Editing Sholay (section)

== Themes and interpretations ==
Scholars have noted several themes in the film, such as [[Heroic bloodshed|glorification of violence]], conformation to [[Indian feudalism|feudal ethos]], debate between [[social order]] and mobilised usurpers, [[Homosociality|homosocial]] bonding, and the film's role as a [[National personification|national allegory]].<ref>For glorification of violence, see Wimal Dissanayake, Malti Sahai, ''Sholay: A Cultural Reading (Delhi: Wiley Eastern, 1992), 115-19. {{ISBN|8122403948}}; for feudal ethos, see Hrishikesh Ingle, "Regionalist Disjuncture in Bollywood", in Vikrant Kishore et al., eds., ''Salaam Bollywood: Representations and interpretations'' (London: Routledge, 2016), 202. {{ISBN|1317232852}}; on social order/disorder, see Dissanayake, "The Concepts of Evil and Social Order in Indian Melodrama: An Evolving Dialect", in ''Melodrama and Asian Cinema'', ed. Dissanayake (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993); on homosocial bonding, Dinah Holtzman, "Between ''Yaars'': The Queering of ''Dost'' in Contemporary Bollywood Films", in Rini Bhattacharya et al., eds., ''Bollywood and Globalization: Indian Popular Cinema, Nation, and Diaspora'' (London: Anthem Press, 2011), 118-22. {{ISBN|0857288970}}; as national allegory, John Hutnyk, ''Global South Asia on Screen'' (NY: Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2018), 206. {{ISBN|1501324985}}.</ref>

Koushik Banerjea, a sociologist in the [[London School of Economics]], notes that ''Sholay'' exhibits a "sympathetic construction of 'rogue' [[masculinity]]" exemplified by the likeable [[outlaw]]s Jai and Veeru.{{sfn|Banerjea|2005|p=164}} Banerjea argues during the film, the moral boundary between [[legality]] and [[Crime|criminality]] gradually erodes.{{sfn|Banerjea|2005|pp=177–179}} Film scholar Wimal Dissanayake agrees that the film brought "a new stage in the evolving dialectic between violence and social order" to Indian cinema.{{sfn|Dissanayake|1993|p=199}} Film scholar M. Madhava Prasad states that Jai and Veeru represent a [[Social exclusion|marginalised]] population that is introduced into conventional society.{{sfn|Prasad|1998|pp=156–160}} Prasad says that, through the elements of revenge included in the plot and the application of Jai and Veeru's criminality for the greater good, the narrative reflects reactionary politics, and the audience is compelled to accept [[Feudalism|feudal order]].{{sfn|Prasad|1998|pp=156–160}} Banerjea explains that though Jai and Veeru are [[Mercenary|mercenaries]], they are humanised by their emotional needs. Such dualism makes them vulnerable, in contrast to the pure evil of [[Gabbar Singh (character)|Gabbar Singh]].{{sfn|Banerjea|2005|pp=177–179}}

Gabbar Singh, the film's antagonist, was well received by the audience, despite his pervasive sadistic cruelty.{{sfn|Dissanayake|1993|p=199}} Dissanayake explains that the audience was fascinated by the dialogues and mannerisms of the character, and this element of spectacle outweighed his actions, a first for Indian melodrama.{{sfn|Dissanayake|1993|p=199}} He notes that the picturisation of violence in the film was glamourised and uninhibited.{{sfn|Dissanayake|1993|p=200}} He further notes that, unlike earlier melodramas in which the [[Male gaze|female body occupies the audience's attention]] as an object of male fetish, in ''Sholay'', the male body becomes the centrepiece. It becomes the battleground where [[good and evil]] compete for supremacy.{{sfn|Dissanayake|1993|p=200}} Dissanayake argues that ''Sholay'' can be viewed as a national allegory: it lacks a comforting logical narrative, it shows social stability being repeatedly challenged, and it shows the devaluation of human life resulting from a lack of emotions. Taken together, these elements comprise the allegorical representation of India.{{sfn|Dissanayake|1993|p=201}} The narrative style of ''Sholay'', with its violence, revenge, and [[vigilante]] action, is occasionally compared by scholars to the political unrest in India at the time of its release. This tension culminated in [[the Emergency (India)|the Emergency]] ([[rule by decree]]) declared by prime minister [[Indira Gandhi]] in 1975.{{sfnm|1a1=Hayward|1y=2006|1pp=63–64|2a1=Holtzman|2y=2011|2p=118}}

Dissanayeke and Sahai note that, although the film borrowed heavily from the [[Western film|Hollywood Western genre]], particularly in its visuals, it was successfully "Indianised".{{sfnm|1a1=Dissanayake|1a2=Sahai|1y=1992|1p=125|2a1=Dissanayake|2y=1993|2p=197}} As an example, William van der Heide has compared a massacre scene in ''Sholay'' with a similar scene in ''Once Upon a Time in the West''. Although both films were similar in technical style, ''Sholay'' emphasised Indian family values and melodramatic tradition, while the Western was more materialistic and restrained in its approach.{{sfn|Heide|2002|p=52}} [[Maithili Rao]], in ''Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema'', notes that ''Sholay'' infuses the style of the Western genre into a "feudalistic ethos".{{sfn|Rao|2003|p=95}} Ted Shen of the ''[[Chicago Reader]]'' notes ''Sholay''{{'}}s "hysterical visual style" and intermittent "populist message".<ref name="shen chic reader" /> Cultural critic and Islamic scholar [[Ziauddin Sardar]] lampoons the film in his book ''The Secret Politics of Our Desires: Innocence, Culpability and Indian Popular Cinema'', both for its caricature and stereotyping of Muslim and women characters, and for what he calls mockery of innocent villagers.{{sfn|Sardar|1998|pp=48–49}} Sardar notes that the two most prominent Muslim characters in the film are Soorma Bhopali (a buffoonish criminal), and an impotent victim of the bandits (the imam). Meanwhile, the sole function of one female character (Radha) is to suffer her fate in silence, while the other female lead (Basanti) is just a garrulous village belle.{{sfn|Sardar|1998|pp=48–49}}

Some scholars have indicated that ''Sholay'' contains [[Homosociality|homosocial]] themes.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gopinath |first=G. |year=2000 |title=Queering Bollywood |journal=Journal of Homosexuality |volume=39 |issue=3–4 |pages=283–297 |doi=10.1300/J082v39n03_13 |pmid=11133137 |s2cid=24260497}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Anjaria |first=U. |year=2012 |title='Relationships which have no name': Family and sexuality in 1970s popular film |journal=South Asian Popular Culture |volume=10 |pages=23–35 |doi=10.1080/14746689.2012.655103 |s2cid=145145328}}</ref> Ted Shen describes the male bonding shown in the film as bordering on [[Camp (style)|camp style]].<ref name="shen chic reader" /> Dina Holtzman, in her book ''Bollywood and Globalization: Indian Popular Cinema, Nation, and Diaspora'', states that the death of Jai, and resultant break of bonding between the two male leads, is necessary for the sake of establishing a [[Normativity|normative]] [[Heterosexuality|heterosexual]] relationship (that of Veeru and Basanti).{{sfn|Holtzman|2011|pp=111–113}}