[Reader-list] Police stops screening of Jashn-e-Azadi]

[rashneek kher]

I am a Kashmiri Pandit myself so let me first clear a couple of things
before we move to his movie or its screening/not screening.

Kashmiri Pandits were branded as pro-establishement or Hindus and thus
selectively killed and targetted.The fact that we were born as Hindus wasnt
in our hands(and no apparent sin,I guess) and second that I wish to make it
abundantly clear was that though we saw ourselves as Kashmiris who wanted to
stay with India,but we were largely neutral,because we wanted to stay clear
of trouble.

The Aazadi which we are made to believe is a fight for freedom from
India(partly true) was essentially a communal movement wherein targetting
religious minorities was one of the objectives,which eventually they
succeeded in.The slogan for independence was "Azadi ka matlab kya...La Illah
la illahla).Tell me which Hindu even ones like me who are all for
independence of Kashmir,would endorse that.

Now whether the movie should be banned or not.Has it been allowed in the
first place.Why doesnt Sanjay Kak like Ajay Raina or Ashoke Pandit get a
censor certificate for the movie.Then no one can stop it.So no matter how
good a driver you are if you are driving without a license,one day you are
bound to get caught.So thats what happened.Sanjay was so over confident
about his driving that he thought he would avert the law or maybe flout some
of his good contacts when the need arises.

Having said that I wish that everyone gets to see his movie.What he
shows/dont shows is his right.No one can order him on what to show but then
the basic underline in the movie is who are the
protoganists.Esssentiallythe movie revolves around Yasin Malik(a known
terrorist,a dreaded killer)
which is another difference between the movies mentioned by you as against
this one.His presence at the screening irked many especially a person whose
relative Yasin Malik is believed to have killed.

I am no patriot myself so i cannot answer on behalf of Indians but as a
nationalist Kashmiri I do feel that it would have been better had Kak left
Pandits alone in his movie rather than presenting statistics which were
factually incorrect,probably presented mischeviously to add insult to
injury.

As one of one friends wrote to him,every coin has two sides and any coin
with just one side is a counterfiet and ought to be rejected.Sanjay's
responses or way of handling criticsm hasnt been exemplary.He wrote nasty
mails to people who criticised his movie.One would expect better ways of
handling from a mature man.

On one hand Sanjay wants freedom of expression for his movie,yet his blog is
moderated.Isnt that laughable....

Do see other points of view here

http://kashmiris-in-exile.blogspot.com

Maybe then you can choose for yourself.


-- 
Rashneek Kher
http://www.nietzschereborn.blogspot.com


On 8/7/07, Vedavati Jogi <vrjogi at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 'Since I am neither an Indian nationalist or patriot nor a
> Kashmirinationalist or a patriot, I find it difficult to say which variety
> ofnationalims and patriotism should be given more importance. Both seem to
> be sentiments that attach to different configurations of territory. Ihave
> tried for many years to work out a set of  evaluative criteria bywhich
> sentiments that attach to one configuration of territory can bejudged
> against sentiments that attach to another configuration ofterritory. If you
> give value to any sentiments that attach themselves toany bits of territory,
> I cannot quite understand why or how you woulddeny other people their
> sentiments to the bits of territory that theylay claim to. How can we call
> one more valid than the other? I do nothave an answer to this question. Does
> anyone else on this list have asatisfactory answer?'  -  Shuddha
>
> ................................................................................................
>
> I will try to answer this question,
>
> Imagine a situation, 10 people, say your friends or distant relatives come
> to your house & start staying with you, they expect you to accomodate them
> permanently, they expect you to do everything for them, they try to do away
> with your wife's/mother's authority & establish their supremacy in the
> kitchen.
> And ultimately they ask you to leave your house & take refuge
> elsewhere.......... Can you afford to be liberal in this case? Will you not
> try to protect the rights of your wife/mother?
> Be honest & give me the reply!
>
> These guests are outsiders and you will definitely try to throw them out.
> In a way you are showing narrowmindedness but you can't do without that.
> Because that is not in your family's interest.
>
> Same thing is applicable to your nation.
> 'Nationalism means doing everything which is in the interest of your
> country' (e.g killing terrorists in Kashmir or flushing out Bangladeshi
> Muslims from Bengal or Assam.)
>
> Still if you say that 'you are neither a nationalist nor a patriot' then I
> am sorry to say so, but you have no right to stay in my country!
>
> Vedavati
>
>    > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:06:29 +0530> From: shuddha at sarai.net> To:
> reader-list at sarai.net> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Police stops screening
> of Jashn-e-Azadi]> > Dear All,> > I have been following with interest the
> thread that began a few days ago > on the Reader Listregarding the
> interrupted (or should I say prevented) > screening of Sanjay Kak's
> documentary film 'Jashn-e-Azadi' in Mumbai, > courtesy the Mumbai Police. It
> appears from the actions of the Mumbai > Police that that the citizens of
> Mumbai are more in need of protection > from various kinds of stimuli than
> those of us who have happily sat > through more than one screening of the
> said film in Delhi, and in > Srinagar without any harm being done to our
> minds or bodies.> > I am not writing to defend the film here, because I
> think a film, or any> work of art does not need a 'defence'. A film, or a
> work of art, or any> instance of communication is not an accused in a
> criminal court, we are> not attorneys, advocates and lawyers, a mailing list
> is not a court. I> am more interested in trying to think through some of the
> issues that> have been addressed in various postings.> > Those who have
> called for a ban on the film, or have endorsed the> Mumabai Police's
> actions, or have written angry mails protesting about> its screening
> basically have the following arguments, and I will list> them all. Do
> correct me if I miss any.> > 1. The film is one sided, it does not
> (adquately) represent the point of> views of displaced Kashmiri Pandits.> >
> 2. The film gives space to people that some of the correspondents on> this
> list consider to be 'terrorists'.> > 3. The film is not patriotic or
> nationalistic.> > I do not disagree with any of the above points. (though I
> have a> qualified disagreement on point 3, to which I will come later). But
> even> if all three points are agreed to, I still see no reason why the>
> automatic response to them has to be a call for a ban. Or for a>
> vilification of the filmmaker.> > Since it appears (or at least that is what
> I have been given to> understand) that we live in a nominally free and open
> cultural space,> there should be no problem at all for anyone to make films
> that they> think best represents the position that they hold. Either we
> agree that> this is the case, or we agree that your 'freedom of expression'
> has to> stay within the narrow limits of what is permissible under the
> world> view of Indian nationalism. In which event it does not remain freedom
> of> expression any longer, rather it (the capacity to be expressive) turns>
> automatically into a monopoly that only Indian nationalists can enjoy.> > In
> any case, nothing stops, or has stopped till now, anyone from making> any
> film that -> > a). adequately represents the points of view and experiences
> of the> Kashmiri Pandit community> > b) gives adequate space and
> consideration to those gentlemen in and out> of uniform who unleash terror
> on the majority of the population of the> Kashmir valley> > c) that oozes
> patriotism or nationalism from every frame> > (On this point I have a slight
> qualification to make, it seems to me,> that there would be some, though not
> by any means all, perhaps mainly> Kashmiri nationalists and patriots, who
> would not be disturbed by> 'Jashn-e-Azadi'. So it is inaccurate to say that
> the film has to be> rejected if you are a nationalist or a patriot. It all
> depends on which> kind of patriot or nationalist you are.)> > Since I am
> neither an Indian nationalist or patriot nor a Kashmiri> nationalist or a
> patriot, I find it difficult to say which variety of> nationalims and
> patriotism should be given more importance. Both seem to> be sentiments that
> attach to different configurations of territory. I> have tried for many
> years to work out a set of evaluative criteria by> which sentiments that
> attach to one configuration of territory can be> judged against sentiments
> that attach to another configuration of> territory. If you give value to any
> sentiments that attach themselves to> any bits of territory, I cannot quite
> understand why or how you would> deny other people their sentiments to the
> bits of territory that they> lay claim to. How can we call one more valid
> than the other? I do not> have an answer to this question. Does anyone else
> on this list have a> satisfactory answer? Does anyone even know if a
> satisfactory answer lies> within the realm of a theorectial or a practical
> possibility.> > But this is a debate that we can continue on some other
> occasion, at> least for now, let us return to the film that is exercising
> everyone so.> > So, those who are so disturbed by 'Jashn-e-Azaadi', might
> think about> how they can make their own film instead of trying to ensure
> that one> that exists is canned. Similarly, those people in Kashmir, Iran,
> the UK,> Indonesia, India, Egypt and Syria who stage spectacles calling for
> the> assasination of Salman Rushdie, or Taslima Nasrin, or the authors of a>
> batch of cartoons drawn in bad taste, might consider writing their own>
> books, or drawing their own cartoons. Killing an author or banning a> film
> or a book results in a net diminishing of cultural material.> Writing a book
> to argue against one that exists, or making a film to> counter another point
> of view, (even if jejunely) at least results in an> incremental addition to
> the body of cultural material available in> society at any given time.> >
> After all, Sanjay Kak, the maker of 'Jashn-e-Azadi', did not, as far as> I
> recall, call for bans on documentary films that were considered to> give an
> 'adequate' representation of Kashmiri Pandit experiences - like> 'Tell them
> the tree they have planted has now grown' or 'And the world> remained
> silent' . (In fact I do not remember any discussion of whether> such films
> should be banned.) I also do not remember any obstructions by> angry slogan
> shouting young men of films that have given more than> adequate
> representation to the foot-soldiers (formal and informal)of the> Indian
> state, engaged in fighting terror (and non-terrorist civic> action) with
> terror in the Kashmir valley. Nor has anyone, to my> knowledge, asked for
> feature films like 'Roja', 'Dil Se', 'Mission> Kashmir'. '16 December',
> 'Fanaa', 'Sheen', 'Maa tujhey Salaam' (and I> could go on, because there is
> an emerging sub-genre of the 'Kashmir'> film in the Bombay film industry) to
> be banned - all of which are set in> Kashmir, more or less all of which are
> explicitly sympathetic to the> Kashmiri Pandit point of view, all of which
> ensure that 'militants' are> portrayed in a purely negative light, and all
> of which are more than> adequate exemplars of Indian nationalism and
> patriotism. Needless to> say, several of these films were critically well
> received, granted> 'entertainment tax exemptions', awarded with state
> honours and applauded> in the media. The chances of your film doing well if
> you toe the Indian> state's line on Kashmir are quite high, so it would be
> some amount of> dissimulation to suggest that films sympathetic to the
> predicament of> Kashmiri Pandits, or generally supportive to the Indian
> state's claim on> the territory of Jammu & Kashmir, are somehow marginal,
> silenced,> censored, obscured expressions. An objective assessment and audit
> of the> kind of films that have been made on Jammu and Kashmir over the
> last> twenty odd years would show evidence quite to the contrary.> > If the
> culture we all participate in (as partisans, protagonists,> spectators,
> producers and bystangers) is so willing to accept the> presence, circulation
> and adulation of one point of view, (the Indian> nationalist, explicitly pro
> Kashmiri Pandit position on J&K) which in> fact has a dominance, a near
> monopoly on the representation of the issue> of Jammu and Kashmir, at least
> as far as the moving image in India is> concerned, why then, is it so
> difficult for this cultural milieu to> tolerate the presence of one or two
> or maybe three films that try to do> something else?> > A film is not a
> bomb. A film is not an unsheathed sword. A film is an> argument in words and
> images. If the dominant argument in words and> images have the lion's share
> of attention, then what is wrong in another> kind of argument in words and
> images making itself known. Or is there an> actual anxiety that the case of
> the dominant argument is so flimsy that> the mere presence of one or two
> films that act otherwise will blow their> cover?> > Remember, the post 1947
> history of Jammu and Kashmir is taught neither> in India, nor in Pakistan,
> nor in Kashmir. In such a climate, it is very> easy for flimsy arguments to
> rule the roost. In such a climate it also> becomes necessary for those who
> live by those flimsy arguments to try> and stop anything else that happens,
> by any means necessary. Such as> calling the Mumbai Police to stop the
> screening of a film. I know that> similar things happen in Bangladesh or
> Pakistan when documentary films> about the fate of the Ahmediya community
> are sought to be screened.> > I remember having been present at more than
> one screening of a film such> as 'Tell them the tree they have planted has
> now grown' or having sat> through film after Bollywood film that bedecked
> itself with the fake> blood of fake Kashmiris. I saw no reason to call the
> police. I saw no> reason to raise slogans in or outside the auditorium, or
> to try and> obstruct the possibility of a reasonable discussion. Did anyone
> on> the list try and call the police, genuflect to the censor board, or
> make> a noise, or try and obstruct a screening when any of these films were
> shown?> > If those of you on this list who are endorsing obstructions to
> the> screening of 'Jashn-e-Azaadi' did not object to the screening of all>
> those films that have entertained us with the agenda of the Indian> state,
> then I think that it is only fair, reasonable and decent that you> either
> let films like "Jashn-e-Azaadi' be screened, without interruption> or
> obstruction or, as a logical corollary to your concern for the> sentiments
> of those affected by the conflict in Kashmir, call for a> moratorium on any
> form of expression, including your own, that takes any> stance (or even no
> stance at all) on the issue of Kashmir. It may be> possible that different
> kinds of people can find different nuances of an> impoverished and pared
> down dignity in the ensuing silence.> > It will be more respectful than the
> clamour of your words today.> > with regards,> > > Shuddha> > > > > > > > >
> > > > Nishant wrote:> > > Police stops radical film on Kashmir > > > >
> Disrupt screening of Jashn-e-Azadi at Bhupesh Gupta Bhavan on suspicion that
> the documentary may be provocative and inflammatory > > > > Mumbai police on
> Friday disrupted the screening a radical film on Kashmir called
> Jashn-e-Azadi on the suspicion that the feature-length documentary could be
> "inflammatory and provocative." The 2-hour, 18-minute long documentary,
> directed by Sanjay Kak, was just about to begin when cops barged into the
> Bhupesh Gupta Bhavan at Prabhadevi and seized all the dvds. > > > > "We were
> told that the documentary is provocative and inflammatory. Therefore we
> requested the organisers to let us watch the movie before it was screened",
> Deputy Commissioner of Police, D N Phadtare, told Mumbai Mirror. But getting
> the cops to play censor was not acceptable to the show's organisers, Vikalp.
> "We told them in that case it would not be possible to allow them to screen
> the film and confiscated the DVDs," said Phadtare. > > > > Ironically,
> Jashn-e-Azadi, which has already been screened in Bangalore and Delhi,
> without anybody getting inflamed or provoked, explores the implications of
> the struggle for Azadi in the Kashmir Valley. As the blog on documentary (
> http://kashmirfilm.wordpress.com) says: In : In 2007 India celebrates the
> 60th anniversary of it's Independence, this provocative and quietly
> disturbing new film raises questions about freedom in Kashmir, and about the
> degrees of freedom in India. > > > > When contacted director Sanjay Kak
> said: "I've been holding a number of private screenings across the country
> for filmmakers and other interested viewers to start a conversation about
> the film and get feedback. The Osian film festival in Delhi was the first
> and only public screening we've had. The screening today was in a private
> property for a small group of invitees. Vikalp got a call in the morning
> from the police asking for a copy of the film. When we landed at the venue
> there was a battalion of cops and they asked us not to screen the film. When
> we told them to watch it with us they were not willing," said Kak, adding
> that the cops refused to tell them who had filed the complaint or what the
> problem was. "All they were willing to say was, 'hamare seniors ka order
> hai,' and till they had seen the film they could not allow us to go ahead,"
> he said. > > > > (Source: Mumbai Mirror)> > > > > >
> ___________________________________________________________> > Yahoo!
> Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it> >
> now.> > http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ > >
> _________________________________________> > reader-list: an open discussion
> list on media and the city.> > Critiques & Collaborations> > To subscribe:
> send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the
> subject header.> > To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > > List archive: <
> https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>> > > > >
> _________________________________________> reader-list: an open discussion
> list on media and the city.> Critiques & Collaborations> To subscribe: send
> an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject
> header.> To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: <
> https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The idiot box is no longer passe!
> http://content.msn.co.in/Entertainment/TV/Default.aspx
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>




-- 
Rashneek Kher
http://www.nietzschereborn.blogspot.com