|
|
| |
instep
analysis
Reality bites the dust
The carnage in Mumbai resulted in major melodrama across the
border that, if truth be told, reminded one of a bad Bollywood film
By Muniba
Kamal |
| |
Mutual
fascination society
The attack on Mumbai hit many Pakistanis harder than 9/11. The carnage
lasted a lot longer for one, and on the other hand the fact remains
that Bollywood and Mumbai are closer, to both our homes and hearts,
than Hollywood or New York will ever be. |
| |
 |
| |
In
Pakistan, we are all to familiar with Bombay, even if we have never
travelled there. We've visited it via Bollywood. We've seen the city
on our TV screens, for years on pirated DVDs, and recently in our
cinemas where Indian films at long last are coming legally. We know
Mumbai as home to superstars we love as much as Indians do. From Dilip
Kumar and Madhubala to Shahrukh Khan and Kajol, we have avidly followed
their films. One can safely say that Pakistanis are the most rapt
audience Bollywood will find anywhere. If Madhuri and Kajol have been
my favourite Indian actresses, my grandmothers loved Nargis and Meena
Kumari and my mother was a huge fan of Sharmila Tagore.
Even as India and Pakistan have often stood daggers drawn, glowering
at each other across the Line of Control in times of trouble, Bollywood
carried on its cultural invasion of this land of the pure, creeping
in through the (made in Pakistan) Trojan horse of piracy. Since then,
things have gotten better and the beginning of the 21st century has
seen a cautious corridor of communication open up between us two historically
warring neighbours. Aamir Khan has been here to raise funds for Imran
Khan's hospital. Mahesh and Pooja Bhatt have come to Karafilm and
taken Meera and Atif Aslam back to India with them. Arjun Rampal,
Shilpa Shetty and Urmila have been to the Carnival De Couture while
Faiza Samee has built up a loyal clientele across the border. We have
been delighted to host Indians and they have been thrilled to be here
and vice versa. India and Pakistan have a mutual fascination that
has just barely begun playing out. Or should one use the past tense
here? 'Had..." |
| |
Relationship
ruptured: The blame game begins
Seeing the terrorism in Mumbai unfold was like watching an action
packed thriller come to gruesome real life. That it ran for
well over three days compounded the affect of the attack. As
we watched Mumbai caught up in the wave of terror unleashed
by urbane young men with back packs, we couldn't help but draw
parallels between what happened in Mumbai and the umpteen Bollywood
films on terrorism that have come out in recent years. The song
'Zara hat ke, zara bach ke, yeh hai Bombay meri jaan' played
in many a Pakistani head. |
 |
|
| |
The attackers
all seemed to be in their 20s, dressed like city boys in polo
shirts, cargo pants and khakis. They were definitely 'metrosexuals'
in urban terminology. One even wore a t-shirt that with Versace
emblazoned on it.
"Thank God it doesn't say 'Karachi'," quipped a friend
after the attack while we watched the reruns of the CCTV clips
of the rampage interspersed with Indians hurling accusations at
Pakistan.
The boys took over the city with a fury never seen before. They
opened indiscriminate fire at a train station, held and killed
hostages in Mumbai's landmark hotels, targeted a Jewish centre,
flung grenades into crowds and fired when they exploded. It was
guerilla warfare within a major city conducted by very young men
who were shockingly well-trained killers. They looked nothing
like the bearded, war-hardened Al-Qaeda operatives caught in Pakistan
or Afghanistan. They sported the look of boys one finds in the
more upscale areas of Asia's urban cities. They could have been
from Pakistan. The fairer ones could have been from Kashmir on
either side of the border or even from Chechnya. Or they could
have been from India itself. If one were to draw a parallel with
Bollywood, they remarkably resembled the characters of Rang De
Basanti, a film that in retrospect seems to foretell how a group
of armed young men could take an institution hostage and employ
the media the situation generated to send a message out to the
world at large.
In Pakistan, we soon found ourselves under fire as 'the perpetrators
of the Mumbai carnage'. That was a surreal experience –
one that put every Pakistani's back up. It may not have been completely
unwarranted (we do have militant Islamist organizations) but then
again, so does India. Their flags fly over the slums of Mumbai
that Simi Garewal in her now-famous faux pas mistook for the Pakistani
flag... and so she recommended that Pakistan be carpet bombed
on television! Of course, Indian media later rectified the error
and she apologized. But since one's back was up, one couldn't
help but observe that the Islamist flags flying over the slums
of Mumbai speak volumes for the marginalization of Muslims in
India. And one couldn't help but note that while Simi Garewal
so freely made this faux pas, no Bollywood actor, Muslim or Hindu,
refuted her. It is easy for Hindus to point fingers at Muslims
in India, but it doesn't seem to work the other way.
|
| |
 |
| |
The
plot thickens
India may have come a long way but is it a secular country yet,
is what was debated across Pakistan as our eyeballs were glued to
our television screens. And since Bollywood is the yardstick by
which Pakistanis judge India, then we note that Yusuf Khan had to
change his name to Dilip Kumar to be accepted as an Indian hero
but the Khans that follow in his footsteps (Shahrukh, Aamir, Salman,
Saif) can use their Muslim names today. One point to India. And
then we read blogs by fundamentalist Hindus demanding the Khans
go "back to Pakistan". Minus one for India. We see Abhijeet,
who has always been anti-Pakistani reiterate the demand that our
artists be banned from working there. Another minus one. And there
is seasoned broadcast journalist Barkha Dutt spewing a 'Pakistan
did it' diatribe without any proof. Another black mark against the
world's biggest democracy.
We were infuriated by the immediate impulse of Indian media to put
the blame on Pakistan on the very day the carnage began. They took
it for granted that the team of terrorists that brought Mumbai to
a grinding and bloody halt rowed there in a dinghy boat armed with
enough ammunition and explosives to last for four days. "It's
as implausible as the plot of a bad Indian film," scoffed a
friend. "As if anyone could pull this off without help from
people within Indian borders."
It was the same friend with whom one had laughed out loud at the
shenanigans in Dostana just days earlier. As we watched dead terrorists
pointed out as Pakistanis by Indian journalists, we agreed that
they, in a momentary lapse of reason, seemed to think that no terror
network exists on their soil.
Take
a long hard look at yourself
The films of Bollywood tell a different story. The bhai log in India
have been well-documented in the many Ram Gopal Verma and Mahesh
Manjrekar films like Company, Sarkar and Vaastav. People are actively
recruited from Mumbai's many slums to join the infamous underworld
that is involved in drug trafficking, prostitution and terrorism.
The recruits are both Hindu and Muslim. When the world doesn't open
up to you, the underworld often does. It's a universal story. The
bhai log of India, the hood in America, the gangs in London and
the militants in Pakistan have that in common – they are marginalised
people. And real depictions of their tragic descent into violence
have been few and far between in India. It's better for the box
office to glamourise the underworld via shoot-em ups with raunchy
item numbers thrown in. |
| |
There have
been few landmark Indian films that tackle the core causes of
militancy in India. Gulzar's Maachis comes to mind, which was
a superb comment on the roots of terrorism, set against the
Sikh insurgency of the 1980s. Then there have been excellent
films on the Naxalite movement like Govind Nihalani's Hazaar
Chaurasi Ki Maa and more recently Sudhir Mishra's Hazaaron Khwahishein
Aisi. These were art-house films that got critical acclaim,
were seen by a few and went largely uncovered by the Indian
press. If compared to the Abhishek-Aishwarya wedding, they hardly
got covered at all. Glamour and stars are the staple diet across
the border and this is what you need to make terrorism palatable
there.
|
 |
|
| |
So you have Aditya Chopra's glossy Fanaa that gave the freedom movement
in Kashmir a rather glamorous face via a love story between Aamir
Khan and Kajol. The film ended on a clichéd patriotic note
with Kajol (who plays a Kashmiri girl) killing Aamir (who plays
a Kashmiri freedom fighter and so a terrorist according to the Indian
state) when she discovers who he really is. Out of all the films
mentioned on militant movements within India, Fanaa was the biggest
hit, probably because it kept all the key ingredients of classic
Bollywood (simple story, superstar cast, lilting music, colourful
cinematography, sentiments of Indian nationalism) and used the issue
of terrorism as a backdrop against which they could play out.
In Fanaa, Zooni's (Kajol) life in what we Pakistanis call Occupied
Kashmir is restricted to a house where she lives with first her
parents and then her father and son. There are no checks by the
Indian authorities, none of them ever seem to have been either questioned
or harassed by the army. Aditya Chopra creates Kashmir within an
utopian bubble, all snowfall and clear blue skies with no sign of
the All Parties Hurriyet Conference or the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation
Front. There is no room for real life characters like Yasin Malik
in mainstream Bollywood and neither is there any place for the more
moderate views of Mirwaiz Omer Farooq. There is no room for the
Naxalite movement in Bollywood either, nor is there room for the
communalism that afflicts India. It may be explored in films like
Parzania and Mr and Mrs Iyer but first the box office and then Indian
media marginalise these efforts. However Shahrukh Khan developing
six pack abs for Om Shanti Om is guaranteed to make front page headlines
there.
"Let's
play down our divisions and do the dandia"
No wonder the Indian press floundered so badly when faced with the
mayhem in Mumbai. The urge in the biggest democracy in the world
is to escape. Their flourishing film industry has taught them how
to be masters at that. And unfortunately, it is still escapism that
the bastions of Bollywood are advocating, even after the proverbial
bubble has literally burst.
In an article titled 'No Shootout at Colaba please!' noted Indian
film critic Subhash K Jha writes: "How many of the recent films
on terrorism helped diffuse bombs? If the legacy of reform limps
to a roadblock in our cinema then isn't it better to just make escapist
entertainers rather than pretend cinema can change the world? But
why should our entertainers go into a shell at a time when civilisation
is wounded? Give us more of your skills with escapism. Please don't
make movies about mayhem and terrorism. Let cinema be a vehicle
for entertainment only. As a tool of social reform it has failed
miserably."
At the same time, the Indian information ministry issues an advisory
that apart from exhorting the media to not replay the gory scenes
of the Mumbai carnage also includes the directive that "News
coverage should project that India is a global power which has the
full support of the international community."
The Indian press, Indian cinema and the Indian government are allies
in creating the mirage of Shining India. And as much as one loves
the escapist cinema produced on the other side of the border, one
can't help but feel that it is this collective urge of India to
escape from its own problems that led to the assault on Pakistan
that came way before any concrete evidence had been found and carries
on way after any concrete evidence has emerged. The only link in
the long bloody chain of the Indian carnage was the one that the
media called "the baby-faced terrorist" and who (conveniently
enough) turned out to be 'Pakistani'.
The
villain of the piece
He prowled the train station in Mumbai in grey cargo pants and a
black t-shirt, a massive backpack and a rifle at the ready. The
Indian media couldn't decide on his name for days. Muhammad Amin
Kasab, Azam Amir Kasav and Azam Amir Kasab were all names attributed
to him in various new reports on channels and in print. The accounts
of his story also varied, some made him out to be a boy from a middle
class family, others said that he was recruited by militant Islamists
while working as a petty criminal in Lahore. Yet another said that
his father had made him join a militant organization for a fee to
feed the family.
Indian media reported all this and more, hoping to outdo each other
with exclusives. There were obviously a lot of Indian police and
intelligence personnel giving away radically diverse 'facts' as
unnamed sources, probably for a fee. Media is big business in India
and the terrorism in Mumbai was definitely the event of year. With
so many talking heads striving to make their mark, to break some
news, they got the story so horribly jumbled that one can't separate
fact from fiction anymore. Well that's understandable, Bollywood
barely manages to put a reality check on their storylines. It's
only natural for the Bollywood–obsessed Indian media to follow
suit.
At the time of this going to press one is waiting for the young
terrorist's story to get even more confusing. The Indians have decided
to subject him to Narco analysis, a dubious sounding process where
he will be administered a drug they call the 'truth serum' that
will make him cast aside his inhibitions and come out with the 'truth'.
This process is discredited in countries like the US and UK because
the drugs used can make the subject hallucinate. Yet this process
is what the Indians proclaim will make him 'sing like a canary'.
We can safely bet that once again all fingers across the border
will point right at us. India is as predictable as its cinema. |
| |
|