Shiban Khaibri
It sounds strange that one sided version or picture of any problem should take prominence rather than producing the other side of the matter through any mode of communication. This country has been cherishing rich traditions and espousing the cause and the importance of human rights because the edifice of the Indian way of life is based on compassion and empathy. We have given to the whole world, the message of love, peace and the importance of mutual co- existence, not only right from mediaeval ages, but even quite much before. Ashoka the great, got too much rattled and moved seeing the spilling of blood from both sides in the battle of Kalinga (Orissa) that he avowed to renounce the very concept of war and even forbade killing of animals despite heading one of the most powerful largest empires of the world at the time, say nearly 2300 years ago. He laid stress on what he called the Dharma, meaning not rituals or mere prayers or worship only but righteousness and high commitment to upholding the importance of morals, religious tolerance, non violence and social concerns. So, no one can question or teach us the importance of Human values and rights.
Should, therefore, we ever try to portray one sided version of some problem either to gain cheap popularity, or for garnering votes or even for pecuniary gains and publicity and even overlook the broader national interests, security concerns and more importantly, the supreme sacrifices made by our valiant armed forces in defending the country from the enemy within and outside both? How much unfortunate can there be a situation when an officer of our army is decorated on Jan 26 this year with a medal for devotion to duty and demonstrating high courage and exemplary bravery fighting mercenaries of Pakistan in Kashmir, gets martyred the next day. He was Colonel M. N. Rai, the CO of the Rashtriya Rifles. When his family was in deep shock and the nation was proud of its brave heart and one with the grieving family, the event and in particular the timing should warrant some traitors eulogizing the terrorists and call them as martyrs. The Kashmir separatist leader Syed Geelani chose the occasion “blaming” the Indian government for the Tral incident where a gun battle resulted in the martyrdom of Col. Rai and the Police Head Constable Sanjeev Singh. He said not a word for these two martyrs, instead glorified terror, calling the eliminated two terrorists as martyrs, “the Kashmiri boys preferring taking guns in their hands to taking (noble) jobs.” Can Geelani justify at any cost and by any account mocking the pain of the affected families, the widows, the orphaned children and especially when the hero of the incident was being laid to rest? Does he not know how these agent saboteurs of Pakistan have been killing wantonly, even innocent civilians, men women and children ever since the proxy war of terror was exported by Pakistan to Kashmir in 1989-90? Does he or his ilk hawks ever think to go in for some self introspection of how they radicalized the otherwise gentle and peace loving youth of Kashmir and how these elements created a sort of hospitality industry for such senseless killers in Kashmir who kill their own army and police personnel duty bound to protect their dignity and honour and save them from and bring succor in natural calamities like the recent Kashmir floods etc? How can the traitors gloat the furtiveness of senseless terror that has brought all round ruin and destruction only and is no substitute to resolving political problems even the created ones? By no logic, can the slayers be epitomized as some ones fighting for some cause and glorified per se. Those espousing the “cause” of such elements on so called human rights violations or distorting the real causes behind this uncalled for violence based on hate and prejudice to benefit a country which has totally failed as a theocracy and whose creator, Mr. Jinnah is on record having agreed that to be “his biggest mistake in life”, must realize the futility of engaging world’s fifth most powerful army in encounters here and there in Kashmir. The peaceniks and their lobbies, the Human Rights “protectionists” must refrain from projecting one sided picture only to keep them relevant and sustainable.
Supreme Court of India has taken a serious note of this one sided mentality and even expressed serious concern over such movies and documentaries on Kashmir which give only one version of the issue. Organizations of any hue and “activists” cannot be allowed to project their own tailored view point rather than the real factors, the cause of a particular effect. Prejudiced views articulated by some so called champions of human rights are nothing short of travesty of the truth and must be fought outright. Film Censor Boards cannot always extend a long unbridled rope to the producers of half true or one sided movies or documentaries of any national problem having ramifications on the national security and the morale of the security forces. The apex court has questioned “whether it has become fashionable to depict only one side of the story in movies”. The bench comprising Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice C. Nagappan were convinced to ask the same in the open court. The bench was hearing a petition filed by Pankaj Butalia, a film maker who had prayed for the court’s intervention about the stand of refusal by the country’s Censor Board to clear his documentary on Kashmir, named as “Textures of Loss.” The Film maker had challenged the decision of the Censor Board to delete certain portions from the movie under reference. Any movie projecting the “view point” of terrorists, anti national elements, secessionists, separatists and hate mongers can do no justice with the much hyped promotion of art and creative literature or narrative craft all hovering round bouts of imaginations. We have trains of such documentaries and even movies on insurgency in Kashmir where deliberately the tilt has been brazenly towards evoking sympathy for the so called “cause” of the terrorists or the picture projected contrary to the factual position. If the guts to show the truth and only the truth are in utter deficit for fear of losing the expected vast pecuniary gains and to remain well protected and nurture no fears from reprisals as terrorists’ first motto is to silence criticism, then better not make a film on the subject at all, chose other topics or sell peanuts to make an honest living.
The documentary under reference features interviews of people who unluckily lost their dear one because of the unwarranted and uncalled for violence in Kashmir. It is reported that some interviews have connotations of belittling the country and more so, the role of the army, while many have spoken about some jihad. While the Censor Board rightly resorted to some scissoring in the documentary, the Film maker justifies his stand as “merely depicting opinions”. While he lost before the appellate body, he sought “relief” from the Apex Court which opined, “Why is it one sided? Where is the alternate picture? We don’t know why it has become fashionable and a question of human rights to talk about one side of a story.” The Court further observed, “Rights are always conferred on two parties and not only on one of them.” Dismissing the petition, the court observed that when a film maker goes on to show only his point of view, it remains his view since as per the Apex Court, “if you have not taken the view of the other side, then it becomes the views of the producer or the director.”
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel