Similar Posts

2 Comments

  1. I did enjoy RHTDM but yes, it forces us to think about it how he used aggression against the girl he loves. My take is: When it comes to creative freedom, we shouldn’t make a distinction but it’s also true that the Pakistani artists didn’t condemn the Uri attacks. Quite tricky, though and I guess everyone will have their own views on the issue. But, it’s no reason to chase them out.

  2. The original question still deserves an answer: I don’t think anyone has called the Pakistani artists as terrorists. But if they are being asked to accept they are foreigners representing an aggressive neighbour, that is the reality. Artists get from the human population some extra adulation and in some cases, even expectations of political leadership. All around the world: In western societies, leaders like Reagan and Schwarzenegger have had to go through a certain amount of political internship before they took on bigger roles. In the ‘developing’ countries like India, even that preparation is not there. The other side of the coin is the reverse adulation.
    Artists are ALSO members of human society and they symbolize some human markers and when the tide turns, they need to take the situation in their stride – they may become symbols for the population to pour their anguish on.
    Beyond this, they are taking up far more human attention and television time than what their contribution to human society warrants and distracting from the issues facing us, in my personal opinion.

Leave a Reply