Nadav Lapid called the movie 'The Kashmir Files' a propaganda movie while making his comments at the International Film Festival of India 2022 held in Goa last month. I'm not going to talk about the resulting controversy and eventual apology by Mr. Lapid. He was not only disrespectful of the freedom of speech of director Vivek Agnihotri but conducted his jury duty unprofessionally by taking a political stance.
I'm only interested in the accusation of propaganda that Mr. Lapid so casually hurled at 'The Kashmir Files'.
 |
| The Kashmir Files |
What is propaganda?
The best definition that I could find is available on a website called https://disinformation-nation.org/how-propaganda-works/ where it defines propaganda as 'an agenda' to promote a specific cause or ideology to a 'targeted audience' and a 'massaged message' which may alter or omit the facts. Propaganda can take various forms of communication to propagate the agenda. And especially, a propaganda film is made with the intent that the viewer will adopt the position promoted by the propagator and eventually take action toward making those ideas widely accepted.
That perhaps was the purpose of the 1933 film, Hitlerjunge Quex, where a young boy is inspired by Hitler's youth but indulges in communism and eventually "sacrifices" himself for the "cause". This film is currently classified as 'Vorbehaltsfilm' or a conditional film as it glorifies war, racism, or hate speech. Was the film, Black Hawk Down, a propaganda film? Hollywood is well known to promote soft propaganda on behalf of the American military establishment.
 |
| Propaganda Movie |
And the current communist dispensation of China is leveraging Hollywood for keeping the Chinese audience aligned with the communist tenets. It's not directly using propaganda but ensuring the home market is not exposed to anything that may be uncomfortable, controversial, or portrays China in a bad light. A good article on Chinese censorship of Hollywood is available here. So much so that actor John Cena apologized to China for calling Taiwan a 'country'. Now that's Hollywood propaganda not only within the film but outside too.
Is 'The Kashmir Files' a propaganda film?
It's a subjective question unless you primarily focus on the negative connotations associated with any kind of propaganda film. After all, Schindler's List was criticized by arguing "the fact that the movie, really, is about a Christ-like gentile who saves a horde of hapless Jews who have no agency or resolve of their own… makes 'Schindler's List' not just one of the most ham-handed Holocaust films ever made but also, peculiarly, one of the least Jewish in sensibility."
I watched Schindler's List a long time back, since I'm not of the Jewish faith, my opinions on Holocaust are based on my study only, and with no cultural connection, my sympathies to the victims are based on my personal capacity as human and associated morals. I was impacted at a human level by the tragedy portrayed in the film.
 |
| Schindler's List |
And I think the same benefit should be given to 'The Kashmir Files' as it showcases the impact of an ideology on the Kashmiri minorities and most importantly only dramatic liberty it takes is to use the real horrible tragedies on fictional characters (out of reverence for the original victims). So I don't agree with Mr. Lapid's opinion at all.
Are the events in 'The Kashmir File' real?
Here is where an ideological stance needs to be thrown outside and a purely analytical approach should be taken. There is enough evidence available in newspaper reports and personal stories to support all the events portrayed in the film.
Our Moon has Blood Clots: The Exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits is a 2013 memoir by Indian author Rahul Pandita. He discusses his own personal experience as a refugee thrown out from his ancestral land of Kashmir, residing as a refugee in Jammu and eventually New Delhi. This is one such mainstream example of the tragedy the Kashmiri Pandits had to suffer.
Some people (who are real and have families) lost their life due to ideology-driven terrorism: Girija Kumari Tiku and Judge Neelkanth Ganjoo to name a couple of such victims. This website recognizes and remembers all such victims. The Nadimarg massacre is right there in front of us, where religious ethnicity was used to target mass killings in a single-family including a toddler.
 |
| Nadimarg Massacre |
This "separatist movement" has continued to take more lives this year where targeted killings of Kashmiri Pandits were all over the news.
The Unnecessary Questions of Whataboutery
There are ideologues who will indulge in whataboutery to point out it's not just Kashmiri minorities that have been killed. But the counterquestion would be - what kind of "separatist movement" targets minorities unless it's driven by religious idealogues, not a political one?
Secondly, some may indulge in the ludicrous argument of India as an occupier of Kashmir. Then they are wilfully denying the legality of the instrument of accession that was signed by numerous princely states to confirm their intention to either accede to the state of India or Pakistan. The ruler of Kashmir signed the same in 1947.
Thirdly, all proponents of separatism should explain why the Kashmiri Pandit issue is not on the table for any dialogue with any party on Kashmir (and Jammu and Ladakh). The likes of Mehdi Hassan should be asked why he wilfully ignores the plight of Kashmiri Pandits and is hellbent on a narrative that shows the Indian army as anti-human rights. Can they ask the same of Pakistan on the so-called "Azad Kashmir"?
Fourthly, why should Jammu and Laddakh be forced with the same solution as Kashmir (after all Article 370 was abrogated for all these three regions)? The former are Hindu and Buddhist majority areas that acceded to India as part of the Instrument of Accession that was signed for Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh. Does it imply that Kashmir is "disputed" just because the religious nature is distinct? So essentially it's a division of India on communal lines?
Even the flimsy counterarguments by Al-Jazeera can be easily disproved using the works of Sunanda Vashisht and Rahul Pandita (author of the book 'Our Moon has Blood').
A Brief Timeline of Kashmir
Pre-history of Kashmir - no date available
It is mentioned in Vanaparva of Mahabharata that Pandavas spent some time in Kashmir during their long exile
Indus Valley Civilization & Kashmir - 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE
In Akhnoor, which is located on the right banks of the Chenab River, artifacts unearthed after excavations included pre-Harappan and Harappan red ware such as jars, dishes, goblets as well as copper artifacts, bone arrowheads, terracotta bangles, cakes, chert blade, etc.
Buddhism - 273–232 BCE
Ashoka came to Kashmir with 5,000 Buddhist monks to preach his newly embraced religion, Buddhism. He founded the capital town of Srinagar (City of Wealth) around 250 BCE at Pandrethan, where a centuries-old temple in the middle of spring still exists in excellent shape (the present-day Badami Bagh cantonment area)
Kushan Dynasty - 100–631 CE
Kanishka of the Kushan dynasty from Gandhar ruled northwest and parts of central India, with his capital at Purushapur, the present-day Peshawar. He held the Great Council of Buddhists (also called the Fourth Buddhist Conference) at Kanishpur in Kashmir.
Shams-ud-Din Shah Mir - 1339 CE onwards
Beginning of the establishment of Muslim rule in Kashmir. Sultan Sikandar (also known as Butshikan i.e. iconoclast) 1389 CE to 1413 CE.
This is just a brief history of Kashmir, a detailed version is available in the book 'Kashmir: Its Aborigines and their exodus' by Col Tej K Tikoo.
 |
| Kashmir: Its Aborigines and their Exodus |
Conclusion
Mr. Lapid's comments were needless and politically motivated. If a film about Kashmiri Pandits highlights their suffering it doesn't imply it's denying other tragedies. Any film script focuses on a key thought that forms the background of everything else. It's a film, not a thesis that has to show all points of view (in fact 'The Kashmir Files' does have a long elaborated scene on the separatist's point of view).
Unless Mr. Lapid is implying that the film should be boycotted as it doesn't support the leftist narrative and he firmly believes in the non-existence of freedom of speech. Otherwise, I don't see any objection to a film that portrays factual events with utmost sensitivity and honesty. And all the hate speech against the film should be investigated before anyone forms an opinion on basis of a broad brush stroke by the left ecosystem.
Comments
Post a Comment