Sometime ago, we were having a spirited discussion
on another blog about stalking in cinema influencing impressionable youth. At
the time, apologists for the trope came up with several reasons why it wasn’t
‘all that’ problematic. One of the reasons frequently brought up as a
rationalization was that cinema reflected society, and therefore couldn’t
(shouldn’t?) be held solely responsible for young women being attacked,
abducted, molested or even murdered. Never mind that no one asking to hold
filmmakers responsible was saying that films were the only reason for
these incidents, or even that they were the most important. All we were saying
is that change needs to come from somewhere, and since cinema has such a huge
reach and is an even bigger influence than most media, filmmakers and actors need to be a bit more responsible in what they show and how they show
it. Pat came the response(s) that films and actors were a ‘soft target’; they
were easy to blame, so ‘others’ could avoid blame. We were quick to deny that.
Out of that denial came our petition that Iswarya, a post-doc student turned
activist, is single-handedly pushing through. While she fights the good fight,
other issues have begun roiling up, once again involving films.
Where stalking is concerned, I have no qualms about
pointing the finger at cinema for exacerbating a social issue. By normalising
such behaviour, by glorifying it as ‘true love’, by trivialising the
consequences, films have given ‘stalking’ a respectability that the Indian
legal system does not confer on it. Of course, it’s only been a few years since
‘stalking’ has become a criminal offence, subject to punishment.
Today, however, I am on the other side of the
fence, arguing that films and film-makers should not be subject to the policing
of a few, that they should not be held to ransom by people who are quick to
take offence where none is intended, that someone, somewhere is ready to take
offence at something, and that films are the first casualty. I don’t see
my stand as being hypocritical or myself as practicing a double standard where
films are concerned. For the two issues at stake are different.
Background: In the last week
of September, a terrorist attack on the army base at Uri, Baramulla District, killed
19 soldiers and injured several others. It was one of the deadliest terrorist
attacks on security forces in recent times. India retaliated with a surgical
strike at the terrorist camps across the LOC. So far, so good.
Now: Why am I writing
about a political issue/current events on a film blog? Because, somehow or the
other, films become roiled – peripherally, perhaps – in the backlash. Tension
between the two countries is understandably high. The unnecessary deaths of our
soldiers have ignited the embers of nationalism, and that is understandable too.
I can understand the mood of the nation. I can empathise with the urge to not
have anything to do with the enemy.
But.
Three big films, one a week from release, others
racing to completion, have become mired in controversy. All of them
have Pakistani actors in important roles: Fawad Khan in Ae Dil Hai Mushkil,
Maheera Khan in Raees, and Ali Fazal in Dear Zindagi. The Uri
attack and its aftermath led to all three films being blocked; a regional party
decided to show its ‘patriotism’ by demanding that the Pakistani artistes be
replaced in all these films; if not, they vowed, they would vandalise the
theatres that ran these films. The producers of the films were threatened with
bodily harm. Basically, what Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS)
did, was to hold these films to ransom. While Raees and Dear Zindagi
still have some time to cope (the last I heard, Maheera Khan is out of Raees),
it is Karan Johar’s Ae Dil Hai Mushkil that’s at the centre of the
storm.
Raj Thackeray just ignited the dynamite; social
media erupted with patriotic messages and anti-Pak rhetoric, and slurs and
accusations of anti-nationalism against Johar. Then single-screen theatre
owners and the distributors’ organisations got into the act as well, making a
decision not to screen Ae Dil Hai Mushkil. The IMPPA (Indian Motion
Picture Producers’ Association) banned the signing of any Pakistani actors in
Hindi films.
The argument from the self-declared patriots is
that there’s enough talent in India; why should Johar sign Pakistani actors?
Well, these people celebrate Priyanka Chopra and Deepika Padukone making
inroads into Hollywood. They take pride in every single achievement abroad. If it's validated by the Westerner, it becomes acclaimed in our country. That’s okay, then.
Also, why pick on films alone? As far as I know, we
have trade relations with Pakistan. Why aren’t we asking our businesses to end
all ties with our neighbour? Why don’t we tell our politicians to stop making
unofficial stops and sharing cake with their counterparts? No? All Raj
Thackeray and his goons can do is to pick on films as the softest target they
can find. Especially a film that is vulnerable because it is so close to
release.
It is a shame that a political party with no teeth
at all can hold a city, an industry, to ransom. It is despicable that they can
associate a foreign actor working in an Indian film as an insult to the
soldiers who were martyred at Uri. Or that they think that banning a film is
supporting the soldiers who died in the terrorist attack. It’s alarming that
that their petty brand of jingoism is what passes off for
patriotism/nationalism today. It’s horrifying that Karan Johar was forced
to his knees in front of a man who is not fit to shine the shoes of the
soldiers who died.
Should Karan Johar, or anyone else, sign a
Pakistani artiste at a time when tensions are simmering between the two
nations? When the hostility between the nations has prompted Pakistan to ban
Indian films and television programmes in the country? Of course not. It would
be the heights of irresponsibility to do so. However, it probably doesn’t occur
to Raj Thackeray, the thugs who make up his party, or the sloganeering
multitude (or they simply don’t care) that when Johar signed Fawad Khan (or Red
Chillies and Excel Entertainment signed Maheera Khan or Gauri Shinde signed Ali
Fazal) , it was at a time when the relations between our two countries was
relatively peaceful. It was at a time when our Prime Minister was visiting his
Pakistani counterpart both officially and unofficially. [Questioning that made
Anurag Kashyap 'anti-national' as well.] Somehow, Johar’s action in signing an
actor, any actor, for his film is a direct insult to the soldiers martyred at
Uri. By arguing that he had every right to sign Fawad Khan who was legally
allowed to work in India, and had a valid work visa issued by the Government
of India, I’m probably being anti-national and unpatriotic as well.
So, after two weeks of stewing in silence, one of
the industry’s most-respected film makers broke his silence to tender an abject
apology. Looking like a man at the end of his tether, like he was forced to
speak (figuratively) at gun point, he apologised for hurting the sentiments of
the nation, and swore ‘not to work with artistes from the neighbouring country’
– he couldn’t even say ‘Pakistan’. He begged to be allowed to
release the completed film – already cleared by the Board of Film Certification, and therefore legally allowed to be screened – because
it would be unfair to the 300 members of the Indian cast
and crew to not release the product of their blood, sweat and tears. [As one
newspaper report put it, he looked like a hostage in a ransom video; only here,
he was both victim and had to pay the ransom himself if he wanted to be
free.]
And to whom? To a two-bit politician who gets off
on making threats of violence and vandalism? Threats that are both illegal and
that he has no right to make? For Johar has done nothing against the law of the
land or the spirit of the nation. Raj Thackeray, on the other hand, has
threatened the personal safety of an Indian citizen like himself, and harm to
his property and that of others.
The result? In a lawful society, Raj Thackeray
would be (should be) behind bars. In our India, in today’s India, he’s
giving sound bytes on how this is a ‘victory’. Yes. Karan Johar caved, and who
can blame him? The government that swore one day to protect him and see that Ae
Dil Hai Mushkil is released without incident bent its knee the next day
before a common thug, and licked his boots. Devendra Phadnavis, our other
fearless leader, met Raj Thackeray along with Johar and the producers’ guild,
and instead of clapping Raj Thackeray and his stupid sena behind bars, cravenly
agreed to all of Thackeray’s demands.
So.
Johar will insert a slide with a tribute to the
martyrs of Uri. He will not work with Pakistani artistes ever again. And he
(and the producers of the other movies) has to ‘donate’ Rs5 crore to the Army
Welfare Fund.
The soldiers' deaths have become a political bludgeon. Paranoia and hatred have won. State-sanctioned terrorism is alive and well. Long live India! Jai Hind! Bharat Mata ki Jai!
Postscript: Since I wrote
this diatribe, I hear that the Army is furious at being pulled into this row.
They have insisted that the Army Welfare Fund cannot accept 'extortion money' (yes, that’s exactly the word that retired Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain,
former military secretary, and retired Air Vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur have used) – that is ‘tainted’. Other senior Army officials have slammed the MNS’s
extortion saying that all Army donations have to be voluntary, and that the
Army reserves the right to reject any donation if they know it has been made
under duress.
It will be interesting to see if Raj Thackeray has
the guts to go against our Armed Forces and insist upon the blood money being
paid (and accepted). Or whether he is satisfied at being the king of his little jungle, having shown his claws to
a group of people who are vulnerable to his threats because it affects their lives and livelihood.
No comments:
Post a Comment