Aadujeevitham: Najeeb Or Shukur? (Image credits: [L] Youtube.com/VisualRomance, [R] OneEyeArt)

Portrayal of Shukur (the character Najeeb Muhammad in Benyamin’s novel Aadujeevitham or The Goat Days, now a pathbreaking Malayalam film led by actor Prithviraj Sukumaran and director Blessy) in the novel and movie has now become a huge debate among the audience and the critics alike. Shukur’s life in the Saudi Arabian desert and certain elements depicted in Aadujeevitham have become intertwined in the audience”s perception, both of the book and the movie. This forms the fundamental premise of the ongoing debate, primarily occurring in the Indian state of Kerala, known for its high literacy rate and active engagement in public discourse on a wide range of topics.

There are two central points in the whole discourse: One, Shukur, a common man (now a famous man after Aadujeevitham became a sensation) from costal Arattupuzha in Kerala’s Alappuzha and his life as a slave labourer in Saudi Arabia; two, Najeeb of Aadujeevitham, the character epitomised by author Benyamin and the makers of the now released movie.

According to various accounts from Shukoor and close relatives, the harrowing experience of a young Malayali in Saudi Arabia after he was ‘taken away’ from outside Riyadh King Khalid International Airport is well established as a credible story. What happened between Shukoor’s disappearance for more than three years in Saudi Arabia and then a sudden phone call to his wife from Kunjikka’s place in Batha is the period of the traumatic events the former sand minor from Pathishery Junction in Arattupuzha encountered.

After coming back from Batha, Shukoor lived some more time in Kerala before leaving for Bahrain for another visa, this time to a safe work place. There is where he meets author Benyamin, who was working there at that point of time. According to the author, one of his friend, a Sunil, told him about Shukoor’s life in Saudi desert.

Both, the author and Shukoor agree on some details: It took several conversations for both the parties to go ahead with a literary work on Shukur’s experience. Shukur was reluctant in the first place to give a green signal for the book. But, once he was convinced, things were smooth and both spent hours telling and listening the story.

Then the book was released in 2008 and, 25 years later, it has seen record sales in Malayalam, translated into several languages including Arabic, and now the movie based on the book is a runaway hit.

Area of contention for the readers and audience is the truthfulness of what has been transpired in the life of Najeeb in the book and movie to the real experience of Shukur.

This is author Benyamin’s fundamental take on the matter:

“In the context of the release of the film, I am repeating once again the things which I have been telling for that last twenty years: The hero of my story is Najeeb. Not Shukur. Najeeb is a character borrowed from many Shukurs. Many people”s experiences have been added to it. It contains less than 30% Shukur. Aadujeevitham is not Shukur”s life story. It is my novel. It is written in large letters on its cover.”

However, in the afterwords of the novel, Benyamin has written about the connection with the real life of Shukur to Najeeb, and his critics have now dug up that part: “I didn’t sugarcoat Najeeb’s story or fluff it up to please the reader,” he had written then.

In several conversations, Shukur has agreed that several instances from the book are creation of the author, including death of Hakeem, a particular scene of bestiality, etc.

It is normal that the portrayal of real-life characters in novels and films sparking intense debate within critical literary circles, touching upon questions of authenticity, representation, and ethical boundaries. But this may be the first time in the history of public discourse, in which a large group of individuals, including the real life character himself and the author, come out in public to make each one’s points to clarify the real intentions and repercussions of the portrayal of a particular character, that too being celebrated, read and watched in a massive scale. Scholars grapple with the ethics of fictionalising real individuals” lives, considering issues of privacy and misrepresentation alongside artistic freedom.

There is more debate to this issue. That is about Shukur”s actual name. According to author, the name Shukur is what he is called in his native place Arattupuzha, and his actual name in records is Najeeb Muhammad.

“Shukur – Najib. The question about why you called Shukur as Najib for so long and presented like that is natural. Shukur”s name is Najeeb Muhammad in all his official documents. He is called Shukur in his native place. So there is nothing wrong in calling him Najib all these while. But there are some complicated legal issues to the names and I don”t want to go into the issue in detail,” Benyamin said recently.