Now that the storm has passed and My Name is Khan (MNIK)’s collections have fallen very significantly, it will do good for us all to analyse the issue once again.
Getting the facts first:
Getting the facts first:
- Shahrukh Khan, the co-owner of Kolkata Knight Riders lamented the absence of Pakistani cricket players from any of the IPL teams
- He further stated that Pakistan is a good, nay, a Great Neighbor to have. He was then honest enough to accept that his family comes from Pakistan and he still has his ties there
- Shiv Sena proclaimed these enunciations to be heresy and decided that MNIK would not be allowed to be screened in Mumbai and Rest of Maharashtra
- The State Government made massive security arrangements, rounding off more than 1,500 Shiv Sainiks and deployed around 23,000 securitymen to guard cinema halls
- The State Government withdrew security cover of some Sena MLAs and threatened withdrawal of the cover provided to the Sena President, Uddhav Thackeray
- Most cinema halls in Mumbai reported almost complete occupancy the weekend the movie was released
- Shiv Sena washed its hands off the matter berating the public for not being patriotic enough for watching the movie of a ‘traitor’ in droves
- The intelligentsia hailed the house full boards as Mumbai’s knockout reply to Sena
- The State Government was hailed for superb handling of the ‘bully’
- Reports suggest that the occupancy rates of the movie hover in the range of 30% now
- New reports suggest that all through the shenanigans, Shahrukh Khan and Karan Johar had maintained discreet contacts with Matoshree
- As per other reports, the movie is a colossal hit in Pakistan and Shahrukh’s stock has further risen in that country
Rather than going into conspiracy theories or speculating that the entire tamasha was an affair stage managed by the principal actors for their own gains, let us focus on the larger issue of an Individual’s Freedom to Speech and the State’s duty to protect it.
Here, we have the scenario of one of the leading lights of Hindi moviedom proclaiming his love for a State which has only given pains to India right from the time it was conceived in the minds of Rahmat Alis and Saiyyad Ahmad Khans of yore. This celebrity, who happens to be the co-owner of an IPL team himself, did not pick up any player from his beloved neighbor but lamented the collective action of all of the teams the next day. The movie in question is a bleeding heart testimonial to the goodness of the second largest religion of the world and discovers superhuman qualities in the hearts of a true believer. Well Well… to each man his own. As Indians, we are very accommodative to all who love our enemies. After all, our Communists did not become person-non-grata to our population inspite of their open and aggressive support of China during the Indo China war of 1962. Earlier still, Babasaheb’s Ambedkar support to the British Raj and his strong opposition to the freedom movement did not make him a traitor to the country. Then, we certainly should not grudge Shahrukh his sympathy to the Pakistanis or should we?
Here, we have the scenario of one of the leading lights of Hindi moviedom proclaiming his love for a State which has only given pains to India right from the time it was conceived in the minds of Rahmat Alis and Saiyyad Ahmad Khans of yore. This celebrity, who happens to be the co-owner of an IPL team himself, did not pick up any player from his beloved neighbor but lamented the collective action of all of the teams the next day. The movie in question is a bleeding heart testimonial to the goodness of the second largest religion of the world and discovers superhuman qualities in the hearts of a true believer. Well Well… to each man his own. As Indians, we are very accommodative to all who love our enemies. After all, our Communists did not become person-non-grata to our population inspite of their open and aggressive support of China during the Indo China war of 1962. Earlier still, Babasaheb’s Ambedkar support to the British Raj and his strong opposition to the freedom movement did not make him a traitor to the country. Then, we certainly should not grudge Shahrukh his sympathy to the Pakistanis or should we?
The problem here is not Shahrukh but hypocrisy of the intelligentsia. Shahrukh was simply speaking with a forked tongue when he expressed his anguish over non inclusion of Pak players in the IPL. Being the owner of a team, he could have very well recruited 4 people for his own team. Having not done that, he probably wanted to mollycoddle his Pakistani audience and hence the crocodile tears. However, Shahrukh, as an Indian citizen, was merely using the freedom provided by our Constitution in speaking his mind. Only, why should the intelligentsia troop to support a man who is only out to promote his business is beyond me. I wonder where exactly was this intelligentsia hiding when Kamal Rashid Khan’s movie ‘Deshbhakt’ on attack on North Indians in Mumbai was banned by the same State Government’s police to prevent ‘inflaming of passions’. Arguably, that movie was much more pertinent and just compared to some bleeding heart testimony to terrorists. Why was there no squeak of support for that movie, however badly made, on grounds of freedom of expression? Here, the State abdicated all its other responsibilities to ensure that a movie is screened when it was clearly a potential riot issue (as if that was the biggest issue in Maharashtra) and there, the state decided that another movie could be a law and order issue! Perhaps the other Khan lost out for he did not count the State’s high and mighty amongst his friends!
Coming to the more important issue of the need to separate art from politics or sports from politics, as our omniscient conscience keepers advised us…excuse me.. when exactly were arts or sports away from politics? Be it Sean Penn using the Oscar’s platform to make speeches for Gay rights or Arundhati Roy using her pen to peddle her thoughts, Celebrities have all along used and abused their status to push the political agenda they identify with. Closer home, Shabana Azmi and Mahesh Bhatt are now known more for their politics than for their art. And if Shahrukh was so keen to protect his movie from Sena’s backlash, why did he need to open his moth on issues which do not concern him. Be it defending Shoaib Malik’s apologies to Muslims worldwide after Pakistan’s defeat in the T20 World Cup Finals or his wearing his Islamic identity on his sleeve, Shahrukh has made it a point to be in the limelight as much as possible. If anyone fights for a cause, one cannot logically be away from its repercussions. Boycott of celebrities and products which they promote is a part of the game. Who can forget the way Anita Bryant’s sensational singing career went into a tailspin ultimately leading to her bankruptcy, in face of resolute campaign by gay rights groups. Anita’s fault was merely having taken the lead in organizing the ‘Save our Families’ campaign in opposition to militant gay rights activism.
Coming to Sports, India was on the forefront of boycott of South Africa for its apartheid policies refusing to play the Nation for atrocities it was committing on its own people, i.e., actually meddling in some other sovereign country’s affairs. The same cheerleaders of that boycott want India to constantly engage with a country which has killed and maimed thousands of our countrymen!!! And if sports is indeed separate from politics, why is it that sportspersons are considered ambassadors of a Nation or why is that National sentiments over-ride sporting mores when teams don National colors on the field? Why is it that sportspersons wear black bands while playing or the triumphs of Jesse Owens and Muhammad Alis of the world were seen as potent political statements? Or, why are sportspersons pulled to make statements in political campaigns?
What is particularly galling is the tendency of Shahrukh to proclaim from rooftops that his father was a freedom fighter and so he cannot be a traitor. Who exactly is his father and why is it that that inspite of his protestations, we are yet to know anything about him? It does not take much for anyone to proclaim anything. There were a lot of instances where people jailed for petty crimes during the British Raj’s fag end claimed to be in jail for fighting for India’s freedom. For all we know, if the Senior Khan did go to jail ever for something remotely related to Nation building, it could be very well as a Muslim League member, demonstrating in support of Pakistan. We don’t count Mohammad Ali Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan as India’s freedom fighter, do we? Finally, one’s lineage alone does not determine the course of life for others. Quite a few of the ULFA terrorists have come from exalted families of freedom fighters. That did not or has not prevented them from running a war against the Indian Nation. This is not to insinuate that Shahrukh has the welfare of any other Nation at the cost of the Indian Nation in mind, but the logic presented by him can be as illogical as possible.
While violence and force cannot be condoned, boycott is a very legitimate form of protest, be it against publicity seekers or those who actually stand for a cause. It is a shame that our intelligentsia have been unable to find more reasonable causes to defend.
Coming to the more important issue of the need to separate art from politics or sports from politics, as our omniscient conscience keepers advised us…excuse me.. when exactly were arts or sports away from politics? Be it Sean Penn using the Oscar’s platform to make speeches for Gay rights or Arundhati Roy using her pen to peddle her thoughts, Celebrities have all along used and abused their status to push the political agenda they identify with. Closer home, Shabana Azmi and Mahesh Bhatt are now known more for their politics than for their art. And if Shahrukh was so keen to protect his movie from Sena’s backlash, why did he need to open his moth on issues which do not concern him. Be it defending Shoaib Malik’s apologies to Muslims worldwide after Pakistan’s defeat in the T20 World Cup Finals or his wearing his Islamic identity on his sleeve, Shahrukh has made it a point to be in the limelight as much as possible. If anyone fights for a cause, one cannot logically be away from its repercussions. Boycott of celebrities and products which they promote is a part of the game. Who can forget the way Anita Bryant’s sensational singing career went into a tailspin ultimately leading to her bankruptcy, in face of resolute campaign by gay rights groups. Anita’s fault was merely having taken the lead in organizing the ‘Save our Families’ campaign in opposition to militant gay rights activism.
Coming to Sports, India was on the forefront of boycott of South Africa for its apartheid policies refusing to play the Nation for atrocities it was committing on its own people, i.e., actually meddling in some other sovereign country’s affairs. The same cheerleaders of that boycott want India to constantly engage with a country which has killed and maimed thousands of our countrymen!!! And if sports is indeed separate from politics, why is it that sportspersons are considered ambassadors of a Nation or why is that National sentiments over-ride sporting mores when teams don National colors on the field? Why is it that sportspersons wear black bands while playing or the triumphs of Jesse Owens and Muhammad Alis of the world were seen as potent political statements? Or, why are sportspersons pulled to make statements in political campaigns?
What is particularly galling is the tendency of Shahrukh to proclaim from rooftops that his father was a freedom fighter and so he cannot be a traitor. Who exactly is his father and why is it that that inspite of his protestations, we are yet to know anything about him? It does not take much for anyone to proclaim anything. There were a lot of instances where people jailed for petty crimes during the British Raj’s fag end claimed to be in jail for fighting for India’s freedom. For all we know, if the Senior Khan did go to jail ever for something remotely related to Nation building, it could be very well as a Muslim League member, demonstrating in support of Pakistan. We don’t count Mohammad Ali Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan as India’s freedom fighter, do we? Finally, one’s lineage alone does not determine the course of life for others. Quite a few of the ULFA terrorists have come from exalted families of freedom fighters. That did not or has not prevented them from running a war against the Indian Nation. This is not to insinuate that Shahrukh has the welfare of any other Nation at the cost of the Indian Nation in mind, but the logic presented by him can be as illogical as possible.
While violence and force cannot be condoned, boycott is a very legitimate form of protest, be it against publicity seekers or those who actually stand for a cause. It is a shame that our intelligentsia have been unable to find more reasonable causes to defend.
No comments:
Post a Comment