A test of India’s capacity to take criticism

Vivek Katju

Ex-Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs

IT was extraordinary, certainly provocative, for Nadav Lapid, who was described in a November 27 statement of the Press Information Bureau as an “Israeli director, writer and Chairperson of the International Competition Jury at the 53rd International Film Festival of India”, to make scathing remarks on the movie The Kashmir Files. He deliberately chose to contrast this movie with the 14 others competing for the Golden Peacock Award. He said these movies “had the cinematic qualities and evoked vivid discussions”.

However, on The Kashmir Files, Lapid said all jury members were “shocked and disturbed” by it. He added that the jury felt that it was a “propaganda, vulgar movie, inappropriate for the artistic competitive section of such a prestigious film festival”.

The jury consisted of an American, two Frenchmen and an Indian connected with the movie world. The Indian, Sudipto Sen, has clarified that Lapid’s remarks were only his personal opinion. No media reports have appeared, as yet, of the responses of the other three jury members to Lapid’s comments on The Kashmir Files.

Israel’s Ambassador to India Naor Gilon, obviously aware that Lapid’s views on the movie would outrage the sentiments of a considerable section of the Indian public, which was deeply moved and influenced by The Kashmir Files, has attempted damage control. He has castigated Lapid. Gilon does not want that Lapid’s remarks should be taken as those of the Israeli authorities and adversely impact India-Israel ties. This is what experienced diplomats are expected to do.

On his part, Lapid has stood by his comments, but has expressed sorrow if he has hurt anyone’s sentiments. He has also clarified that he was concerned only about the movie and not the developments in Kashmir over the decades.

The real question is: what should be the general Indian response to Lapid’s views on The Kashmir Files?

In the first place, a distinction should be made between the movie and the actual event of the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley in 1990. Members of the community were subjected to vicious and unspeakable acts of violence by terrorists and the Kashmir’s mainstream politicians and the Valley’s influential members of the majority community did not stand up against the terrorists. This cannot be denied. That some ordinary Kashmiri Muslims, who had lived as neighbours of the Pandits, also did not seek to, at a minimum, restrain the terrorists is also not untrue. Indeed, in the situation, which then prevailed, most Pandits had no alternative but to leave their hearth and home. They became refugees in their own country. These developments are a black chapter in the history of Independent India.

No one has the right to call these events untrue. These happened and almost an entire community was uprooted and their wounds will not easily heal even if many Kashmiri Pandits, with their scholarly traditions and resilience, have moved on with their lives in the rest of India or, in some cases, abroad. But a sizeable number of families continue to suffer and need state support and the ruling dispensation is making efforts in this direction. However, targeted individual killings, including of the Pandits, continue because of which the community in the Valley remains fearful.

It is not known if the foreign jury members were at all aware of the brutal violence suffered by the Pandits and viewed The Kashmir Files keeping this in mind. Lapid and some of the other jury members may have the right to take positions on the ‘artistic merit’ of the movie; they may even find it ‘vulgar’, for these assessments are subjective in nature. It is Lapid’s use of the word ‘propaganda’ in the context of The Kashmir Files, which is unacceptable. This is because it connotes that crimes against the Pandits either did not take place or downgrades them. He should have been aware that they did and there was an exodus of the Pandits.

Besides, the substance of the comments Lapid used at the closing ceremony to single out The Kashmir Files showed a lack of finesse. Lapid said, “I feel totally comfortable to share openly these feelings with you on this stage. In the spirit of this festival, (we) can surely accept a critical discussion, which is essential for art and life.” Indeed, critical discussions on any subject are a part of the intellectual and philosophical tradition of India since ancient times. But there is a time and place and manner in which such discussions should take place and a closing address is hardly the occasion for passing judgement on a particular film, whatever Lapid may have felt about it.

The responses to Lapid’s comments on The Kashmir Files have been on predictable lines. Some members of the ‘ecosystem’, who had lauded the movie, have lashed out at Lapid. Those who are opposed to the ruling dispensation have found an opportunity to point fingers at the movie’s supporters.

While artistes and some members of political parties have spoken on Lapid’s comments, the government, on its part, has, till now, not reacted. This is the correct approach, for the Indian Government cannot be in the business of defending a movie even if it had been ‘promoted’ in some BJP-ruled states. Besides, the fact remains that the selection of the jury is essentially made by the government machinery itself. Hence, even if Lapid’s comments on The Kashmir Files caused embarrassment, the government could do little itself. It would have taken comfort though in the Israeli envoy’s criticism of Lapid’s remarks, but the damage done by Lapid on the perceptions of many abroad will remain.

The government, internally, would have not been amused by Lapid’s comments. It will be interesting to observe the measures that will be undertaken to vet members of juries in the future. Naturally, these processes will be internal, but their results will show through the choices made. The real point in all this is India’s capacity to take criticism as part of its democratic values. These values also demand that reason and not invective should be the basis of discussions. Naturally, malicious, scurrilous and motivated remarks are especially to be avoided. The problem is that at a time when everyone wears nationalism on his sleeve, the space for reason and logic has diminished.  

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.