Lit AF (Adnan-Fawad)

One event can hold several ramifications and can even mean different things to different people. Similarly, one event can lead to another and so on but the reactions displayed during a given point of time may or may not lead to more reactions. That's how we are. And by we, i mean can't-reason-with Indians and born-for-denial Pakistanis—the lowest of lows on the face of this planet. 

Uri attack: An event that left 17 Indian soldiers dead and 19 injured while they were sleeping turned the tide towards Pakistani artists in the country. Interestingly, only one city and one industry seemed to matter: Mumbai and Bollywood. All of a sudden, popular opinion was demanding the departure of Fawad Khan. They couldn't think of anyone else but the Karachi-based actor; although, eventually, a blanket ban was proposed by the producers body IMPPA. The reasoning behind why Fawad was particularly targeted was as hollow as it can get after a terrorist attack. Logic becomes the last refuge in such scenarios. Some even called him a mediocre actor—which either means they haven't seen his films and can't accept the fact that the guy is a showstealer—and someone Bollywood can do without as if the Hindi film industry ever cared about talent as much as surname. It's a shame on so many fronts when artists are not able to travel freely but a bigger shame lies in the denial of what's really going on at the border. 

Surgical strikes: Less than two weeks later, Indian Army responded to the Uri attack by carrying out surgical strikes (lasting less than an hour in actuality and killing more than 50 terrorists) at LOC. If you are in the know, these two words are mostly associated with countries like Israel, not India. But then, times are changing and India isn't the nice ol' restrained duck anymore looking to score moral victory. Retaliation is back in fashion and this critical move was greeted with support from nooks and corners of the country. For a change, even the businessmen vocally supported the strikes despite the market crashing when the news broke out. Adnan Sami, a naturalized Indian singer of Afghan-Pakistani origin, too joined the bandwagon by tweeting in support of the Army. This didn't go too well with Pakistan Twitterati. Even though Adnan's tweet didn't mention Pakistan at all, it didn't matter. His anti-terrorism endorsement got (mis)construed as anti-Pakistan, especially because his father had served in Pakistan defence forces! What's most interesting is Adnan has continued to stick to his gun so far.

The contrast between the situations facing these two artists shows us that, at the end of the day, what really matters is where you wish to stand for your own benefit. Fawad could have easily avoided scorn (to some extent, at least) by condemning the cowardly terrorist attack in Uri but he chose not to. On the other hand, Adnan didn't have to trumpet his nationalism on social media but he simply chose to.

Factual crisis > Existential crisis

The last time i shared a video on this platform, Marlon Brando smirked in his coffin. This time, however, the topic at hand is a bit too serious. The student in the above video delivers a splendid speech if you understand Hindi/Urdu. But she ends up following the same script that people belonging to theocracy do: letting religion dictate the terms of nationalism. So much so that one particular religion becomes the overriding indicator of nationalism. I think that's the problem with the narrative nations found on the basis of religion stick to. Pakistan ain't alone in this basket. Israel too suffers from the same disorder. Both these countries were born out of insecurity and hatred for their neighbour. And it's showing even today. Almost seven decades after their birth. When you make religion the basis of your existence, it's difficult to differentiate between your personal and public identities. Which is also why culture as such suffers because one dominant narrative (which is severely flawed as can be noticed in that young girl's poetic speech) tries to overlook established historical facts.

For instance, she invokes the "Muslims" who died for the creation of Pakistan. First thing first, they didn't. Not a single Muslim died for its creation as such. The riots that ensued were solely a chaotic clash between communities who otherwise led peaceful co-existence for ages. None of the families that perished did so for martyrdom. They hesitantingly became victims of myopic political vision. Which brings us to the second point. She mentions Quaid-e-Azam's (Jinnah) vision. Again, his vision didn't really see far. His idea was so self-conflicting that a modern Islamic state that he wanted wouldn't have materialized anyway given the circumstances in which Pakistan was born. To make matters worse, he passed away within a year or so, leaving the newfound nation—world's first Islamic republic, mind you—vulnerable with no appropriate replacement, let alone a constitution to hold on to. India at least could rely on the likes of Nehru and Patel after Gandhiji was killed. And a guy like Ambedkar to draw up the constitution ASAP.

Lastly, the existential crisis so apparent in the video is true for any of us (as individuals) who refuse to accept certain inalienable facts about ourselves. Self-denial takes you far but not very far. The acceptance of ultimate truth helps sooner than later.