The debates and incidents related to Karan Johar’s film, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil, and tussle in the Samajwadi Party reflect deep-seated realities of our society and polity
Is this explosive firework ahead of DiwaliIJ In a curious coincidence, in past 10 days, we have been spectators to two chaotic discourses, from cinema and politics, both laced with defiance and disdain. While the incidents, and debates around Karan Johar’s Ae Dil Hai Mushkil highlighted how popular culture can’t remain divorced from public sentiments, and politics, the fierce political fight of Akhilesh Yadav was symptomatic of the struggle between the new and the old. Both incidents may also manifest an inherent tussle between modernity and tradition, emotion and reason, and the old and the new, that Indian society has been witness to forever.
Johar’s film, which features Pakistani actor Fawad Khan, had come under attack by the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), a regional political outfit led by Raj Thackeray. While this was clearly a case of anti-Pakistani emotion overpowering reason, it also highlighted a compelling reality of modern times — that politics and political parties had transgressed the conventional domains and embraced new idioms, punctuated also by the need of its constituencies. That Raj Thackeray is an astute politician has never been doubted. In a rapidly urbanising India, Raj Thackeray has stuck to a rather old idea of safeguarding traditional cultural symbols, including self-pride. The opposition to Johar’s film is a form of symbolic reassertion of the primacy of national interest and pride over cultural experiments such as this film. The film pursues a modern value that an art form is secular, and doesn’t distinguish between artistes based on their nationalities. If Pierce Brosnan, an Irish superstar of Hollywood, can endorse a pan masala, a Pakistani Fawad Khan too can play a role of a cameo in a movie, many argued.
However, the opposition to the film was well thought-out, and provided an opportunity to Raj Thackeray, possibly for the first time, catapult MNS to national centre-stage of political discourse by riding on the issue of national pride. This could not have come at a more opportune time, when the sentiments against Pakistan is at its peak.
For the bunch of Indian liberals and intolerant brigade, this may border on jingoism, but for many, this is another form of political ideology. Those who have argued tooth and nail over the diversity of Indian ideas and ideology, should see reason in the arguments of Raj Thackeray. If Nitish Kumar and lalu Prasad can pursue an archaic caste-based politics, is Raj Thackeray wrong in pursuing a national pride agendaIJ
In lucknow, meanwhile, Mulayam Singh Yadav was pursuing a self-pride agenda. Over the past few months, we have seen a tug of war in the open of a father and a son, very rarely seen. Despite made to negotiate an imposed legacy of the old guard in the Samajwadi Party, Akhilesh over the years, managed to establish a unique identity for himself. He aggressively pursued a new, and more acceptable brand of politics of development and created newer constituencies that went beyond the traditional framework of his party. But the elder lot also wanted their own brand of politics to reflect in governance and political dynamics.
As politically savvy Akhilesh Yadav continued to be belligerent in his defiance, his elders may have viewed this as a breach of Indian traditional value which places a premium on unconditional reverence to elders. It all culminated in a sordid drama in lucknow on Monday. It brought into question the wisdom and incisiveness of Mulayam Singh Yadav, who has dominated the Hindi heartland and national politics for over 50 years now. On why the patriarch of Indian politics wanted to regain Uttar Pradesh’s political turf after pushing the new, and modern Akhilesh to the forefront five years ago, is a question that would continue to puzzle many.
(The writer is a strategic communications professional)