There are some lessons which the ordinary Indian teaches which are unambiguously clear. One of them is the extraordinary success of Shah Rukh Khan-starrer Pathaan. In spite of open calls by some groups to boycott the film, and attempts to burn its posters and picket cinema halls screening the film, the audience came in droves, making the film a super blockbuster, and perhaps the biggest opening of any Bollywood film in recent times.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) National Executive meeting on 17 January that party workers should not make unnecessary comments on films, was a welcome dampener to the irrational extremism of some within his party. The PM said that these kinds of unnecessary controversies ‘overshadow the good work being done by the party’. His remark was thus both pragmatic and timely, not only because such boycott calls are unproductive and, in the long run, only damage the party’s interests, but also because it reined in the hotheads in his own party, and brought great relief to members of the film industry, and the creative and artistic fraternity as a whole.
It is important to analyse the reasons behind those who wanted to boycott Pathaan. Narottam Mishra, the Home Minister of Madhya Pradesh, was, as usual, the most aggressive. He told journalists: “The outfits that have been worn in the song are prima facie highly objectionable. It is clear that polluted minds are behind filming this song. In any case, Deepika ji has been a supporter of the tukde tukde gang in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) incident. That is why I would like to request that they should correct the visuals of the song, correct the costumes, or else the permission to release this film in Madhya Pradesh (MP) should be given or not is a thinkable question.”
This kind of statement raises several questions, especially since it is directly in variance with what the PM said. First, if Deepika visited JNU to meet with its protesting students, and the BJP was unhappy that she did, her action must be fought politically. What has this to do with what she does as an actress in a film? Second, what exactly is a ‘polluted mind’? Do ‘flimsy’ or ‘provocative dresses’ pollute minds? If so, whose? More importantly, is this the first time that actresses in India have worn such ‘outfits’? Mishra ji needs to see other films, including where those where the female protagonists are strong supporters of his party, or surf the increasingly popular and ubiquitous OTT channels, to realise that there is no dearth of ‘polluted minds’ in our country who still enjoy a great deal of popularity and acceptability. Mishra’s sexual squeamishness would also make much of Hindu architecture, poetry, prose, painting and sculptures — a remarkably great legacy — the creations of ‘polluted minds’.
Even more significantly, there are legal and constitutional issues of great importance involved here. Our films need to get official clearance before they are released. The designated body to do this is the Central Board of Film Certification, which is a statutory film certification body in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It is tasked with ‘regulating the public exhibition of films’ under the Cinematographic Act, 1952. This Act outlines a strict certification process for commercial films shown in public spaces.
Films shown in cinemas or on TV are cleared by this apex authority and edited in accordance with its directions before being shown publicly. If this is the duly laid out legal process, can anybody prevent or ban the screening of a film through violence or the threat of violence or, even worse, misuse of official powers, after that film has duly got clearance from the statutorily designated body for this purpose? Moreover, the Censor Board is currently headed by a well-known poet, film lyricist and thinker, Prasoon Joshi, who is by no means averse to the ruling party. Why doubt his and the Board’s collective and considered decision?
The PM’s salutary intervention also served other purposes. The regressive ‘boycott culture’, hanging like a Damocles sword over the film industry, will no doubt lose some of its bullying swaggers. Second, the PM has correctly realised that boycott calls only serve to increase public curiosity to see what is sought to be banned and make more people watch it. That is what has exactly happened with the ham-handed decision to prevent accessibility to a recently released BBC documentary, which brought up facts and issues that were already in the public realm for long, with nothing new to attract a large viewership. But the attempt to block it had exactly the opposite effect. Many more people saw it because, quite simply, in today’s age of technology, it is near impossible to block anything.
The success of Pathaan also makes clear that popular support is not influenced by the religion of an actor. In the aftermath of the Partition, and the memory of Hindu-Muslim discord, the great thespian Yusuf Khan felt it would be wiser to change his name to Dilip Kumar. Today, Shah Rukh Khan can proudly say My Name is Khan and yet receive the adulation of Indians as a whole with no concern for his religion. Salman Khan and Aamir Khan, who were also sought to be stigmatised by some quarters, are the other two who rule India’s box office.
Finally, a key takeaway from the success of Pathaan is that what the PM says greatly helps in reigning in those who seek to take the law in their own hands. Perhaps he should speak more often in order to ensure Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas.
The author is a former diplomat, an author and a politician. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Read all the Latest Opinions here
Comments
0 comment