Haider not only takes up the cause of Kashmir but also speaks of the social anomalies that have become a part of everyday Kashmiris’ lives. But will it actually brave out and capture the real stories, probes Sheikh Saaliq…
In relation to the Kashmir conflict, three different narratives emerge: the Indian, the Pakistani and the Kashmiri. In the media, all three narratives have been practiced time and again. But when it comes to cinema, the dominant narrative is opted, which as it stands, is from the point of view of an Indian.
Distinct stories of competing nationalisms are interwoven. The dominant narrative, which Indian cinema is maintaining from the last 25 years has embarked on a rather complex journey. Coping with the reality of portraying the ‘real’ Kashmir on the screen has never been easy for Indian filmmakers. In times where the narrative of a particular issue holds sway, the course of the cinematic narrative tends to perform the task of truth telling – the bridge between the facts and propaganda. The only dichotomy here (read cinema) lies in the narrative, otherwise the story is same.
The dominant reality in Kashmir lies within its people. They want to tell stories and cinema is the medium barely experimented with. While cinema controls much of the information flow among the people of India, portraying Kashmir on the screen becomes more complex – holding the national interest, India’s mass aspirations and certain insecurities in mind. But how can an issue like that of Kashmir not be told through a mass medium like cinema. Yes, Indian cinema did film Kashmir, not extensively but movies were made on the Kashmir issue. But the narrative was same; Indian.
In his previous film Parzania, Rahul Dholakia had captured the 2002 Gujarat riots as seen through the eyes of a Parsi family. The film was lauded by the critics and the viewers as many believed that Dholakia was very honest and truthful with what he had achieved in filming Parzania. In 2010, Dholakia went on to make Lamhaa. Expectations in Kashmir rose staggeringly. People of Kashmir were miffed with movies like Roja and Mission Kashmir which showed Kashmir in bad light. Hoping to capture the facts, Kashmir’s identity and the reason of trouble, Dholakia failed miserably. Lamhaa proved to be yet another movie filmed from the perspective of an Indian, failing to understand where the real problem lies, let alone portraying the truth.
Not much has changed in Kashmir since 2010. Kashmir was, and remains, a troubled state and a touchy subject to tackle with. Filmmakers have come and shot in the last four years in Kashmir. Movies and documentaries like Inshallah Kashmir, Inshallah Football and Harud have challenged the mainstream narrative on Kashmir but unfortunately have not got wider releases. Vishal Bhardwaj is all set to release his new movie called Haider this October. The film is an adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and has been fully shot in the valley. Set in the conflict-weary Kashmir of the 90s, Haider chronicles the life of a Kashmiri student who returns home and learns of his father’s death and of his mother’s new relationship with his uncle. In a recent interview with Jason Burke of The Guardian, Bhardwaj said, “What happened in Kashmir is a very human tragedy, but no one is talking about it. But once you talk of it, you are released from it. What I am saying [in Haider] is truth. It should be like a balm on a wound.” But will Haider talk about the things which Indian cinema has neglected?
The film is reported to be controversial. Haider will include graphic scenes of torture, humiliation and other human rights abuses carried by the Indian army in the camps. The human rights violations in Kashmir have been a known phenomenon since the armed insurgency against Indian government started in early 90s but Haider, if reports are taken to be true, will be the first mainstream movie which will show it on the screen. Not only this, Haider has also weaved its story through the most talked subject in Kashmir, which is the issue of ‘half-widows’. Decades of conflict in Kashmir have produced many ‘half-widows’ whose husbands have disappeared but are not declared deceased. Adding to that, Haider also focuses on the infamous police informants of 90s in Kashmir called Ikhwanis. In the movie, the Hamlet characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the local men who are paid to work as informants for the police intelligence.
Other parallels in the movie are the scenes showing common Kashmiris. The narrative of the movie is from the perspective of a Kashmiri. But why challenge the already set narrative by the mainstream cinema? Because, Kashmir’s story is beyond the fresh waters, snow-clad mountains and beautiful Chinars! The real story lies within the people of Kashmir and if Haider is successful in showcasing that part of the story, the narrative will be a paradigm shift in itself.
Written by Basharat Peer, a Kashmir-born author and a journalist, who has extensively worked on the adaptation, has said that, “Kashmiris have always been portrayed as crazy fanatics or Kashmir is simply seen as a picturesque tourist destination. This [Haider] is a very different view.” Peer also believes that the narrative constructed by the previous mainstream cinema about Kashmir conflict will be changed by this movie, giving an alternate point of view. “For me, Marcellus’ comment to Horatio in the play [Hamlet], ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’, directly invokes the state of affairs in Kashmir,” says Peer in an interview.
What needs to be seen is that if Haider, written by Basharat Peer and Vishal Bhardwaj himself, will challenge the national narrative and tell a story that uncovers the truth. Showing the reality inside the army camps is bound to stir up controversy and what remains to be seen is the reaction of The Central Board of Film Certification and the right-wing organisations.
As Shakespeare writes in Hamlet: “To be, or not to be, that is the question…”
