Haider is a modern-day adaptation of William Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet, set amidst the insurgency-hit Kashmir conflicts of 1995 and civilian disappearances. Whether it is script, songs, cinematography, dialogues or acting, the movie is par excellence, and does a great job in highlighting the misuse of AFSPA by the Indian army in the area. Given its primary focus on the human rights violations and abuse by the Indian armed forces in the region, the movie has received mixed reviews. While some have praised it for its bold move to highlight an important aspect of the Kashmir problem, others, particularly the Kashmiri Pandits and the armed forces, have criticized it for being one-sided, calling it "biased". In this paper, I analyze both these views, commenting on the strengths and limitations of the movie.
According to the director, Vishal Bhardwaj, "I am not making a political point. I am trying to look at the problem with a human eye through the turbulent life of a family. But at the same time, I haven’t turned the eye from political issues. AFSPA, half widows, is a step ahead of what our films have made of Kashmir problem. I hope the film will make audience rise above the jingoism and understand that the situation is not as simple as it is made out to be." Ironically, it is this complexity that the movie fails to depict. With its primary focus on AFSPA and its ramifications, the movie fails to present a comprehensive picture of the problem, presenting only one side of the issue. Several important aspects of the problem, including the plight of Kashmiri Pandits and the role of terror instigated by vested interests (Pakistan and separatists) against common Kashmiris, have been totally ignored in the movie. Moreover, several crucial events of the year, including kidnapping of foreign tourists by Al-Faran terror group (which led to their barbaric killing), and an encounter with terrorists groups such as notorious Mast Gul in Chrar-e-Sharief have no mention.
It is clear then that the movie lacks essential background information that would have made it balanced. However, is it necessary to include all of this information in the movie? Are the director and producer to be blamed? While I agree that more comprehensive background information would have helped to better understand and appreciate the overall picture, besides enhancing the ethos of the movie, it wouldn't be right to blame the directors and producers. The misuse of AFSPA and the human rights violations in the area are well-known, and have been discussed numerous times at international forums as well, including the United Nations. Thus, what has been depicted in the movie is factually correct, and is merely a representation of the unfortunate state-of-affairs. As regards excluding background information, I feel the Kashmir problem is so complex that no 3-hour movie can do complete justice to it. There will always be that one perspective that will go undiscussed. After all, there is a limit to the amount of information that a movie can depict effectively. Thus, it is not so much a fault of a particular director or producer as it is about an accurate depiction of a very complex issue on the screen. What is required, therefore, is a set of movies focusing on different aspects of the problem to provide viewers a comprehensive understanding of the issue, allowing them to draw their own conclusions. And, this brings me back to Karan Johar's vision for bollywood (as depicted in Bombay talkies), wherein it is now the time for the industry to use film as a medium to discuss important social issues and problems.
Besides limitations, there are several aspects of the Kashmir problem that are beautifully portrayed by the movie. For instance, I found Haider to be very effective in highlighting the dilemma and confusion that Kashmiris face in their daily life. By using the beautiful but stark autumnal/wintry landscape, Bhardwaj is able to invoke a sense of bleakness and doom, grief and gloom that represents Kashmir today. The reinterpreted "To be or not to be" soliloquy-“Shaq pe hai yakeen to, yakeen par hai shaq mujhe...Kiska jhooth jhooth hai, kiska sach sach nahin...Jaan loon ki jaan doon, main rahoon ki main nahin"-captures all of Kashmir’s dilemmas, suggesting that the suffocation, the doubts and suspicions, and the obfuscations and complications are as true to the inner world of Hamlet as to the people of Kashmir caught perennially in the midst of insurgency, counter-insurgency, terrorism, politics, local police and the armed forces. Haider's comment, “Poora Kashmir ek qaidkhana hai" (all of Kashmir is a prison) reflects the sentiments of a large number of people in the area.
The internal strife and conflicting perspectives can also be seen in the movie. For instance, during a conversation with his mother, Haider complains, "Har baar, har waaqiya, sirf appki palko he peeche se hi nazar aana chahiye hamesha? Kabhi to bhoole bhatke kisi aur ka nazariya dekhne ki koshish kijiye" (try to look at it from someone else's point of view too). Similarly, Parvez advises his daughter Arshia to stay away from Haider, saying "Mera nazariya bhi to dekhne ki koshish karo" (try to understand my perspective too). These statements are symbolic of the differences between people in the region, and the need for more understanding and tolerance. The army officer's reply that there is only one Islamabad for them-the one across the border, might also be seen as referring to the closed mindset of the Indian army.
Thus, while Haider does not paint an overall picture of the life in 1995 Kashmir, it does a commendable job in discussing one aspect of the issue-inner conflicts and the human rights violations.
According to the director, Vishal Bhardwaj, "I am not making a political point. I am trying to look at the problem with a human eye through the turbulent life of a family. But at the same time, I haven’t turned the eye from political issues. AFSPA, half widows, is a step ahead of what our films have made of Kashmir problem. I hope the film will make audience rise above the jingoism and understand that the situation is not as simple as it is made out to be." Ironically, it is this complexity that the movie fails to depict. With its primary focus on AFSPA and its ramifications, the movie fails to present a comprehensive picture of the problem, presenting only one side of the issue. Several important aspects of the problem, including the plight of Kashmiri Pandits and the role of terror instigated by vested interests (Pakistan and separatists) against common Kashmiris, have been totally ignored in the movie. Moreover, several crucial events of the year, including kidnapping of foreign tourists by Al-Faran terror group (which led to their barbaric killing), and an encounter with terrorists groups such as notorious Mast Gul in Chrar-e-Sharief have no mention.
It is clear then that the movie lacks essential background information that would have made it balanced. However, is it necessary to include all of this information in the movie? Are the director and producer to be blamed? While I agree that more comprehensive background information would have helped to better understand and appreciate the overall picture, besides enhancing the ethos of the movie, it wouldn't be right to blame the directors and producers. The misuse of AFSPA and the human rights violations in the area are well-known, and have been discussed numerous times at international forums as well, including the United Nations. Thus, what has been depicted in the movie is factually correct, and is merely a representation of the unfortunate state-of-affairs. As regards excluding background information, I feel the Kashmir problem is so complex that no 3-hour movie can do complete justice to it. There will always be that one perspective that will go undiscussed. After all, there is a limit to the amount of information that a movie can depict effectively. Thus, it is not so much a fault of a particular director or producer as it is about an accurate depiction of a very complex issue on the screen. What is required, therefore, is a set of movies focusing on different aspects of the problem to provide viewers a comprehensive understanding of the issue, allowing them to draw their own conclusions. And, this brings me back to Karan Johar's vision for bollywood (as depicted in Bombay talkies), wherein it is now the time for the industry to use film as a medium to discuss important social issues and problems.
Besides limitations, there are several aspects of the Kashmir problem that are beautifully portrayed by the movie. For instance, I found Haider to be very effective in highlighting the dilemma and confusion that Kashmiris face in their daily life. By using the beautiful but stark autumnal/wintry landscape, Bhardwaj is able to invoke a sense of bleakness and doom, grief and gloom that represents Kashmir today. The reinterpreted "To be or not to be" soliloquy-“Shaq pe hai yakeen to, yakeen par hai shaq mujhe...Kiska jhooth jhooth hai, kiska sach sach nahin...Jaan loon ki jaan doon, main rahoon ki main nahin"-captures all of Kashmir’s dilemmas, suggesting that the suffocation, the doubts and suspicions, and the obfuscations and complications are as true to the inner world of Hamlet as to the people of Kashmir caught perennially in the midst of insurgency, counter-insurgency, terrorism, politics, local police and the armed forces. Haider's comment, “Poora Kashmir ek qaidkhana hai" (all of Kashmir is a prison) reflects the sentiments of a large number of people in the area.
The internal strife and conflicting perspectives can also be seen in the movie. For instance, during a conversation with his mother, Haider complains, "Har baar, har waaqiya, sirf appki palko he peeche se hi nazar aana chahiye hamesha? Kabhi to bhoole bhatke kisi aur ka nazariya dekhne ki koshish kijiye" (try to look at it from someone else's point of view too). Similarly, Parvez advises his daughter Arshia to stay away from Haider, saying "Mera nazariya bhi to dekhne ki koshish karo" (try to understand my perspective too). These statements are symbolic of the differences between people in the region, and the need for more understanding and tolerance. The army officer's reply that there is only one Islamabad for them-the one across the border, might also be seen as referring to the closed mindset of the Indian army.
Thus, while Haider does not paint an overall picture of the life in 1995 Kashmir, it does a commendable job in discussing one aspect of the issue-inner conflicts and the human rights violations.
No comments:
Post a Comment