Tuesday 25 October 2016

Yeh Sawal Hai Mushkil : Should Indian Movie Makers Say No to Pakistani Actors, As a Sign of Patriotism?


      Fawad Khan is a Pakistani actor who has a special appearance in an Indian movie Ae Dil Hai Mushkil, made for screening just ahead of 2016 Diwali. It features well-known Indian actors Ranbir Kapoor, Aishwarya Rai and Anushka Sharma in lead roles. Shah Rukh Khan too has a cameo appearance.

      The Pakistani artiste is suddenly lucky to get loads of extra spotlight on him.  He will say hearty thanks to Raj Thackeray of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena who demanded a ban on the multi-starrer and made every one look forward to the movie and know its Pakistani actor for sure.  The MNS leader asked for the ban since Pakistani terrorists had been infiltrating into Indian territory and had recently made a dastardly attack on an Indian army base in Uri town of Jammu and Kashmir, while the movie’s producers and many actors felt he was mixing up issues.  Now that stand-off is over and the movie will hit the screens as per schedule, on a compromise struck between its producers and Raj Thackeray – and the public will never know the minute details of the deal.  Let us keep out all these names and ask ourselves, “Should Indian movie makers say no to Pakistani actors, as a sign of patriotism?”   A difficult question.

      A sense of patriotism among any people may well up if their nation has an enemy country on which that sentiment is directed.  That way, the mindless leadership of Pakistan which spurs and sponsors terrorism has kindled patriotic fervour in many other nations – more in India where Pakistan's evil men sneak in often and spread terror, death and destruction.  So it is natural for most Indians to believe that when Pakistan does havoc in India, the least we may do is not allow Pakistani actors or other artistes to perform and earn in India as if all is fine between the two countries.  In fact a message doing its rounds in mails and messages between friends poses a question: if artistes have nothing to do with terrorism and if singers, writers, performers, journalists, businessmen, doctors and other professionals too have nothing to do with terrorism, for whom are Indian jawans sacrificing their lives? This question, anyway, distracts us because the artistes and others it lists - when speaking in clear reference to Ae Dil Hai Mushkil which features Fawad Khan - as innocent work-minded professionals are Pakistani professionals, while our troops are battling in defence of India and Indians. 

      We know that the political leadership of Pakistan is a prisoner of its military leadership which has the wherewithal to train and direct terrorists.  Anyhow, both of them are not accountable to Pakistani citizens.  A vast majority of ordinary Pakistani people are not terrorists and are not sympathisers of terrorism.  They are themselves poor victims of terrorism and ill governance.  We may safely assume that Fawad Khan is not himself a supporter of terrorism.  He and most citizens of Pakistan cannot openly speak against terrorism thriving in that country since they have to survive.  Just as many political leaders in India's Kashmir do not come down on terrorism, and also sing plain or disguised love-songs to terrorists once in a while (but those leaders need not fear the protective Indian army patrolling Kashmir and may fearlessly deride their army – though poor Pakistanis have to fear both their army and their terrorists). 

      If terrorists groomed in Pakistan arrive in India and shoot and throw bombs, it is all the work of a handful of rulers in Pakistan.  Those invading terrorists would have been brainwashed to go on a rampage in India.  Yes, they have to be checked, caught or killed for safeguarding our people, which is a different issue.  But if we ban the entry of innocent Pakistanis too in India, does it help or hinder our object in countering Pakistan’s malicious actions against India?

     One of the ways of  moving against  Pakistan is  isolating that  country  in the international arena.  In today’s inter-dependent world, it is not easy for a country to remain in isolation, and if isolated that country is forced to check its ways to behave better with other nations.  Another option for India is isolating Pakistan's leadership from its population.  This is not as easily possible and can only happen slowly, but this sort of domestic isolation is not to be given up since anything short of an armed conflict in a nuclear world is always desirable.  If any such domestic isolation of Pakistani leadership is to be attempted, India should act just and fair towards Pakistani citizens which alone could touch the heart of Pakistani people and make them feel shamed by their own rulers. Welcoming innocent citizens of Pakistan to work in an Indian project, subject to due cross checks and verification, is a good way to appeal to the hearts and minds of Pakistanis. Movies do it hundred times more than other collaborations. If Indian theatres are forced or threatened into not showing an Indian movie that features a Pakistani actor, that movie – and perhaps all other movies made in India – may not be screened in Pakistan or shown on their television channels, which is a greater blow to our country commercially and in other subtle ways. 

      An example cited in favour of banning work for Pakistani actors is USA boycotting Moscow Olympics in 1980 to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the previous year, and USSR keeping away from 1984 Los Angeles Olympics as a tit for tat.   But there is a difference.  Olympics is viewed as an event of the government of a country hosting it, and the competing sportspersons are seen as representing their respective countries.  So a country boycotting an event organised by another  is understandable,  when their military objectives clash or when they have turbulent cross border issues.   India pulling out of a SAARC Summit that was slated to be held in Islamabad within a month of the Uri attack is a right move which helped in isolating Pakistan.  But disallowing Pakistani artistes to work in India’s private enterprise, i.e., movie making, or protesting the screening of an Indian movie featuring any of them does not work in our favour.

      Pakistan was a part of India before the partition of August 1947, when it was created to become our neighbour.   When its leadership acts against Indian interests, or disturbs our peace, India must give a firm and fitting response, and there is no doubt on that.  At the same time, we must keep in place people-to-people bridges.  It is like two brothers getting estranged, but one or both keeping good relations with children of the other household.

      India has done it earlier with Pakistan on a historic scale, not equating the official government of Pakistan with its oppressed people.  That was in 1971, when Indian troops aided Bangladesh for its liberation.  Now India can put out a friendly hand to harmless Pakistani artistes, or other professionals, even as it deals resolutely with its rogue government and and its forces.  It helps us too, and our disciplined defence personnel know the difference.

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2016

9 comments:

  1. Let them allow Indian artists on an equal scale, Can you tell them that None can achieve that.
    Please understand that Indian artists who ate not Muslims have no welcome in Pakistan.
    People are good on both sides. But what is the use of sympathy or goodness which cannot help

    ReplyDelete
  2. Movies with Pakistani actors are given preference in Pakistan and earn well. This has started a trend where many producers and directors promote Pakistani actors at the cost of Indians. If this trend continues, talent development in India will suffer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. India didn't win freedom from the British by military powers, or through non-violence movement. Boycotting British goods hit their economy hard, and they knew that if they couldn't do their business in India, their biggest market, they couldn't earn enough to run the show in many parts of the World. So, we hit them where it hurts- their livelihoods. And they decided to quit. So, also with Pakistan and every foreign country. You can't terrorise us and earn your livelihood here. Period.
    As to Indian filmmakers, they have the largest market here in India, unless they produce sub-standard films. They don't have to look at the Pakistani market. Also, don't we have talented Indian actors and actresses to play these roles?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I endorse your views. We should work with our neighbours. I wish to look at humanity as vasudeva kutumbakam while expecting the military to do what they do so efficiently. Thank you Sir for the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for your thought-provoking piece on Pakistani actors in Indian cinema. While directors/producers will surely be prudent enough not to engage them in future in view of the current political situation, I don't think it is proper for political parties to enter the fray, interfere, and compel anyone in the matter. This is totally undemocratic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Raghavan, Padma and i were always of the view that professionals like musicians, other artistes, cricketers, etc. should not be boycotted. But just recently, we read that same widely-circulated article about "whom are the jawans fighting for?", and we had to think about that one. It disturbed, if not diluted our original conviction. Your insightful essay has just cleared that up for us! Thank you!

    i do see dulalbasu's point, though, about "you can't terrorize us and earn your livelihood here" which (in my mind) reflect what you said on the topic of economic sanctions. i have to think about that one. We refused to play cricket with South Africa for the longest time, and in 1974, we forfeited the right to play the Davis Cup final because South Africa were the other finalist.

    And i have to think about the difference between the Olympics which is a government-sponsored event and offering a role to an actor in a movie, which is private. Yes, i see the obvious difference, but cannot fully reconcile.

    i do not agree with the view "if we give Pak actors a chance, what about our own?" In that case, IPL should be played with Indians alone, and English county cricket should have no foreigners.

    One more point: i am not sure about this "Non-muslim Indian artistes not welcome in Pak". When India resumed cricket relations with Pak (i think in 2003), the public welcomed not only the cricketers, but visitors and press with open arms! There were many stories about their hospitality; T-shirts with "Ek Hi Khoon". A well fought series with 2-1 Test and 3-2 ODI score lines in favor of India. However, when Pak returned the visit later, we responded by vandalizing a pitch!

    Balkee

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, my point about South Africa should be on a separate paragraph, if anything, part of the next paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A lot of thought has gone into this well-written article. Very balanced opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with your basic conclusion. It does us no good not to allow Pakistani arists to work in India.

    ReplyDelete