Cinema often holds a mirror to society. Remember those macho ‘war’ films of the 1990s: the Gaddars and the Borders that glorified the army and projected Pakistan as the permanent enemy. Both films were huge hits: perhaps reflective of a time of war and terror. Now, in a relatively more peaceful period we perhaps have the first Hindi film, Haider, which is mildly sympathetic to the cause of Kashmiri azaadi, where it’s the army which is posed as the ‘occupying’ force. Vishal Bharadwaj maybe attempting an Indian Hamlet but the very fact that he bravely chose the valley’s complex society as the backdrop reflects the times in which we live. My sense is that a decade ago, he might have found it tough to have any takers for the film. Now, in 2014 it seems the audience is willing to see even a militant sympathiser as a tragic romantic hero.
Ok, so we do have the usual suspects who have called for a boycott of the film. And not surprisingly, the boycott call only gives the film extra mileage: all publicity is good publicity for a film. The boycott appeal is stupid: much like those who routinely call for banning books or stopping a play. If you dislike a film intensely, the best option is not to see it. We do still have a censor board in this country that is better placed to make such decisions. Whether a film is ‘anti-national’ can’t be decided by a vocal minority. It is a sign of a maturing society that is able to accept and appreciate different points of view. Unfortunately, there will always be those who arrogate to themselves the right to decide the content of ‘nationalism’: many of them populate social media so their presence seems disproportionate to their real numbers. The silent majority still just wants to go and watch a good film. May their tribe increase!
