Culture vs. Country: Uri attack, a ban and a dilemma!
- Is it possible to solve all problems between the two countries by banning actors, singers and cultural representatives of Pak in India?
- People believe when it is a matter of the nation, nothing should be compromised
- What is the solution? Is there any solution at all, analyses Shashi Sampalli, columnist with Kannada Prabha
Â
No stones have been left unturned to prove Pakistan as a terror-generating country. Even Bollywood is being used as a tool in this regard.
Â
The argument has arisen that Pakistani artists should be banned in India. The discussion turned into action when the Maharashtra Navanirman Sene (MNS) demanded a ban on Karan Johar’s Ae Dil Hai Mushkil as Pakistani actor Fawad Khan played a major role in the film.
Â
Well aware of the power of MNS, the Indian Motion Picture Producers Association and Cinema Owners, Exhibitors Association have decided not to release this film across various states.
Â
This has led to arguments between various factions all over the country.
Â
Some argue that is it possible to solve all problems between the two countries by banning actors, singers and cultural representatives of Pak in India.
Â
But if that was the case, how will Prime Minister Narendra Modi justify his visit to Lahore for the wedding of Pak Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s grand daughter’s wedding?
Â
Countering this, others ask how India can support artistes who have not spoken a word against the inhuman strike on Indian soldiers at Uri? When it is a matter of the nation, nothing should be compromised, they say.
Â
The questions raised appear to be culture versus patriotism.
Â
The point to be noted here is that, be it Bollywood or any film entity, it is no longer a representation of cultural values. It is a business (with some exceptions). The box office game is more important than its cultural projection. So a global business must run like one.
Â
On the other hand, a ban on actors, singers and cultural representatives is one way to put pressure on a country supporting terrorism at the global level.
Â
This also might be considered a way to pressure these representatives to speak out against the mistakes in their system.
Â
However, we should also consider the reality that these cultural representatives live in a system under the control of leaders propagating fear. What about their safety back home?
Â
History is a proof that banning the cultural entities of a place and time have deprived people of a rich tradition, literature and knowledge.
Â
But if the decision is taken based on such a view, then it seems like we are not standing with the country's interests.
Â
While this is a complex predicament, it is sad that some people are simply trying to make use of the situation to their advantage.