perspectives for a Sustainable Future” demonstrates that environmental destruction in formerly colonized societies is inseparable from questions of history, power, capitalism, and justice. The film’s representation of conflict in Central India can be understood through the concept of internal colonialism, where indigenous communities continue to experience marginalisation and dispossession despite the formal end of colonial rule. Barad similarly argues that the continuing encroachment of global capital into natural and human resources reproduces patterns of plunder associated with colonialism. The Anthropocene therefore requires postcolonial studies to broaden its concerns beyond conventional questions of colonial domination and cultural identity. Chakrabarty’s idea of “species thinking,” discussed by Barad, calls for an understanding of humanity’s relationship with the wider ecological world while also recognising the historical inequalities that shape environmental crises. Ultimately, Chakravyuh shows that the struggle over natural resources is also a struggle over dignity, belonging, livelihood, and justice. In a globalised world, postcolonial critique remains relevant because the structures of exploitation may change their forms without disappearing. As Barad concludes, postcolonial studies must continue to connect colonial legacies with environmental crises and globalised capitalism while imagining more equitable and sustainable futures.

Reference:

Barad, Dilip. “Postcolonial Studies in the Anthropocene: Bridging Perspectives for a Sustainable Future.” Journal of Higher Education and Research Society, vol. 10, no. 2, Oct. 2022, pp. 201–213. ResearchGate, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.18616.93444.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “The Climate of History: Four Theses.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 35, no. 2, 2009, pp. 197–222.

Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford UP, 2005.

Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015.

Nixon, Rob. “Environmentalism and Postcolonialism.” Postcolonial Studies and Beyond, edited by Ania Loomba et al., Duke UP, 2005, pp. 233–251.

Shiva, Vandana. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival in India. Kali/Zed Books, 1988.

Jha, Prakash, director. Chakravyuh. Prakash Jha Productions, 2012.

Agarwal, B. (1999) ‘The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India’, in N. Menon(ed.), Gender and Politics in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–142.

Bannerjee-Guha, S. (2013) ‘Accumulation and Dispossession: Contradictions of Growth andDevelopment in Contemporary India’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies36(2): pp

Cooppan, V. (1996) ‘Inner Territories: Postcoloniality and the Legacies of Psychoanalysis’,Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.

 Cooppan, V. (1999) ‘W(h)ither Post-colonial Studies? Towards the Transnational Study ofRace and Nation’, in Laura Chrisman and Benita Parry (eds), Postcolonial Theory andCriticism, Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, pp. 1–35.

Cooppan, V. (2005) ‘The Ruins of Empire: The National and Global Politics of America’sReturn to Rome’ in A. Loomba, Suvir Kaul, Matti Bunzl, Antoinette Burton, and JedEsty (eds), Postcolonial Studies and Beyond, Durham, NC: Duke University Press,pp. 80–100.

The Spectacle of Appropriation: Rethinking Tribal Resistance in RRR and Postcolonial India

This blog is part of a thinking activity assigned by Dr. And professor Dilip Barad sir,  in the Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University. The activity invites us to engage with postcolonial perspectives on popular cinema and to critically examine how films represent issues of power, nationalism, resistance, hegemony, and the struggles of marginalized communities.

Article:1

Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America's Geopolitical Narrative 

 

Introduction: Cinema as an Engine of Statecraft and Ideology

Cinema is rarely a passive medium for simple entertainment; it serves as a potent engine for projecting national ideology, shaping global political mindsets, and rationalizing state power on the international stage. Far beyond its classification as commercial escapism, popular film operates as a central pillar of soft power—the ability to affect others and obtain preferred outcomes through attraction, persuasion, and agenda-setting rather than coercion or military force. In his comprehensive analysis, Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America's Geopolitical Narrative, Dr. Dilip Barad examines how mainstream Hollywood action franchises, specifically Rambo and James Bond, have historically operated as soft-power extensions of Western foreign policy. Utilizing Hollywood’s expansive global distribution apparatus, these cinematic properties did not merely reflect the shifting political tides of their respective eras; they actively constructed narratives, reshaped historical memory, and moralized geopolitical interventions. From the proxy conflicts of the Cold War to the post-Soviet transition, the "War on Drugs," and the modern era of information control, these franchises systematically conditioned global audiences to view the United States and its Western allies as the default guardians of global order, freedom, and democracy.

The Rambo Franchise — Rewriting Military Defeat and Justifying Intervention

The Rambo film series, centered around Sylvester Stallone’s portrayal of disillusioned Vietnam veteran John Rambo, represents one of the most explicit examples of popular cinema reframing military history to align with evolving foreign policy objectives. Through its key installments during the 1980s, the franchise served as an instrument for psychological reconciliation, historical revisionism, and geopolitical moralizing.

The trauma of the Vietnam War left a profound scar on the American collective psyche throughout the 1970s, as the war was widely viewed as a foreign policy disaster marked by moral ambiguity, domestic anti-war protests, and an unprecedented military defeat. However, Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) radically altered this cultural memory. The film constructs a revisionist narrative where John Rambo returns to Vietnam on a covert mission to locate American Prisoners of War, converting a historical defeat into an arena for individual valor and moral triumph. The core villainy of the film is divided between foreign enemies and treacherous American bureaucrats who betray the frontline soldier, effectively absolving the foot soldier of systemic war atrocities and framing American military personnel as heroic victims of government incompetence rather than agents of imperial overreach. By depicting Rambo single-handedly defeating foreign forces, the film offered domestic and international viewers a fictionalized sense of psychological closure and moral vindication, preparing the public mindset for an assertive American foreign policy in the late Cold War era.

As the Reagan administration accelerated its anti-communist campaign throughout the late 1980s, U.S. foreign policy focused heavily on supporting anti-Soviet insurgents worldwide through the Reagan Doctrine. Rambo III (1988) directly mirrored this geopolitical imperative by sending its protagonist into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. In the film, Rambo travels to Afghanistan to rescue his former commander and subsequently allies himself with the local Mujahideen fighters battling the Red Army. This narrative directly validated Washington’s real-world covert operations, which funneled weaponry and aid to Afghan rebels. The film establishes a stark moral binary where Soviet forces are depicted as ruthless oppressors targeting civilians, whereas the Mujahideen are framed as noble, freedom-loving tribal warriors. Consequently, Rambo’s intervention frames the United States not as an imperial meddler, but as an indispensable global savior fighting alongside oppressed populations to destroy totalitarian communism.

The James Bond Franchise — Guarding the Western Hegemonic Order

While the character of James Bond is an icon of British popular culture originating from Ian Fleming’s novels, the film adaptation series has consistently aligned with broader Western, Anglo-American, and capitalist geopolitical priorities. Bond operates as the ultimate civilized agent of the state, preserving global equilibrium against ideological and transnational threats across changing political eras.

Released in the final years of the Cold War, The Living Daylights (1987) explicitly intersected with the same geopolitical terrain as Rambo III. The narrative centers on a rogue Soviet general attempting to orchestrate a global conflict for personal enrichment and political gain, leading Bond to Afghanistan where he joins forces with local Mujahideen insurgents to defeat Soviet forces. By placing a British operative in parallel alignment with American foreign policy in Central Asia, the film reinforced a unified Anglo-American narrative that framed Western intelligence apparatuses as essential defenders of international stability against Soviet expansionism.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the traditional ideological enemy of Western cinema began to dissolve, causing Licence to Kill (1989) to mark a decisive shift toward post-Cold War security concerns. The film pivots its focus to a powerful Latin American drug lord who operates with near-sovereign immunity, a plotline that directly paralleled the George H.W. Bush administration's heavy focus on international narcotics cartels and military interventions in Latin America. By portraying Western operatives dismantling vast transnational criminal syndicates that corrupt local governments, the film legitimate Western police and intelligence actions across foreign borders in the name of global security.

As globalization accelerated in the late 1990s, the battleground of geopolitics shifted from physical military dominance to information warfare and media control. In Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), the antagonist is a global media mogul who attempts to manufacture a war between the United Kingdom and China to secure exclusive broadcast rights. The film accurately anticipated modern anxieties regarding disinformation, fake news, and narrative control, while crucially positioning Western intelligence as the sole force capable of preserving objective truth and preventing manufactured geopolitical crises. Through this framing, the narrative subtly argues that Western media and democratic institutions are the rightful stewards of global information flows.

The Four Pillars of Hollywood’s Soft Power Engine

Dr. Dilip Barad’s analysis isolates four distinct structural mechanisms through which popular action cinema translates narrative storytelling into geopolitical influence, forming a self-reinforcing engine of cultural hegemony.

First, ideological framing establishes a cognitive framework through which audiences interpret real-world conflicts. By consistently placing American or Western protagonists at the moral center of every narrative, these films normalize the assumption that Western powers possess an intrinsic right and moral obligation to intervene in global affairs, while non-Western nations and populations are frequently reduced to passive victims awaiting rescue or hostile threats requiring containment.

Second, cultural hegemony operates through Hollywood’s dominance over global theatrical networks, streaming platforms, and home entertainment distribution to seamlessly export Western value systems worldwide. By saturating international media markets, Hollywood normalizes individualistic, capitalist, and pro-Western perspectives, making them appear as the accepted, universal common sense to diverse global audiences.

Third, economic influence creates a financial feedback loop where box-office revenues generated from international distribution reinforce the dominance of major American studios. This financial power allows Hollywood to invest in unrivaled production values, visual effects, and marketing campaigns, effectively crowding out indigenous film industries and maintaining market supremacy.

Fourth, institutional legitimacy reinforces state infrastructure by routinely showcasing the military, intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies as technologically advanced, hyper-competent, and morally justified in their actions. Even when corruption or incompetence is introduced, it is framed as an isolated flaw within an otherwise noble system, building subconscious faith in Western institutional capability and global authority.

The Critique — The Risk of Replicating Hegemonic Storytelling

In the final dimension of his work, Dr. Barad connects the soft-power strategies of Hollywood to contemporary international media debates, engaging directly with critiques raised by global media commentators like Palki Sharma in her Gravitas Plus series. Sharma and other media analysts have frequently argued that emerging economic powers, such as India, should strategically harness their domestic film industries to project soft power, alter global perceptions, and promote their national interests in a manner akin to Hollywood.

While acknowledging the validity of building national soft power, Dr. Barad introduces a critical caveat regarding the wholesale adoption of Hollywood’s playbook. He questions whether other film industries should simply replicate this hegemonic approach, warning that portraying oneself as the default global hero risks reinforcing a rigid, one-sided narrative that marginalizes alternate perspectives. Simply replacing an American or British savior with an Indian or other national equivalent does not disrupt the underlying mechanics of imperial storytelling. Instead, it merely creates a localized version of hegemonic propaganda, reducing complex geopolitical realities into simplistic, binary narratives of national righteousness versus foreign villainy.

Furthermore, when cinema prioritizes state-sponsored soft-power projection, it often erases internal contradictions, domestic struggles, and minority viewpoints in favor of a sanitized image of state strength. Dr. Barad argues that the true opportunity for emerging global cinema lies not in building new cinematic empires that emulate Hollywood's dominant style, but in deconstructing these frameworks. Authentic cultural influence is achieved when film industries provide nuanced, multi-faceted, and inclusive narratives that reflect the authentic complexities of a multipolar world.

Conclusion: Beyond Celluloid Hegemony

Dr. Dilip Barad’s analysis of the Rambo and James Bond franchises exposes how popular action blockbusters have served as vital components of America’s cultural empire. By blending high-octane spectacle with specific ideological agendas, Hollywood transformed cinema into a global soft-power delivery system that successfully reframed military failures, validated covert foreign operations, and normalized Western political and economic dominance across generations.

However, as global media landscapes shift toward multipolarity, the primary challenge for emerging film industries in the Global South is to avoid repeating the mistakes of Hollywood's past. Building an authentic cultural presence on the world stage requires more than constructing new nationalist heroes or replacing one empire's propaganda with another. True cinematic art achieves its highest value when it moves beyond state-centric self-glorification, opting instead to challenge dominant power structures, embrace narrative complexity, and foster a genuinely diverse global dialogue.

Article 2

Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli's RRR

Introduction

Alluri Sitarama Raju Rampa

In his article "Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli's RRR", Dilip Barad critically analyzes S.S. Rajamouli’s global blockbuster RRR. Barad interrogates how the film appropriates two distinct historical figures—Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem—and transforms their localized, anti-imperialist, and eco-centric resistance into a homogenizing mainstream nationalist spectacle. Historically, Raju mobilized indigenous communities against the British 1882 Madras Forest Act, while Bheem led an armed uprising against the Nizam of Hyderabad, coining the iconic rally cry "Jal, Jangal, Zameen" (Water, Forest, Land) to assert Adivasi sovereignty over their ancestral territories. Barad argues that RRR flattens these nuanced, indigenous struggles for environmental justice and land rights, co-opting them into a hyper-nationalist framework that obscures ongoing state-sponsored displacement and climate degradation.

This blog expands upon Barad's postcolonial critique by examining how mainstream cinema aestheticizes indigenous resistance while stripping it of its radical ecological foundation, linking filmic appropriation to real-world subaltern struggles such as the Ken-Betwa River Link project, the Ladakh climate protests, and the systemic crises in Manipur.

The Aestheticization of Resistance and Eco-Postcolonialism

Postcolonial theory, when intersected with ecocriticism, demands that we look beyond anti-colonial liberation as merely replacing a foreign oppressor with a domestic nation-state. It asks: Who inherits the land, and does the postcolonial state replicate colonial practices of extraction?

In RRR, Komaram Bheem is depicted as a noble savage innocent, wild, and physically formidable, yet politically naive until educated by the upper-caste, elite figure of Raju. Bheem’s historical fight was specifically anchored in protecting his community's ecosystem from state encroachment. By subsuming Bheem’s Jal, Jangal, Zameen under Raju’s hyper-masculine, pan-Indian nationalist crusade, the film performs what Gayatri Spivak terms "epistemic violence." The indigenous hero’s radical environmental consciousness is silenced; his struggle is validated only when translated into the dominant aesthetic and political idiom of mainstream nationalism.

This narrative move is not unique to RRR. Consider James Cameron’s Avatar (2009). While overtly framed as a critique of imperial resource extraction, Avatar centers a "white savior" who leads the indigenous Na'vi to victory. The native people's deep, ecological connection to their land is positioned as passive and helpless until organized by an outsider. Much like RRR, Avatar aestheticizes the spectacle of resistance while reducing subaltern agency to a cinematic backdrop. The actual political demands of indigenous sovereignty control over resources, legal land rights, and autonomy are displaced by romanticized, heroic mythologies.

From Screen to Ground: Subaltern Realities in Modern India

The danger of flattening historical tribal resistance into mere national pride is that it obscures how the postcolonial nation-state often acts as an extractive empire against its own internal margins. As Annie Zaidi observes in Known Turf, displacement is not merely physical relocation; it is the total eradication of a ecosystem, identity, and survival.

The disconnect between cinematic reimagining and contemporary subaltern realities is evident across multiple ongoing struggles:

The Ken-Betwa River Linking Project: Touted as a national development marvel, the project threatens to submerge over 6,000 hectares of forest land in the Panna Tiger Reserve, displacing thousands of tribal families. The state’s appropriation of natural resources mirrors colonial-era land grabs, reducing the Adivasi relation to Jal and Jangal to collateral damage for industrial expansion.

The Ladakh Protests: Led by figures like Sonam Wangchuk, the people of Ladakh have been protesting for Sixth Schedule status to safeguard their fragile Himalayan ecology and tribal culture from unregulated industrialization and corporate exploitation. Here, indigenous climate resistance directly confronts state-driven developmentalism—a dynamic completely absent from mainstream nationalist cinema.

The Manipur Conflict: Beyond ethnic clashes, the unrest in Manipur is deeply tied to land rights, forest preservation laws, and corporate interests seeking mineral and resource extraction in tribal hill areas. The subaltern body continues to be the site where state territoriality and indigenous land sovereignty violently collide.

When films like RRR co-opt heroes of Jal, Jangal, Zameen to celebrate the state, they sanitize the very ideologies that subaltern communities use to resist state-led environmental destruction today.

Broader Implications for Global Postcolonial Thought

In today’s globalized world, the crisis of climate change cannot be separated from postcolonial struggles. The global South bears the brunt of environmental degradation caused by historical colonialism and modern neo-liberal capitalism. Indigenous communities remain the frontline guardians of the planet's remaining biodiversity.

When popular culture rewrites indigenous history to serve nationalist narratives, it performs a double disenfranchisement:

It erases the historical specificity of tribal movements that fought both foreign and domestic oppressors.

It deprives contemporary climate justice movements of historical frameworks that link environmental defense directly to indigenous sovereignty.

Postcolonial critique must therefore remain vigilant against sanitized, state-sanctioned representations of subaltern heroes. Reimagining resistance should not mean neutralizing its radical potential.

Conclusion

Dilip Barad’s critique of RRR serves as a crucial reminder that cinema is a key arena of ideological contestation. By replacing Komaram Bheem’s eco-centric struggle for Jal, Jangal, Zameen with a homogenized nationalist epic, RRR offers a cinematic spectacle that celebrates freedom while ignoring the ongoing colonization of tribal lands and ecosystems. As we face unprecedented global ecological crises, postcolonial thought must center subaltern ecological wisdom. True liberation requires honoring the subaltern not as a sanitized symbol of national pride, but as an active defender of the earth against all forms of extractive tyranny.

Reference:

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, International Publishers, 1971.

“Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America’s Geopolitical Narrative.” ResearchGate, 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383415195_Heroes_or_Hegemons_The_Celluloid_Empire_of_Rambo_and_Bond_in_America's_Geopolitical_Narrative.

Rambo: First Blood Part II. Directed by George P. Cosmatos, TriStar Pictures, 1985.

“Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli’s RRR.” ResearchGate, 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383603395_Reimagining_Resistance_The_Appropriation_of_Tribal_Heroes_in_Rajamouli's_RRR.

RRR. Directed by S. S. Rajamouli, performances by N. T. Rama Rao Jr., Ram Charan, Ajay Devgn, and Alia Bhatt, DVV Entertainment, 2022.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 271–313.