Pakistan’s film industry might be on the verge of a revival, but the government isn’t helping in any way. With the recent ban on Maalik, the question is whether it really is essential for the government to step in where it isn’t needed. In the aftermath of Panama Leaks, the ban might make sense from the government’s point of view but this is an ostrich-like approach.
The Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC) took cue from the government’s decision to ban Maalik, and banned the Lal Masjid documentary Among The Believers. Hemal Trivedi and Mohammed Ali Naqvi’s hard-hitting and award-winning documentary that shows the real face of mullahs would never have been shown in the cinema circuit but would have been ideal for festivals and gatherings where like-minded people would have appreciated its content and production.

As for Maalik, the flick’s plot is closer to reality -- corrupt politicians are shown as corrupt politicians; their evil henchmen are depicted as evil henchmen and the hapless voters are portrayed as hapless voters. The realism is what hit the government officials hard three weeks after the film’s release. First, Sindh government banned it (the film was taken off screen after a few hours) and later the federal government banned it as well.

But isn’t it the right of a filmmaker to use creative license and knit a story around something that happens in our society -- what goes on in the corridors of power and why the most deserving candidate usually doesn’t win? I stand with Maalik, because whenever filmmakers have tried to be different, they have paid the price.

W.Z. Ahmed’s Roohi (1954), which showed an unmarried poor man and a rich married woman as lovers became the first flick to be banned by the Censor Board. The board believed that the film hinted at the socialist ideology whereas it was reflective of our society. The film was released after heavy editing but was confiscated by the Co-operative bank as the producer was unable to repay the loan he had taken for the film.

What if I told you that Tere Bin Laden wasn’t allowed to grace screens in Pakistan because it made fun of the then-alive Osama Bin Laden? Or that Neerja wasn’t presented to the Censor Board because the distributors feared that the audience might reject the flick as it was set in Karachi, Pakistan? Didn’t the incident featuring Indian airhostess Neerja Bhanot happen in Pakistan nearly 30 years back? Didn’t she receive an award for her bravery from both India and Pakistan? If the incident was depicted accurately, the film should have been allowed to screen in the country.

Trust me, the Pakistani audience knows how to appreciate a good film. They didn’t mind when Shootout at Wadala was banned because of its obscene language -- it could have been rated A18 and released rather than not released at all. Those who wanted to see the second adaptation of Dongri to Dubai waited for the DVD or Torrents and watched the banned film in the comfort of their homes.

What was the use of replacing Kashmir with heroine’s name Firdous in Fitoor? The leading man’s "Firdous Maango Gay To Cheer Denge" looked more of a lawn advertisement than the serious issues of the Occupied Valley. Furthermore, why was the intense scene between Aditya Roy Kapur and Katrina Kaif censored when similar interaction between lesser known actors Pulkit Samrat and Yami Gautam was allowed in Sanam Re? Was it because Katrina Kaif is a Muslim or because the Board wanted to chop scenes off?

Can’t we term the removal of 786 from the title of Khiladi 786 as immature, the chopping off of Azaan from Life of Pi or the initial banning of ABCD -- Any Body Can Dance -- where a Hindu and a Muslim dancer were left as final contestants (and the Muslim one lost!). One of the world’s most famous horror flicks in the world -- The Exorcist -- has an Azaan in the initial frames; thank God it wasn’t released under the current setup or that would have been chopped off as well.

Yes, I agree with the banning of GI Joe II: Retaliation in which the US soldiers came to Pakistan and were framed for the murder of Pakistani President; Kai Po Che was banned since its climax revolved around Hindu-Muslim riots of Gujarat (India) but what was the logic of trimming scenes in Akshay Kumar’s Airlift?

Airlift was based on the real-life evacuation of settlers in Kuwait who lost their jobs and possessions during the first Gulf War. Those people’s rescue by Indian Airlines and their happiness on getting the temporary ‘Indian’ passports in Jordan was edited because of the song, Vande Mataram in the background and the raising of the Indian flag onscreen. Seriously? If the censor board had an issue with the movie they shouldn’t have edited it; they should have banned it as that would have saved money for the audience who felt cheated watching an edited flick instead of a full movie.

The ticket should be less for such movies if you ask me because when you can’t guarantee full entertainment, why should the audience pay in full?

If the government can’t fund the films, can’t recognise the industry and can’t help cinema owners solve their issues, then it has no right to ban a film that has been passed by the censor board.

Maalik may be a lot of things but it’s a film against corruption and the people who clapped inside the cinema were more in number compared to those who left the flick midway. If the ban isn’t lifted, many filmmakers will be left to ponder their own future as any film might get banned, even if the resemblance to reality is unintentional. What’s the use of the disclaimer that appears before every film claiming that the resemblance may be accidental rather than intentional?

Isn’t Batman a vigilante like Major Asad of Maalik; didn’t London Has Fallen embarrass the many heads of state who were assassinated on screen? Weren’t the biharis made fun of in Prakash Jha’s Jai Gangajal recently? If those films can enjoy a decent run in Pakistan, so can Maalik -- it helped evoke patriotic elements in us Pakistanis -- something the government hasn’t been able to do in a long time!