The debate over what should be done to Pakistani artistes working in India or what they should do, in the prevailing atmosphere, goes on. Meanwhile, in the media and elsewhere, sanity not jingoism must prevail
Should Pakistani film actors and musicians be prohibited from performing in IndiaIJ If that question means to ask whether a Government ban should be imposed on Pakistani artistes being given legal permission to perform in India and denied the requisite visa even if they fulfil all conditions, the answer would have to be a resounding “no”.
A battle against a country and regime is not a battle against an individual citizen — and it should never be. If there is suspicion that the money being earned by a particular Pakistani entertainer is being diverted for criminal or terrorist purposes, then of course the framework changes. In the absence of such corroborative evidence, a blanket ban by a Government is unfair and unbecoming of a liberal democracy.
If Governments should not ban artistes by nationality, do citizens and does civil society have the right to organise a boycott of Pakistani artistesIJ Would that be a society-imposed (as opposed to state-mandated) non-tariff barrierIJ In a free society, where freedom of artistic performance, subject to the usual limits of defamation and so on, is absolute, so is the freedom to boycott or demand a boycott. The crucial point is the state should not get involved.
In a sense, that has already happened in India, not so much in the film industry as in cricket. In January 2010, in the Indian Premier league (IPl) player auction, a number of outstanding Pakistani cricketers were among the candidates but not a single one invited a bid. There was no Government fiat, no advisory to teams not to bid for Pakistani cricketers. It was a business decision.
The IPl franchises were private entities, stakeholders in a substantial leisure business called the IPl and autonomous of the Government (as autonomous as businesses can be in India). A little over a year after the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008, they didn’t want the risk of hiring a Pakistani player who would suddenly become a hot potato — for no fault of his own — before an individual IPl match if the news environment and the India-Pakistan discourse before that individual match became unconducive.
As an IPl franchise official explained to this writer in 2010, “Nobody wanted the risk of security for one Pakistani player becoming more of a headache than providing security for the rest of the team. Or of a promotional campaign featuring the team’s stars, including as it happened a Pakistani, coinciding with news of a terror attack. In some centres, political parties or protest groups may have asked us not to play that cricketer for a game. Even the police could have advised it in the interests of public order. How could we have planned as a teamIJ”
What is being described above is not an ideal situation or one to be celebrated, but it is realistic. One has sympathy for film stars who have come from lahore or Karachi to Mumbai to carve out a career in the Indian film industry. They are following in the footsteps of giants who have taken the same route for close to a century; and long may the journey continue. These actors are citizens of Pakistan and have a loyalty to their country. They don’t want to be forced into unduly criticising it as that would not be fair on them and would embarrass them at home.
All of that is understandable. Yet, while these actors are answerable to a home constituency that can claim an ownership of them, they are also answerable to a constituency in the country of their work, which can similarly claim an ownership of them. The balance betweenjanmabhoomi and karmabhoomi is a delicate one, as any migrant knows, and it is up to the individual in the middle of the equation to find a satisfactory mean.
If a Pakistani actor is asked to repudiate his country to act in a Hindi film, it will be recognised as unbefitting of India. If the Pakistani actor is asked to criticise a terrorist attack on an Indian Army camp, it would appear to be a much more legitimate and straightforward ask. To duck that question is not an option allowed to that actor — at least not in these interrogative, media-overdone times, when a celebrity rarely has the luxury of offering no opinion. That is a hard verity that Pakistani artistes in the Indian film industry will have to square up to. They may want to avoid controversial choices, but controversial choices won't necessarily want to avoid them.
However, what is also obvious is that the move against Pakistani actors has not quite been an organic, grassroots one, constructed by activists, enraged citizens or even proxies for political parties, with the media dutifully reporting it. In fact, it has been largely manufactured and promoted by sections of the media in the manner of an inquisition. For the moment, this has been interrupted by the cross-line of Control surgical strikes and their aftermath. No doubt the rights and responsibilities of Pakistani actors in India will be back to dominate prime-time debates soon enough.
Adopting a clear-headed view, it is difficult to take the media outlets resorting to such hyper-nationalist editorialising — and in parallel almost exhorting the Government towards broadening physical conflict into a near-war — as a principled Right-wing position. The same channels and channel leaders have taken diametrically different positions at earlier stages.
Neither is there consistency between what senior editors and media owners say in private life (at social gatherings), on social media (for a cultivated ‘follower’ group) and through different news outlets of the same media company. This lack of uniformity can be decoratively described as ‘editorial freedom’ or the ‘blooming of a thousand flowers’. Actually it simply addresses different market segments and is directed at revenue maximisation.
That recognition cuts into credibility. In the media space, as elsewhere, the opposite of a hypocritical, humbug left, cannot be a fancy-dress, buffoonish Right.
(The author is distinguished fellow, Observer Research Foundation. He can be reached at malikashok@gmail.com)