MovieChat Forums > Gunga Din (1939) Discussion > Gunga Din, 'Bheesty' and 'Untouchable'

Gunga Din, 'Bheesty' and 'Untouchable'

posted 13 years ago by ndenton-1
10 replies | jump to latest

Something most people won't grasp today is the social rank of Dalit (Untouchable) in India.

Gunga Din was a "Bheesty"(water boy - the lowest position on the "team" even today). Din's social caste was that of an "Untouchable" the lowest of the low. In Indian society Din was lower than a dog or slave in rank, a street bum would rank higher than him. - even today he could be tormented and killed with little protection from the law. Life was short dirty and miserable for his class. He was born to that caste and would have lived and died a nobody and could never have held any job that required any form of respect or payed any real money. No Indian person of any social rank would have spoken to him or touched him in any way - that would have been sinful and required the person to spend days cleansing and purifying themselves.

Din's rank would have made even the ludicris idea of becoming a soldier impossible! His old age and his feeble body not withstanding. Din was lowly by even his own Caste's standards. The fact that the Sergents even gave him the time of day shows that they were trying to help him. Cutter is almost a buddy to Din. A very rare thing in those days. Cutter understands the class system. Cutter himself is a low ranking poorly educated Cockey street bum who will never rise above his rank. Both men dream of being some thing more than what they are and can never be. A Duke and a Bugler!! If only they had money and a chance to break the social system!!!

To Din the chance to "play the bugle and call men to duty" would have been a dream come true. He would have become a SOMEBODY, somebody people obeyed. Even if it was just following other's orders.

Din was a humble man with a REALLY BIG IMPOSSIBLE DREAM.

Din died giving an army a "Command" on his bugle. For the fist time in his life somebody did some thing HE ordered - as a SOLDIER!! He lived his dream, however humble it was to us.

That was the point of the story. Din proved himself the better man, the totally insignificant nothing of a man who lived his dream.

P.S. A bulger in the army was a very well paid, highly respected job.

[–] blunderbus 13 years ago

Great post. Indeed the bugler was respected. He was basically the entire communications system at the time.

btw, the main reason I came to the board was that I just found out last night that I'd been mistaken all these, lo' many years. I wanted to see if I was the only one. I always thought they were saying "beastie" and last night I read that Bheesty/bhisti meant waterboy. I instantly thought of Gunga and did a facepalm.

Also, as I said, Great post. A Duke and a Bugler. Both were equally unattainable.

[–] varuns-1 11 years ago

Still doesn't justify the movie or its underlying idea. This movie should be denounced wholly. It's an insult. And by the way, India's social inequalities are no one else's business but India's. It certainly is not the colonialists' and imperialists' concern. They have to come out of it, by their own means. The British were in India to exploit Indians, not to help them.

Surely, the solution to the inequality of the Dalits is education and political empowerment, not being water carriers for British colonialists. That's disgusting.

[–] Royalcourtier 10 years ago

This is a good, if not a great movie. Your modern liberal hatred of empire is irrational. India has always been ruled by various invaders. The British are just the most recent, and by far the most progressive, constructive, humane and beneficial. The Raj was almost entirely a good thing. Rather than condemn it you should be grateful that India is not still a mediaeval caldron of warring microstates, the majority of whom owed nominal allegiance to a Moslem king. There is nothing disgusting about Dalits being water carriers to British soldiers. That was the job of that caste. Unless of course you find Dalits disgusting. Being an Indian, you probably do.

[–] varuns-1 10 years ago

Yes, the Raj was such a good thing, that when India became independent in 1947, it had 10% literacy, a life expectancy of 35 years or lower, massive malnutrition if not starvation, miniscule infrastructure, hardly any industry, and a huge refugee crisis created by the formation of an Islamic state, itself subtly encouraged by the British...

Empires are disgusting, glorifying them is utterly reprehensible. The Nazi empire was premised on the inferiority of Jews, Slavs and Gypsies, the British empire was based on the inferiority of Indians, Africans, Caribbeans etc. The difference was one of degree.

[–] wildfire160 9 years ago

You know all your feeble musing would be very valid except of course modern India still treats them like garbage even after colonial rule...

Nee ta ma duh tyen-shia suo-yo duh run doh gai si

[–] varuns-1 9 years ago

India is a vast ocean, not a tiny, sluggish stream. You'll see all kinds of behaviour, from the most enlightened and humanistic, to almost sheer primitive barbarism. The Dalits have made progress, and you will actually see well-to-do Dalits, even the odd millionaire( whether being a millionaire is a good thing, is another issue) and Dalit academics, even a growing middle class.But there's a ways to go. India remember is a poor country( duh!) the poverty and inequity is everywhere, lifting 1.2 billion people out of poverty and feudalism is a herculean task, even more so in a democracy with so many contesting groups, ideas and narratives.

[–] varuns-1 11 years ago

"Din died giving an army a "Command" on his bugle. For the fist time in his life somebody did some thing HE ordered - as a SOLDIER!! He lived his dream, however humble it was to us."

Yes, and how convenient that dream and command was while being part of the British colonial army, under(magnificent, marvelous) British colonial rule.

And this is the solution to the social pecularities and inequities of any society, Indian, African ,SE Asian or Caribbean, join and die for the British army.

[–] rtw416 11 years ago

It's a movie...85yrs old at that-relax and try to enjoy it.

[–] redbrioche 8 years ago

Does anyone know what the bugle command was? Some kind of formation . . . BTW, Auld Lang Syne is definitively Scots, in the Scots dialect, with words by the great Robert Burns. It means "long time ago". The Scottish regiments were known to be the most fearless soldiers in all the British wars. Too bad Bonnie Prince Charlie was not strong enough to lead them in the 1745 rebellion. The Germans called the kilted regiments hmm"ladies from hell" !!!!

[–] nateba 10 years ago

Great post, Denton. Puts in a new light a movie I was beginning to feel guilty about enjoying.

cinefreak