One political/religious outfit in Pakistan has gone to the court for imposing a ban on the screening of an Indian film Phantom. According to the petitioner, the film casts aspersions on the outfit and thoroughly undermines Pakistan’s national stand on Kashmir.
This is not the first time that tensions have arisen between the two countries over a film. This tit for tat exchange has been going on between the two countries, too insecure to come to terms with the legacy of partition. Cries have gone up from time to time to impose ban on films, books, literature and television channels. This is considered to be the safest way of protecting the interests of the people and the nation at large.
India is a big country and the output in terms of films, plays and literature is quite enormous comparatively speaking. It may be possible to ban a film or other products for circulation and distribution within the country but the jurisdiction of the Pakistani courts does not extend beyond the territorial frontiers of the country. The film will still be seen by millions all over the world as indeed any book worth its form and content will be read and television channels watched by many more across the globe.
Imposing a ban may have limited and short-term benefits but stands as no adequate measure to counter the propaganda campaign by the ‘enemy’ country with great amounts of resources and talent that is better managed. What really is needed is to produce quality films and books which will be seen and read by people across the political divide, appreciated for what’s in them rather than their interpretation in a very narrow sense of right and wrong.
Actually, any ban or restriction is always good marketing strategy for selling a product. People or the general public is listless, but the moment the media picks up an issue and begins to clamour for its ban for some nefarious content that it may contain, the number of potential buyers increases exponentially. Statistics have proved time and again that restriction and censorship push sales many times over, mostly through the black market where the coffers of the mafias get filled at the expense of the legitimate returns expected by the state exchequer.
But this narrow reading and extracting a purpose closer to one’s design is also the characteristics of the age that we are living in. Probably it was always there but more muted or that the international media with its outreach has transformed it into a constant drumbeat that cannot be escaped. The screens are full and constant with replays of the same endlessly, giving the viewers no escape to think, ponder and evaluate. It is like a call to arms with the viewers seen as robotic zealots on the cue, quick to respond to the call with great degree of vengeance.
As the four hundredth death anniversary of Shakespeare draws near -- that is next year -- the interest in the bard is being kickstarted with all that is controversially relevant for the age. For centuries, the controversy has been whether he really wrote all those plays. Many outcomes have been offered and many a contemporary name thrown up as being the real authors. That debate or inquisitiveness has not ended and may be reignited with great deal of flames lapping the skies next year. What it actually ignites is the ordinary man’s inability to come to terms with genius.
But, in the prelude to his anniversary, it appears that the major areas of concentration are the role of women in Shakespeare and his treatment of non-white characters. Feminists more or less agree that the attention paid to male characters is far greater than paid to the female ones and Shakespeare be damned for it. He is constantly being contrasted with other playwrights of his era and many have ended up with higher ratings and recommendation than him.
Recently, a festival was held in London of the Elizabethan playwrights other than Shakespeare and many plays, some by Wesbster, were seen as treating women with greater confidence, throwing open many more choices for them than the bard could ever hope to offer.
Similarly, across the world, particularly people who are non-white are particularly critical of the way he portrayed the character of Othello and also of the division in Tempest between Ariel and Caliban, the latter black and so evil and representing the darker side of life. There is a lively debate across the African continent, especially in the countries once dominated by the British, whether it is healthy to teach Shakespearean prejudice and slur to students for proper and impeccable upbringing. Black or those born black were considered untrustworthy, disruptive and symbols of the subterranean. Those prevalent meanings or references were never challenged by Shakespeare if he glorified humanity at large which comes in all hues. He maintained the dominance of the white man and called it the civilizing elixir as against the disintegrating poison of the black.
For one’s taste, it is too narrow a reading of the works of Shakespeare and reminds one of the canon of what is feudal/bourgeois, Islamic/un-Islamic in the unrevelling of one’s own heritage.
It should be noted at the same time that Shakespeare is thought to be relevant and that is why he is being analysed threadbare or actually put through the hairsplitting regimen, even if the totality of the vision is being sacrificed at the altar of individual, national, racial or gender agendas.
The god that is denounced or at least questioned plays as significant a role as the one that is worshipped. For, hatred is another name for love -- the real opposition lies in indifference.