The Indian media and the political community seems to be enmeshed in selective amnesia and churns out discourse and myths which helps the cause of film stars owning cricket clubs and reinforces an one dimensional idea of India.
The recent attempts to create a moral hype and hoopla over Hindi film star Shahrukh Khan’s comments on the non-inclusion of Pakistani cricketers in the IPL vindicates the dangers of sectional and partisan interests whether business or sheer primordialism gaining credence. Shahrukh has maintained that he had commented on this issue in his individual capacity. This observation has certainly no sectarian overtones and rather is in consonance with the understanding that in commercial sporting events like the IPL players should be selected on the basis of their skills rather than nationality. The commercial logic to his comments is also understandable given Shahrukh’s business venture in the sports of cricket with high stakes in Kolkata Knight Riders.
However what is significant is the discourse which seeks to design a wider platform for Shahrukh with a section of media and political parties supporting him by seeking an unwarranted endorsement from the civil society on broader issues like democracy, secularism and nationalism which got unwittingly incorporated into the present controversy. Shahrukh as a sports entrepreneur had invoked merit rather than identity in pure commercial ventures like the IPL which has cricketers of all hue are auctioned and bought by various clubs participating in a mammoth corporate cricketing extravaganza. It is certainly bereft of any nationalistic or even jingoistic agenda for it’s a sporting extravaganza between the private clubs having players of various nationalities.
Interestingly Mr Lalit Modi, CEO of the IPL stated that the exclusion of Pakistani players was based on business logic rather than any other considerations and vehemently denied any role of the Manmohan Singh’s government in this issue which also flared up the diplomatic circles in Pakistan.
Now what is more interesting is the kind of interpretation and ideological legitimacy the major players have tried to invoke. Firstly the Shiv Sena a regional party with its influence confined to regions of Maharashtra took umbrage to khan’s observations on the ground he had endorsed cross border terrorism emanating from Pakistan and that he was inconsiderate to the victims of terror in Mumbai – 26/11. They went to stoke the political fire after meekly retreating from their verbal tirade against the inclusion of Australian cricketers in the IPL teams in response to more than 100 racist attacks on Indians. Shiv Sena maintains that inclusion of Pakistani cricketers or remorse over their exclusion is “anti-National” and an act of anathema towards the victims of terror and particularly anti-Marathi in manifestations.
Secondly the Indian National Congress seeks to maintain a flip flop strategy and usually endorses viewpoint which seeks furtherance of their political dividends irrespective of it catering to sectarian goals. While the quixotic Home Minister at the centre lambasted terrorism selectively, he also regretted the ‘omission’ of the Pakistani cricketers but raised the tempers on the diplomatic front – setting conditions for improving relations with Pakistan. While ignoring the issues like lack of governance and militarization of the society he had upped the ante on issues like Naxalism notwithstanding issues like prevalence of feudal political economy and its impact on the social structure in the countryside. The congress led patron-client political order had collapsed and the attempts to use misplaced notions of modernity and its subsequent influence on citizenship and rights of the English speaking urban centric Indian middle class.
So in other words we may come across nobody speaking on the prevalence of caste or religious based segregation between various communities or even violence based on primordial identities in the game of cricket.
Moreover to extrapolate Shahrukh’s comments in the sphere of people to people talks or post 26/11 normalization of diplomatic ties between India and Pakistan is fraught with its own limitations. What could be unraveled in the present scenario is an intelligent war of words and a marketing strategy which could be a case study for PR firms. ‘My name is Khan’ certainly has grand business propositions wherein the common Indian viewers are insignificant given the overseas revenue generated by the contemporary commercial Indian cinema.
Preceding the forthcoming release of ‘My name is Khan’ was also a different issue which was sought to be enmeshed in the usual dialectics of the west vs Islam. Shahrukh Khan was detained last year at the Newark airport in the US and questioned. He chose to hoist this issue on a national level with English media trying to heckle the Indian government and political parties raising the bogey of an alleged Muslim victimhood. Interestingly the same media houses displayed an inexplicable silence when Tamil actor Kamal Hassan was detained for five hours in an airport in the United States. So was the case of other personalities of the Indian film industry like Neil Mukesh, or Kabir Khan who had been detained and questioned on the basis of suspicion. This is has been rather very peculiar as in this context the hype over Shah Rukh Khan whom his supporters would like to project as a world icon yet selectively deploy his Muslim identity in the deliberations revolving around the post 9/11 world order.
Kamal Hasan is rather branded as a Tamil star notwithstanding his Indian identity and his detention in the New York airport is brushed aside for it seen as something parochial and to particular extent peripheral. The Indian media chose to turn a Nelson’s eye when Ravi Shankar, associate professor of English and poet-in-residence at Central Connecticut State University was arrested and bundled into the prison on a weekend.
The events of 9-11 have altered the discourse concerning mainland security in the United States and subsequent events have transformed the way we used to perceive modern warfare and contemporary terrorism. This has also witnessed the emergence of security centric state apparatus wherein national security, preemptive strikes and random questioning as well as detentions are on the rise. The move by the US to profile people from 13 countries at the airport is a step influenced by post 9/11 paranoia however this development also highlights the vulnerability of the superpower as agents of terror continue to emit shock and awe through new converts as encountered in the recent Delta Airlines episode.
The idea of India as attributed by the bollywood as the new Hindi film generations like to identify themselves, represents an involutedly image of Hindi centric discourse wherein anything that subscribes to the Hindi linguistic domain is viewed as national, legal and rational.
Ironically the contemporary Hindi language of the Mumbai film industry that confronts the rest also suffers from blissful ignorance of the lived experience of the majority of the Indian masses cutting across the regional and cultural divide. The present age of globalization as viewed by the industry has also obliterated the traditional role of Urdu lyricists and musicians and has embraced the digital music churned out from the west. The very idea of a Hindi identity in the Mumbai films are that of a anglicized moron, business tycoon or a corporate patriarch engrossed in straddling between the present i.e. anglicized world and the old one i.e. former yet partly present self.
While many people including 'some khans' had been questioned but lacked political connections to be bailed out easily within two hours. Khan was fortunate to have a friend who is an office bearer in the cricket bureaucracy, a nondescript politician with reasonable influence, who flashed the SOS signals to the Indian political establishment and resolved the issue.
Ironically the discourse on racial profiling and sense of injustice was very subdued when news broke out about the former Indian President APJ Kalam's being frisked at the New Delhi international airport. So was the case about the frisking of the former Defense Minister George Fernandes during his visit to the United States.
Shahrukh’s voyage into the world of sports like cricket through IPL venture and hockey through cinematic interpretations have been invoked by the Congress as a welcome intervention for a robust civil society and by the section of media as valuable addition to the project of creating icons in a digital society. This incidentally is missing for people who are well established icons in the collective imagination of the nation if they are found to the other side of the camp i.e. affiliations with non Gandhi political families.
This is vindicated by the fact that Shahrukh’s tussle with Shiv Sena is viewed by the congress regime through the prism of politics over ‘secularism’ and defending a member of the minority. The Indian National Congress seeks to reclaim Shahrukh as a Muslim actor, which he has also subconsciously deployed in the present debate. The move by the congress-NCP government in Maharashtra to scan through the statements of the Sena in the last 15 days on its leader Rahul Gandhi as well as Shahrukh is another attempt to showcase Shahrukh the IPL cricket entrepreneur as a Muslim icon in distress. Shahrukh’s proximity to the younger Gandhis’ is very much evident when he invited them to watch a match in which KKR was playing.
Some questions still linger on as to what prevented Shahrukh and other ‘pacifists’ from bidding for a Pakistani player and what were the factors that were instrumental in making him appear sanctimonious, a week after the bidding process was over. Was it a simple act of pontification with business proposition or an eye to the much awaited release of ‘My Name is Khan’ which the star claimed as very special? As mentioned earlier the commercial logic certainly is a significant factor given the volume of the overseas revenue.
At the hindsight one may also be amused at the proclivity to bask in an ongoing discourse in the west i.e. the stereotype images of the Muslims and to drag Muslims of India into it irrespective of their own diversity and polyglot existence like any other Indian community. Subjugation of the marginalized and the assertion of the subaltern has always been a pertinent issue which has drawn adequate attention in India’s popular culture through the depiction various class and cultural conflicts. For a member of such marginalized sections such attempts to create a homogeneous frame of any community is a disruption from lived realities and self definitions of various groups, which would lead to another set of questions like why not ‘depict the realities confronted by 'My name is Paswan’ or a ‘Gond or a ‘Phoolan’.
Some time back Amitabh Bachchan was humiliated by Congress led government after initial talks with the Chief Minister of Goa who had invited him to inaugurate the film festival. He and his wife Jaya Bachchan were berated by Raj Thackhrey for cozying up to the development projects of the then government of Uttar Pradesh and for becoming brand ambassador of the state. Interestingly the same nondescript politician who is said to have facilitated Shahrukh’s social-political ties with the Gandhis’ has fired a salvo at Bachchan, criticizing him for choosing to become a brand ambassador for Gujarat. He went on to add that Bachchan might subconsciously end up supporting ‘vested interests’ by agreeing to endorse the development policies of the BJP led government of the state.
Such selective amnesia smacks of a selective intolerance, a notion of sanctity attributed to the present ruling party at the centre notwithstanding the fact that the cozying up of the Congress in favour of Shahrukh could but only facilitate catering to the vested interests of the Congress known to have conceived and carrying the burden of convoluted secularism and sectarianism in Indian nation.
In a nation of more than a billion people, foisting a discourse based on an individual’s likes and dislikes and seeking to validate sectional interests (Shiv Sena & Congress) as a universal one, would certainly rob democracy of its normative value.
The fillip by the media has certainly helped Shahrukh in addressing different audiences at the same time - creating cricketing bonhomie, basking on the general sympathy to strengthen his brand position and generate a grand opening for his latest film.
The recent attempts to create a moral hype and hoopla over Hindi film star Shahrukh Khan’s comments on the non-inclusion of Pakistani cricketers in the IPL vindicates the dangers of sectional and partisan interests whether business or sheer primordialism gaining credence. Shahrukh has maintained that he had commented on this issue in his individual capacity. This observation has certainly no sectarian overtones and rather is in consonance with the understanding that in commercial sporting events like the IPL players should be selected on the basis of their skills rather than nationality. The commercial logic to his comments is also understandable given Shahrukh’s business venture in the sports of cricket with high stakes in Kolkata Knight Riders.
However what is significant is the discourse which seeks to design a wider platform for Shahrukh with a section of media and political parties supporting him by seeking an unwarranted endorsement from the civil society on broader issues like democracy, secularism and nationalism which got unwittingly incorporated into the present controversy. Shahrukh as a sports entrepreneur had invoked merit rather than identity in pure commercial ventures like the IPL which has cricketers of all hue are auctioned and bought by various clubs participating in a mammoth corporate cricketing extravaganza. It is certainly bereft of any nationalistic or even jingoistic agenda for it’s a sporting extravaganza between the private clubs having players of various nationalities.
Interestingly Mr Lalit Modi, CEO of the IPL stated that the exclusion of Pakistani players was based on business logic rather than any other considerations and vehemently denied any role of the Manmohan Singh’s government in this issue which also flared up the diplomatic circles in Pakistan.
Now what is more interesting is the kind of interpretation and ideological legitimacy the major players have tried to invoke. Firstly the Shiv Sena a regional party with its influence confined to regions of Maharashtra took umbrage to khan’s observations on the ground he had endorsed cross border terrorism emanating from Pakistan and that he was inconsiderate to the victims of terror in Mumbai – 26/11. They went to stoke the political fire after meekly retreating from their verbal tirade against the inclusion of Australian cricketers in the IPL teams in response to more than 100 racist attacks on Indians. Shiv Sena maintains that inclusion of Pakistani cricketers or remorse over their exclusion is “anti-National” and an act of anathema towards the victims of terror and particularly anti-Marathi in manifestations.
Secondly the Indian National Congress seeks to maintain a flip flop strategy and usually endorses viewpoint which seeks furtherance of their political dividends irrespective of it catering to sectarian goals. While the quixotic Home Minister at the centre lambasted terrorism selectively, he also regretted the ‘omission’ of the Pakistani cricketers but raised the tempers on the diplomatic front – setting conditions for improving relations with Pakistan. While ignoring the issues like lack of governance and militarization of the society he had upped the ante on issues like Naxalism notwithstanding issues like prevalence of feudal political economy and its impact on the social structure in the countryside. The congress led patron-client political order had collapsed and the attempts to use misplaced notions of modernity and its subsequent influence on citizenship and rights of the English speaking urban centric Indian middle class.
So in other words we may come across nobody speaking on the prevalence of caste or religious based segregation between various communities or even violence based on primordial identities in the game of cricket.
Moreover to extrapolate Shahrukh’s comments in the sphere of people to people talks or post 26/11 normalization of diplomatic ties between India and Pakistan is fraught with its own limitations. What could be unraveled in the present scenario is an intelligent war of words and a marketing strategy which could be a case study for PR firms. ‘My name is Khan’ certainly has grand business propositions wherein the common Indian viewers are insignificant given the overseas revenue generated by the contemporary commercial Indian cinema.
Preceding the forthcoming release of ‘My name is Khan’ was also a different issue which was sought to be enmeshed in the usual dialectics of the west vs Islam. Shahrukh Khan was detained last year at the Newark airport in the US and questioned. He chose to hoist this issue on a national level with English media trying to heckle the Indian government and political parties raising the bogey of an alleged Muslim victimhood. Interestingly the same media houses displayed an inexplicable silence when Tamil actor Kamal Hassan was detained for five hours in an airport in the United States. So was the case of other personalities of the Indian film industry like Neil Mukesh, or Kabir Khan who had been detained and questioned on the basis of suspicion. This is has been rather very peculiar as in this context the hype over Shah Rukh Khan whom his supporters would like to project as a world icon yet selectively deploy his Muslim identity in the deliberations revolving around the post 9/11 world order.
Kamal Hasan is rather branded as a Tamil star notwithstanding his Indian identity and his detention in the New York airport is brushed aside for it seen as something parochial and to particular extent peripheral. The Indian media chose to turn a Nelson’s eye when Ravi Shankar, associate professor of English and poet-in-residence at Central Connecticut State University was arrested and bundled into the prison on a weekend.
The events of 9-11 have altered the discourse concerning mainland security in the United States and subsequent events have transformed the way we used to perceive modern warfare and contemporary terrorism. This has also witnessed the emergence of security centric state apparatus wherein national security, preemptive strikes and random questioning as well as detentions are on the rise. The move by the US to profile people from 13 countries at the airport is a step influenced by post 9/11 paranoia however this development also highlights the vulnerability of the superpower as agents of terror continue to emit shock and awe through new converts as encountered in the recent Delta Airlines episode.
The idea of India as attributed by the bollywood as the new Hindi film generations like to identify themselves, represents an involutedly image of Hindi centric discourse wherein anything that subscribes to the Hindi linguistic domain is viewed as national, legal and rational.
Ironically the contemporary Hindi language of the Mumbai film industry that confronts the rest also suffers from blissful ignorance of the lived experience of the majority of the Indian masses cutting across the regional and cultural divide. The present age of globalization as viewed by the industry has also obliterated the traditional role of Urdu lyricists and musicians and has embraced the digital music churned out from the west. The very idea of a Hindi identity in the Mumbai films are that of a anglicized moron, business tycoon or a corporate patriarch engrossed in straddling between the present i.e. anglicized world and the old one i.e. former yet partly present self.
While many people including 'some khans' had been questioned but lacked political connections to be bailed out easily within two hours. Khan was fortunate to have a friend who is an office bearer in the cricket bureaucracy, a nondescript politician with reasonable influence, who flashed the SOS signals to the Indian political establishment and resolved the issue.
Ironically the discourse on racial profiling and sense of injustice was very subdued when news broke out about the former Indian President APJ Kalam's being frisked at the New Delhi international airport. So was the case about the frisking of the former Defense Minister George Fernandes during his visit to the United States.
Shahrukh’s voyage into the world of sports like cricket through IPL venture and hockey through cinematic interpretations have been invoked by the Congress as a welcome intervention for a robust civil society and by the section of media as valuable addition to the project of creating icons in a digital society. This incidentally is missing for people who are well established icons in the collective imagination of the nation if they are found to the other side of the camp i.e. affiliations with non Gandhi political families.
This is vindicated by the fact that Shahrukh’s tussle with Shiv Sena is viewed by the congress regime through the prism of politics over ‘secularism’ and defending a member of the minority. The Indian National Congress seeks to reclaim Shahrukh as a Muslim actor, which he has also subconsciously deployed in the present debate. The move by the congress-NCP government in Maharashtra to scan through the statements of the Sena in the last 15 days on its leader Rahul Gandhi as well as Shahrukh is another attempt to showcase Shahrukh the IPL cricket entrepreneur as a Muslim icon in distress. Shahrukh’s proximity to the younger Gandhis’ is very much evident when he invited them to watch a match in which KKR was playing.
Some questions still linger on as to what prevented Shahrukh and other ‘pacifists’ from bidding for a Pakistani player and what were the factors that were instrumental in making him appear sanctimonious, a week after the bidding process was over. Was it a simple act of pontification with business proposition or an eye to the much awaited release of ‘My Name is Khan’ which the star claimed as very special? As mentioned earlier the commercial logic certainly is a significant factor given the volume of the overseas revenue.
At the hindsight one may also be amused at the proclivity to bask in an ongoing discourse in the west i.e. the stereotype images of the Muslims and to drag Muslims of India into it irrespective of their own diversity and polyglot existence like any other Indian community. Subjugation of the marginalized and the assertion of the subaltern has always been a pertinent issue which has drawn adequate attention in India’s popular culture through the depiction various class and cultural conflicts. For a member of such marginalized sections such attempts to create a homogeneous frame of any community is a disruption from lived realities and self definitions of various groups, which would lead to another set of questions like why not ‘depict the realities confronted by 'My name is Paswan’ or a ‘Gond or a ‘Phoolan’.
Some time back Amitabh Bachchan was humiliated by Congress led government after initial talks with the Chief Minister of Goa who had invited him to inaugurate the film festival. He and his wife Jaya Bachchan were berated by Raj Thackhrey for cozying up to the development projects of the then government of Uttar Pradesh and for becoming brand ambassador of the state. Interestingly the same nondescript politician who is said to have facilitated Shahrukh’s social-political ties with the Gandhis’ has fired a salvo at Bachchan, criticizing him for choosing to become a brand ambassador for Gujarat. He went on to add that Bachchan might subconsciously end up supporting ‘vested interests’ by agreeing to endorse the development policies of the BJP led government of the state.
Such selective amnesia smacks of a selective intolerance, a notion of sanctity attributed to the present ruling party at the centre notwithstanding the fact that the cozying up of the Congress in favour of Shahrukh could but only facilitate catering to the vested interests of the Congress known to have conceived and carrying the burden of convoluted secularism and sectarianism in Indian nation.
In a nation of more than a billion people, foisting a discourse based on an individual’s likes and dislikes and seeking to validate sectional interests (Shiv Sena & Congress) as a universal one, would certainly rob democracy of its normative value.
The fillip by the media has certainly helped Shahrukh in addressing different audiences at the same time - creating cricketing bonhomie, basking on the general sympathy to strengthen his brand position and generate a grand opening for his latest film.
Reference:
1. The idea of justice in India is indeed vague
http://www.rediff.com/news/column/guest-idea-of-justice-in-india-is-indeed-vague/20090818.htm
2. Ordeal for Indian professor in US jail
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/19/indian-professor-ravi-shankar-arrested-in-us.htm
3. Razzaq U-turn finger at SRK – Samyabrata Ray Goswami, The Telegraph, February 5, 2010, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100205/jsp/frontpage/story_12069708.jsp
4. Amitabh Bachchan not invited to IFFI! November 18, 2009.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Amitabh-Bachchan-not-invited-to-IFFI/articleshow/5240010.cms
5. Pedestrian function - by Devi Cherian, The Tribune, September 24, 2007
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070924/edit.htm#8
6. Priyanka, Rahul cheer for Shah Rukh’s Knight Riders, April 20th, 2008
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/priyanka-rahul-cheer-for-shah-rukhs-knight-riders_10040125.html
http://www.rediff.com/news/column/guest-idea-of-justice-in-india-is-indeed-vague/20090818.htm
2. Ordeal for Indian professor in US jail
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/19/indian-professor-ravi-shankar-arrested-in-us.htm
3. Razzaq U-turn finger at SRK – Samyabrata Ray Goswami, The Telegraph, February 5, 2010, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100205/jsp/frontpage/story_12069708.jsp
4. Amitabh Bachchan not invited to IFFI! November 18, 2009.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Amitabh-Bachchan-not-invited-to-IFFI/articleshow/5240010.cms
5. Pedestrian function - by Devi Cherian, The Tribune, September 24, 2007
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070924/edit.htm#8
6. Priyanka, Rahul cheer for Shah Rukh’s Knight Riders, April 20th, 2008
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/priyanka-rahul-cheer-for-shah-rukhs-knight-riders_10040125.html
