Fire is a 1996 English-language romantic drama film written and directed by Deepa Mehta, starring Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das. An Indo-Canadian co-production, it is the first installment of Mehta's Elements trilogy; it is succeeded by Earth (1998) and Water (2005).
The film is loosely based on Ismat Chughtai's 1942 story, "Lihaaf" ("The Quilt"). Fire is one of the first mainstream Bollywood films to explicitly show homosexual relations, and the first to feature a lesbian relationship. After its 1998 release in India, activists staged several protests, setting off a flurry of public dialogue around issues such as homosexuality and freedom of speech.
Mehta stated that the first scene that she imagined was Sita and Jatin's visit to the Taj Mahal just after their arranged marriage—a sister-in-law was then introduced as that is a common feature she saw in her extended family. Azmi disclosed in 2025 that the film was originally going to be filmed in Hindi, but just a few days before shooting began, the dialogues were changed to English, as it was felt that "the dialogue didn't ring true". She also stated that the ending of the film was originally a different one but was changed to the released version on the advice of Farhan Akhtar.
Azmi initially hesitated about starring in the film, because though she liked the script, she was worried it would negatively affect her charity work with disadvantaged women in slums. However, she changed her mind, with the encouragement of her family (especially Zoya Akhtar, as it made her realise the next generation had very different worldviews), as well as her belief that not everybody would react the same, and that therefore it was important to get a conversation started.
Controversies and reaction
Fire was passed uncut by India's Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in May 1998 with a rating of Adult, the only condition being that the name of the character Sita (which is also the name of a significant Hindu goddess) be changed to Nita. The board allowed the original name back after more consideration. The film was first screened on 13 November 1998 and ran to full houses in 42 theaters in most metropolitan cities throughout India for almost three weeks.
On 2 December, more than 200 Shiv Sainiks stormed a Cinemax theatre in suburban Goregaon in Mumbai, smashing glass panes, burning posters and shouting slogans.
Mina Kulkarni, one of the Delhi protesters, explained the reasoning behind their actions: "If women's physical needs get fulfilled through lesbian acts, the institution of marriage will collapse, reproduction of human beings will stop".
Theatres in Surat and Pune stopped screening the film on the same day. However, when attackers attempted to shut down a screening in Calcutta, ushers and audience fought back and the theatre stayed open. On being asked the reason for discomfort, Kumar said that he had not seen the film and was not much concerned about its content but rather the kind of vandalism that takes place on their cultural life, whenever such issues comes up. Twenty-two were arrested, and Kumar, as well as others involved in the production of the film, were provided with police security.
Cinemax reopened screenings of Fire on 18 December, but 100 members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) vandalised posters at the Sundar Theatre in Kanpur despite the police commissioner's reassurance that protection had been arranged.
Fire and lesbian rights in India
Fire and the conversation that began around the movie's general reception, both by supporters and detractors, encouraged lesbians and gay rights activists in India to be more vocal about their existence and the erasure of queerness from India's historical heritage. The release of this movie corresponded with the beginning of widespread national conversation about lesbian and gay rights. A new lesbian rights group, calling themselves the Campaign for Lesbian Rights (CALERI), formed in response to the backlash. This group held their own peaceful gatherings across India.
{| class="wikitable tracklist" style="font-size:95%;"
|+
! scope = "col" | Song
! scope = "col" | Notes
|-
| "Bombay Theme Intro" || Instrumental
|-
| "Radha and Sita Love Theme" || Instrumental
|-
| "Sita's Theme" || Instrumental
|-
| "Radha's Theme" || Instrumental
|-
| "Antha Arabikkadaloram" || A. R. Rahman
|-
| "Mundus Fantasy Part 1" || Instrumental
|-
| "Mundus Fantasy Part 2" || Instrumental
|-
| "Desire Night" || Instrumental
|-
| "Bangle's Theme" || Instrumental
|-
| "Ramayan" || Instrumental <small>(written by Ramayan Theatrical Group)</small>
|-
| "Allah Hu" || Miraj Ahmed <small>(written by Miraj Ahmed)</small>
|-
| "Radha's Confession" || Instrumental
|-
| "Passion" || Instrumental
|-
| "Bombay Theme Finale Radha's Soul" || Instrumental
|-
| "Julies Theme" || Instrumental
|-
| "China Town" || Instrumental
|}
Reception
In the weeks following its release, reviewers praised the film's explicit depiction of a homosexual relationship as "gutsy" and "explosive". Following the Shiv Sena attacks on the film, prominent party members said Fire had been targeted because it was an "immoral and pornographic" film "against Indian tradition and culture". The lesbian relationship depicted in the film was criticised as "not a part of Indian history or culture". Furthermore, Thackeray claimed that the film was an attack on Hinduism because the protagonists were named Sita and Radha, both significant goddesses in Hindu belief, and that he would withdraw his objections to the film if the names were changed to Muslim names. Critics charged the Shiv Sena of committing "cultural terrorism" and of using the rhetoric of "Indian tradition" to protest images of female independence and suppress freedom of speech: "The justification for [Shiv Sena's] action... demonstrates that Indian 'culture' for the Sangh Parivar is defined essentially in terms of male control over female sexuality".
Gay activist Ashok Row Kavi criticised the Shiv Sena's protests as "gay-bashing" and disputed their claims that lesbianism was "against Indian tradition", indicating that homosexuality is in fact abundantly present in Hinduism and that the criminalisation of homosexuality in India was a legacy of British colonial rule and Christianity. Pointing to evidence of lesbianism in Indian tradition, he said: "What's wrong in two women having sex? If they think it doesn't happen in the Indian society they should see the sculptures of Khajuraho or Konark".
Madhu Kishwar, then-editor of Manushi, wrote a highly critical review of Fire, finding fault with the depiction of the characters in the film as a "mean-spirited caricature of middle-class family life among urban Indians". She claimed that homosexuality was socially accepted in India as long as it remained a private affair, adding that Deepa Mehta "did a disservice to the cause of women... by crudely pushing the Radha-Sita relationship into the lesbian mould", as women would now be unable to form intimate relationships with other women without being branded as lesbians.
Feminist critics of Mehta's films argue that Mehta's portrayal of women and gender relations is over-simplified. Noted Indian feminist authors Mary E. John and Tejaswini Niranjana wrote in 1999 that Fire reduces patriarchy to the denial and control of female sexuality. The authors make the point that the film traps itself in its own rendering of patriarchy:
<blockquote>
Control of female sexuality is surely one of the ideological planks on which patriarchy rests. But by taking this idea literally, the film imprisons itself in the very ideology it seeks to fight, its own version of authentic reality being nothing but a mirror image of patriarchal discourse. Fire ends up arguing that the successful assertion of sexual choice is not only a necessary but also a sufficient condition—indeed, the sole criterion—for the emancipation of women. Thus the patriarchal ideology of 'control' is first reduced to pure denial – as though such control did not also involve the production and amplification of sexuality – and is later simply inverted to produce the film's own vision of women's liberation as free sexual 'choice'.
Whatever subversive potential Fire might have had (as a film that makes visible the 'naturalised' hegemony of heterosexuality in contemporary culture, for example) is nullified by its largely masculinist assumption that men should not neglect the sexual needs of their wives, lest they turn lesbian.
</blockquote>
The authors additionally argue that viewers must ask tough questions from films such as Fire that place themselves in the realm of "alternative" cinema and aim to occupy not only aesthetic, but also political space.
Mehta expressed frustration in interviews that the film was consistently described as a lesbian film. She said "lesbianism is just another aspect of the film... Fire is not a film about lesbians", but rather about "the choices we make in life".
Shohini Ghosh wrote a 2010 monograph about the film and the public response to it, titled Fire: A Queer Film Classic.
North America
The film did not attract any particular attention outside India, including in Canada, despite being co-produced there; an article in The Toronto Star mentioned how it did not attract any attention at its initial premiere at the Toronto Film Festival. However, the film managed to attract a small but significant amount of audience in the United States, due largely due to a rave review in the Los Angeles Times and an interview with Mehta by The New York Times. The film consequently managed to have some screeings in some countries in Europe like France and Germany. Ruth Vanita touched on the topic of the niche interest in the film overseas, stating that the film had deep and distinct Indian elements, such as the joint family structure and the mechanisms of arranged marriages, which meant that non-Indian audiences could only understand the film on a relatively shallower level.