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
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.
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.
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.
This has led to arguments between various factions all over the country.
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.
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?
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.
The questions raised appear to be culture versus patriotism.
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.
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.
This also might be considered a way to pressure these representatives to speak out against the mistakes in their system.
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?
History is a proof that banning the cultural entities of a place and time have deprived people of a rich tradition, literature and knowledge.
But if the decision is taken based on such a view, then it seems like we are not standing with the country's interests.
While this is a complex predicament, it is sad that some people are simply trying to make use of the situation to their advantage.