10
am not Khan. My name bears a different set of four letters: K A U L. Kaul. As those who know Indian names would understand I happened to be born in a family which was called Hindu by others. Hence, we were sure, we would never get a friend like KJ to make a movie on our humiliations, and the contemptuous and forced exile from our homeland. It’s not fashionable. It’s fashionable to get a Khan as a friend and portray his agony and pains and sufferings when he is asked by a US private to take off his shoes and show his socks. Natural and quite justifiable that Khan must feel insulted and enraged. Enough Masala to make a movie.
But unfortunately I am a Kaul. I am not a Khan.
Hence when my sisters and mothers were raped and killed, when six-year-old Seema was witness to the brutal slaughtering of her brother, mother and father with a butcher’s knife by a Khan, nobody ever came to make a movie on my agony, pain and anguish, and tears.
No KJ would make a movie on Kashmiri Hindus. Because we are not Khans. We are Kauls.
When we look at our own selves as Kauls, we also see a macabre dance of leaders who people Parliament. Some of them were really concerned about us. They got the bungalows and acres of greenery and had their portraits were worshipped by the gullible devotees of patriotism.
They made reservations in schools and colleges for us. In many many other states. But never did they try that we go back to our homes. They have other priorities and ‘love your jihadi neighborhood’ programmes. They get flabbier and flabbier with the passing of each year, sit on sacks of sermons; issue instructions to live simply and follow moral principles delivered by ancestors and kept in documents treated with time-tested preservatives.
They could play with me because my name is Kaul. And not Mr Khan. I saw the trailer to this fabulous movie, which must do good business at the box office.
There was not even a hint that terror is bad and it is worse if it is perpetuated in the name of a religion that means Peace. Peace be upon all its followers and all other the creatures too.
So you make a movie on the humiliation of taking off shoes to a foreign police force which has decided not to allow another 9/11.
The humiliation of taking off the shoes and the urge to show that you are innocent is really too deep. But what about the humiliation of leaving your home and hearth and the world and the relatives and wife and mother and father? And being forced to live in shabby tents, at the mercy of nincompoop leaders encashing your misery and bribe-seeking babus? And seeing your daughters growing up too sudden and finding no place to hide your shame?
No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie, a telling, spine-chilling narration on the celluloid, of five-year-old Seema, who saw her parents and brother being slaughtered by a butcher’s knife in Doda. Because her dad was not Mr Khan. He was one Mr Kaul.
Sorry, Mr Kaul and your entire ilk. I can’t help you.
It’s not fashionable to side with those who are Kauls. And Rainas. And Bhatts. Dismissively called KPs. KPs means Kashmiri Pandits. They are a bunch of communalists. They were the agents of one Mr Jagmohan who planned their exodus so that Khans can be blamed falsely. In fact, a movie can be made on how these KPs conspired their own exile to give a bad name to the loving and affectionate Khan brothers of the valley.
To voice the woes of Kauls is sinful. The right course to get counted in the lists of the Prime Minister’s banquets and the President’s parties is to announce from the roof top: hey, men and ladies, I am Mr Khan.
The biggest apartheid the state observes is to exclude those who cry for Kauls, wear the colours of Ayodhya, love the wisdom of the civilisational heritage, dare to assert as Hindus in a land which is known as Hindustan too and struggle to live with dignity as Kauls. They are out and exiled. You can see any list of honours and invites to summits and late-evening gala parties to toast a new brand. All that the Kauls are allowed is a space at Jantar Mantar: shout, weep and go back to your tents after a tiring demonstration. Mr Kaul, you have got a wrong name.
A dozen KJs would fly to take you atop the glory – posts and gardens of sympathies if you accept to wear a Khan name and love a Sunita, Pranita, Komal or a Kamini. Well, here you have a sweetheart in Mandira. That goes well with the story.
And you pegged the movie plot on autism.
I wept. It was too much. I wept as a father of a son who needed a story as an Indian. Who cares for his autistic son, his relationship with the western world, his love affair with a young sweet something as a human, as someone whose heart goes beyond being a Hindu, a Muslim or a proselytizing Vatican-centric aggressive soul. Not the one who would declare in newspaper interviews: “I think I am an ambassador for Islam”. Shah Rukh is Shah Rukh, not because he is an ambassador for Islam. If that was true, he could have found a room in Deoband. Fine enough. But he became a heartthrob and a famousl star because he is a great actor. He owes everything he has to Indians and not just to Muslims. We love him not because he is some Mr Khan. We love him because he has portrayed the dreams, aspirations, pains, anguish and ups and downs of our daily life. As an Indian. As one of us.
If he wants to use our goodwill and love for strengthening his image as an ambassador for Islam, will we have to think to put up an ambassador for Hindus? That, at least to me, would be unacceptable because I trust everyone: a Khan or a Kaul or a Singh or a Victor. Who represents India represents us all too, including Hindus. My best ambassadorship would be an ambassadorship for the tricolour and not for anything else because I see my Ram and Dharma in that. I don’t think even an Amitabh or a Hritik would ever think in terms Shah Rukh has chosen for himself. But shouldn’t these big, tall, successful Indians who wear Hindu names make a movie on why Kauls were ousted? Why Godhra occurred in the first place? Why nobody, yes, not a single Muslim, comes forward to take up the cause of the exiled and killed and contemptuously marginalized Kauls whereas every Muslim complainant would have essentially a Hindu advocate to take on Hindus as fiercely as he can
Read the Rest from HERE
There Are 10 Responses So Far. »
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
"You really believe that MNIK is not a flop street? "
first you tell me. two questions for you:
Isn't it ...
DDDhit- Don't worry MNIK has recovered its money from Indonesia, Yeman etc. LOL !!! 
You really believe that MNIK is not a flop street? :) 
Sachin in full form:
I hope you are feeling better
A. R. Rahman’s Chicago gig tickets sell for $1,050 each 
Kya Rocky sir...bahot neend aa rahi hai? :)
Chalo chodo iss baat ko we shud better agree to disagree on this ...
I am a Huge, huge fan of MS Dhoni for a pretty long time. I havent missed a single match ...
I do not think any Bollywood star other than Aamir Khan can figure in 2009-10 top 10 of all India ...
This is a fair enough list...I have no problem Aamir being ahead of SRK in the list...After 3I he should ...
NyKavi 20 January 2010
05:05:53 pm
I also had a friend whose name is Kher, and his family was brutally evicted from the valley in 1989. I still remember his howls and cries during collegedays. But yes, no movie on ‘My name is Kher’!
Here is what I had written a few days back, it may seem to be bigoted to those who wear rose tinted glasses and call themselves progressives. Also, pls note that despite what I say, it is a foregone conclusion that this movie will be at least superhit and may even set records in overseas BO:
My peev with SRK doing this is precisely because it is SRK doing it. The biggest superstar, the one who influences minds, however impressionable they may be. A small movie like NY made at a small budget and becoming an avg hit, doesn’t gather all that much opinion. But when SRK launches a movie, everything he says and does gets noticed. IMO, it is irresponsible of a person at that important position to propagate messages which are ripe to be misinterpreted. Before cinematically depicting muslim persecution in the US, did Kjo-SRK bother to depict the persecution of a single Indian that died in 9/11 or in the numerous terrorist incidents that have taken place in the last decade in India? What about the continuous persecution of those victims at the hands of Islamic terror? Should their instigators be given a free pass? For SRK, it probably was very easy to shrug off the burden of balance, to disregard one side of this persecution, and talk only of things that fit his agenda.
As long as he was playing Raj-Rahul-Suri roles, he was harmless. There is no subversive message to be obtained from those movies. But by coming out like this, he alienates all those who were persecuted at the hands of Islamic terrorism, but were never mentioned by the biggest star in the bwood cinematic medium.
Maybe it was only me, but when he made MHN, I was very disturbed about this one subtle message he propogated in the movie, that of Hindu Terrorism. Before any act of terror had been carried out by any hindu anywhere, SRK came up with this brainwashing idea of out of control hindu terrorists. At that point, I had decided to give him the benefit of doubt. But now it is pretty clear, where SRK’s agenda lies when it comes to portraying Islamic terrorism. He would happily suppress the depiction of the infinite pain it has wrought on humanity. The only pain he will talk about is perceived persecution from the resulting backlash of the original victims.
RAJ 20 January 2010
09:28:27 pm
Some how i agree with Nykavi and with the author here…
sandy 21 January 2010
01:25:38 am
Yes, there is a point here. I don’t know if it is Kjo’s fixation with shooting only abroad or taking the most ‘visible’ instance of terrorism in the world, but if such an issue has to be taken up, why not look at the prosecution happening in our own country?
How much interest and empathy can the Indian audience summon up for 9/11, when terrorism and persecution of every kind is rampant in India. K Jo will be great with the love story – his political notions will be nonsesnse, I can tell you that.
Rocky 21 January 2010
08:05:25 am
Superb Comments NyKavi jee !!!
Maza aa gaya !!
sputnik 21 January 2010
09:10:41 am
There have not been many movies on Kashmiri Pandits. Sheen was one such movie.
http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/review/7135/index.html
‘I am Megha’ is another movie that is being made which deals with the Kashmiri Pandit issue.
http://www.screenindia.com/new.....uhi/556750
There needs to be a movie on Kashmiri Pandits by a top director starring a top actor.
But Why this and why not that? is just a silly excuse.
Mani Ratnam made Roja on Kashmir. Why did he not highlight the Kashmiri Pandits issue? Why did Vidhu Vinod Chopra who made Mission Kashmir not highlight this issue?
Why has Hollywood which makes so many movies on the Jewish suffering never made a single movie on the Palestinian suffering?
Hrithik has played Muslim terrorist in Fiza and Mission Kashmir. Why did Hrithik do that? Did he have an agenda? Why did Aamir play a terrorist in Fanaa? Did anyone ask why they were doing this and not playing Hindu victims or Kashmiri pandits.
Amitabh can play a character in Sarkar which is based on Bal Thackeray and basically glorifying him and no one has an issue.
Nykavi did you object to all these?
There have been many movies which deal with Islamic terrorism in India like Roja, Black Friday, A Wednesday, Mumbhai Meri Jaan, Sikandar, Zameen, Khakee and more.
Will have to watch the movie first but I don’t think the movie is defending 9/11 or terrorists and I don’t think Shahrukh’s character becomes a terrorist because of being interrogated.
So saying that innocent people should not be targeted because some of their coreligionists are bad is a regressive message? When has Shahrukh ever said that Islamic terrorism is right or defended it. Did he ever say 9/11 or 26/11 is right?
Tango 21 January 2010
09:34:29 am
Hum batein to bahut badi badi karte hain par jab Kashmiri Pandits ke issue par picture aati hai (and quite well made film like Sheen and not a documentray) to hum mein se kitne dekhte hai or buy the CD/DVD?
NyKavi 21 January 2010
01:28:07 pm
Sputnik, let me clarify:
First of all, I am not just talking of Kashmiri Pundits, I am talking of the portrayal of all victims of all incidents. All these movies like Roja, Fanaa, MK, Khakee etc etc are entirely fictional. Does any of them highlight a true terrorist incident like 26/11 or 9/11? The mainstream actors who played terrorists in these movies highlighted the evil of terrorism, at least that was a commendable act, at least they were trying to open the eyes of people to what was happening in Kashmir or other places.
When it comes to portraying victims, yes, there have been very few movies highlighting this. But, in fact the muslim victims of Gujurat were adequately highlighted in Parzania, as well as indirectly in Dev and Khakee. These movies starred mainstream actors. If an unknown movie like Sheen starring some lesser known actors highlights the issue of Pundits, what good does it do. Who goes to see it?
When the badshah of bollywood wants to put focus on a true incident like 9/11, why did he not first think of playing a victim of the incident? Did those victims not suffer enough persecution. At last count there were more than 3000 victims of that fateful day, a couple that I knew as well. But, he decides to play a character who is affected by the inverse backlash from those condemning the perpetrators of the crime. Was the experience of those 3000 dead and their families not painful enough to portray? I am not denying that incidents against muslims took place in the US, but the whole notion of the US being in a seige, and persecuting muslims en masse as a result of 9/11 is pure garbage.
I wont say more until the movie releases. But these are my observations based on what was shown in the trailer.
sputnik 21 January 2010
02:34:59 pm
Nykavi,
“All these movies like Roja, Fanaa, MK, Khakee etc etc are entirely fictional.”
They are all fictional and so is MNIK. Roja, Fanaa, MK, Khakee are all based on terrorism not a particular incident like 9/11 or 26/11. If you want specifics there is Mumbhai Meri Jaan which was on the Mumbhai train blasts. “The mainstream actors who played terrorists in these movies highlighted the evil of terrorism” When Aamir played a terrorist in Fanaa did the people hate him when they saw the movie? Did they want Aamir to be killed? No. When a hero plays a bad character specially a terrorist (even if he is misguided one) then that guy is being glorified and I think that is the reason why SRK has never played a terrorist.
“Parzania, as well as indirectly in Dev and Khakee. These movies starred mainstream actors. If an unknown movie like Sheen starring some lesser known actors highlights the issue of Pundits, what good does it do. Who goes to see it?”
Even Parzania was a flop and I am sure most people did not watch this but they definitely must have watched Fanaa.
http://www.naachgaana.com/2007.....port-card/
As far as victims of 9/11 there is already a movie on that. Yun Hota Toh Kya Hota directed by Naseer and that flopped. If that had become a blockbuster we would have definitely seen more movies on victims of 9/11.
“But, he decides to play a character who is affected by the inverse backlash from those condemning the perpetrators of the crime.”
Why don’t you tell it to the Sikh who was killed after 9/11 because of his turban. If some lunatic from KSA does something bad why is some innocent guy (with same religion) who is sitting in New York/New Delhi responsible for that? Don’t try to justify bad acts as saying as they are just backlash. Racial attacks or riots are not right no matter who first started it. Then what are the cops and the government for? Every time something bad happens people will be out on the streets killing each other.
“I am not denying that incidents against muslims took place in the US, but the whole notion of the US being in a seige, and persecuting muslims en masse as a result of 9/11 is pure garbage.” There was some paranoia but the US did handle it really well. Anytime some Indian gets killed in the US or Australia the news media show it 24/7 and that is the perception that people in India get. Now KJo, Kunal Kohli and so many others who never really lived in the US/UK/Aus make these NRI movies which are so not true of NRIs living abroad. Anurag Kashyap has anti-US/anti-Bush statments in his movie Gulaal and the dialogues of Kurbaan which he wrote.
New York showed US being in a seige, and persecuting muslims en masse and even defended it. Well Rajiv Gandhi defended the Delhi riots too after Indira’s death. Is that all right as it is just backlash?
Cinema is larger than life and there will be some exaggeration. They have to dramatize it to make the movie work. “Cheel udhi to kaho bhains udi”. Bottom line is with a movie like MNIK they are safe in India and hopefully there wont be any controversy with any Muslim organizations or Hindu organizations. Because they are speaking for the Muslim victims (Muslims wont mind) and the villains are not the Indian government or Hindus (so the Hindus wont mind). Aal izz well.
RAJ 21 January 2010
10:40:05 pm
I agree to a lot of points what sputnik is making..
Although i believe that Kashmiri pandit is an issue which really neglected in BW but can we blame SRK for that??? It is ridiculous ..isnt it??
Rocky 23 January 2010
07:35:34 am
Photo-shy Muslim women should not vote: SC
If having photographs on election identity cards and electoral rolls defies religious tenets and betrays sentiments of a section of Muslim women, it is for them to decide whether to vote or not.
“If they are so religious, don’t vote,” a bench of chief justice KG Balakrishnan and justice Deepak Verma remarked on Friday. They were hearing an appeal by Tamil Nadu’s (TN’s) Ajmal Khan against the election commission’s (EC’s) mandate to carry photo identity cards for voting