Namak Haraami

Namak Haraam – the traitor, the betrayer. One who has been disloyal to the pre-agreed norm. Not conforming to the rules of the game. (Something that would irk heteronormativity?)

In the ambit of retrospective queering, this film stands apart from every other popular Bombay cinema from the 70s.

The pair, Amitabh Bachchan and Rajesh Khanna, has no other love interest. Their passion is relieved from the shocks and disbeliefs commonly connected with the exhibition of homosexuality in India, shrewdly camouflaged within the dominant social foliage of fraternal camaraderie. Concocting a congruency with the normative tropes with manly bar brawls and references of high-speed car driving, they were successful in avoiding derisive name callings and other social ridicules.

And being an industrialist’s son, and his beloved 'chamcha' definitely shields away a lot of the social mistreatments. Yes, a lot of it had to be carefully ciphered. 

.    

But what could not be concealed, revealed it all. 

The restrained expression of jealousy and possessiveness on the knowledge of a potential love interest of the partner, the rage felt against the father after coming to know of the conspiracy hatched against Khanna, and the jerking apathy bordering on impassiveness after the swift death scene of Rajesh Khanna actually portrayed the intense eros shared between the two characters.

Maybe the words used to define that then were not approximated with the present rhetoric of homosexuality, but the ethos was sincerely queer.

They laughed at the fact on how Amitabh’s father had set a beautiful maid upon him in order to win him over (to the other side?).

The iconic frame of Amitabh –Simi, looking away from each other, should be recalled when Amitabh appreciates Simi’s sensitivity. Not just for being a sympathizer of the poor and the hungry, but for understanding the relationship between him and Rajesh.

Wasn’t the slight hint of a love affair between Rajesh-Rekha (underwhelming to the core when compared with the contemporary cinematic representation of courtship. And keeping the economics of the industry in mind, why/how would you not pair Amitabh-Rekha when the producers has paid for both!) a decoy, a part of the incognito that Rajesh was playing?

The movie dwells on sabotage. 

Would it be too outlandish to assume that queer paradigmatically sabotaged the diegesis, overtly bearing allegiance to the demands of contemporary Bombay cinema?