The chutzpah of an Israeli filmmaker demeaning The Kashmir Files

New Delhi: In case you are still wondering, chutzpah is actually a Yiddish word and thus totally appropriate for an exposition of the IFFI jury chairman Nadav Lapid’s outburst against “The Kashmir Files”. As the son of a holocaust survivor and an accomplished filmmaker as well, his opinion should have been adequately grounded.

Having lived in North India for considerable years, my exposure to diverse Kashmiris is reasonably significant, marinated by intrinsic secular credentials. A serious problem that has not been sufficiently addressed by New Delhi and Nehru, for a change, can well be blamed for this unending fracas.

Historians can endlessly debate on the justification of the UN plebiscite but truth be told, this dispute could have been solved in the 1940s, just like Hyderabad, Junagadh and the sundry misaligned states.

But it was not and the problem was permitted to linger, quite like a potentially malignant tumour that has not yet revealed signs of terminal assault. The Congress regime, seemingly eternal, chose denial as the decisive calling card, superseding the hard truths of a permanent solution. Most interestingly, as per anecdotal evidence, successful Muslims across the country only have disregard for the Kashmiri cause, because of their anachronistic ambition for petty separation and not organic integration.

It is a glaring fact, and numbers are for a change not necessary, that the terrorist influences in Kashmir drove out a large portion of Hindus and Sikhs, with largesse of trauma to boot. The camps in Jammu and elsewhere are genuine circumstantial evidence and there must be sufficient demographic data point to corroborate this apparent allegation. I personally know quite a few and this is not exactly a joke, the eventual successful relocation of such displaced folks is a function of their acumen and not policy as such.

So, when a holocaust survivor’s descendant, chooses to air a tokenistic alarmist opinion, the concern bells should well be ringing. More than six million Jews perished in the Nazi regime, orchestrated clinically as if building Volkswagen cars to homologation epitomes. Perhaps the Chairman was poorly guided by some influential accomplices, armed with an agenda to embarrass the governing disposition or maybe he was simply being clinically silly. Cinema must always be evaluated as an interpretation of occurrences, whether factual or fictional, and the critic simply has a licence to mollycoddle or batter the ‘interpretation’ and not the incidence.

In fact, cinematic history is indeed filled with one-sided accounts, from Schindler's List to the entire assembly line of Hollywood and Pinewood war movies, where the Germans and their allies are the designated villains. Perhaps, and just perhaps, the vanquished too had a legitimate story to tell, ruthlessly quashed by a superior momentum decree. A live incident in India is actually the enigma of Netaji, for his dalliance with the Axis powers as well as mysterious after-life, apparently freed from a reported Stalinist gulag. Vehement folks like this Tel Aviv fellow have consistently found such narratives distressing, as they do not concur with a worldview of shallow convenience, as opposed to logical discernment.

Now look, if you want proof that Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs were ruthlessly thrown out of their homeland, there is surely no serious dearth. Kindly just reach out to the nearest Kashmiri Pandit you know and you will either get validation or referrals, no dispute on this matter. That this matter has been expedited by bullets and not roses is also not a subjectivity, as the last time refugee camps of such rigour were built would be in 1947 or thereabouts. The role of Jagmohan Malhotra and subsequent bosses remain rooted in subjectivity, and those interested must read the published narratives of the much-maligned former.

In sum, a few notes of caution do valuably emerge. As reiterated earlier, films or books are interpretations of apparent reality, and when rebuking or applauding, the distinction between events and projection must be carefully recognised, If the jury considered Vivek Agnihotri’s effort to be factually suspect, then that would eliminate most aspirants, as fiction is the most compelling source of cinema. Of course, if they find it to be aesthetically displeasing, that is a tenable observation and well within the jurisprudence of such visitors.

As India races towards 100, we must consciously sacrifice the perils of denial and instead embrace the culture of sustainable equilibrium. Where every denomination, religious or otherwise, is consciously aware of its genuine scorecard and takes sincere steps to reinforce or course correct. In the meanwhile, we must learn to ignore frustrated Israelis, as they simply do not know where we come from.