RGV compares film blame to Ramayana after school attack

A horrific attack inside a classroom in Andhra Pradesh has reopened a familiar argument in Indian cinema: when violence spills into real life, should films be blamed? Ram Gopal Varma has refused the premise outright, and his chosen analogy is now drawing as much attention as the tragedy itself.

What happened at the school

On Saturday, a 21-year-old man named Hemanth entered Raptadu Zilla Parishad High School in Anantapur district and attacked a 15-year-old girl with a chainsaw around 10 am. The student suffered severe injuries to her face, head and neck. Another student was hurt while trying to shield her.

After initial treatment at Anantapur Government General Hospital, she was moved to Manipal Hospital in Bengaluru for advanced care. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu called the attack barbaric and said he was personally monitoring her recovery.

RGV’s Ramayana reply

On November 1, Varma posted on X against the idea that films should be blamed for rising violence. His comparison was short and deliberately provocative: “Blaming films for rise in violence is like blaming Ramayana for rise in kidnappings (sic).”

That line quickly split opinion. Here is what the pushback sounded like:

• One user asked why books could change thinking but cinema could not.
• Another argued the Ramayana never glorified a kidnapper, while commercial films often make violent characters look heroic.
• A third view was more measured: films may not pull the trigger, but pretending they have zero influence is equally unrealistic.

Why the debate is louder than the attack

There is a difference between saying a film causes a crime and saying cinema shapes how audiences perceive violence. Most of the thoughtful reaction lands in that gap. The industry’s defenders are right that a chain of personal, social and psychological factors leads to an attack. The industry’s critics are right that stylised brutality often arrives without consequences on screen, and that repetition normalises what once seemed extreme.

For fans, the issue is not whether a filmmaker should be blamed for a specific tragedy. It is whether Indian cinema can keep treating violence as a style choice and still claim it has nothing to do with the culture around it. That is the honest question underneath RGV’s Ramayana remark.

The scapegoat instinct

Film industries everywhere become easy targets after acts of violence, partly because the connection feels intuitive: a viewer sees a violent act, then performs one. But that tidy line rarely survives scrutiny. Millions watch stylised violence; almost none attack a classmate with a chainsaw. What matters more is whether a film industry depicts violence as a cool shortcut to power, or as something with weight.

That distinction keeps the debate productive. It moves the conversation from “who is guilty?” to “what are we celebrating?”

Source: India Today