Indo-Pakistani relations through film

The Indo-Pakistani conflict is a multilayered one with overlapping and contentious national, ethnic, religious and class identities to which simplistic portrayals of Manichean worldviews do not do justice. If ICG's assessment regarding the role of dialogue where " even an official dialogue on normalization will improve the climate insufficiently unless it is accompanied by other dialogues-between India and Srinagar, between Pakistan and Muzaffarabad, between private Indian and Pakistanic citizens, and between the Kashmiris themselves" (ICG, Asia Report No. 79) is correct, then Arti Shukla's discussion of the Portrayal of Pakistan in Hindi cinema becomes relevant regarding "the use of cinema as means of political mobilization", particularly "the way partition is remembered in Indian cinema" and how it "bears upon the attitudes towards Pakistan".

If the current conflict, centered around Kashmir always links itself to the respective national discourses of India and Pakistan and the images of partition, responsibility, shared history and difference, then cinema as a medium which reflects and also critically observes hegemonic discourses about the national self and the other is important to the extent that it can measure and create changes in such discourses which determine the possibilities for a public acceptance of different types of peace/conflict. In that sense a Hindi cinema which continues to portray Pakistan "through the window" where "Indians are peace loving, responsible and take a paternal attitude to the actions of an irresponsible, fundamentalist and tactless Pakistan"by default allows no room for dialogue by preempting the possibility of positive agency for Pakistan and Pakistanis. That in itself seems evident.

The more interesting question then is whether the cinema described by Sunny Singh where the national identity is non-Pakistan-centric is any more conducive to attitudes which foster peace relations between the two states. While the process of vilification described by Shukla seems absent here, it is arguable whether this is indicative of a more benign attitude towards Pakistan, or whether the absence of Pakistan from the narrative is its negation as a valid nationhood, in a sense irrelevant to the Indian one. This "irrelevance" of Pakistan, while allowing for fruitful dialogue within the Indian national discourse itself makes Pakistan absent from the narrative-there can be no peace with an actor which is not relevant enough to be present.

Yet that having been said, perhaps it is a step forward that the Indian national discourse can be discussed apart from a focus on Pakistan, where Pakistan itself is bracketed and the conflict and how India handles it comes to bear more on intra-national relations amongst Indians themselves. From films which "identify Pakistan overtly as an enemy nation" ( says Sunny Singh) to films where " the enemy is merely a distant, nameless force whose only role is to function as the opposition against which the nation-state defines itself "(Singh) which "Reflects a dramatic shift in discourse, reaching instead to an earlier past as well as reflecting upon a post-independence reality to construct a national identity that does not include references to Pakistan. Thus Hindu-Muslim relations within the country can be framed in an internal context, without reference to Pakistan."(Singh).

In a conflict such as this one, it is vital that the discourse about the other does not come to define relations between majorities and minorities within India, where Muslims are made into an internal other. This seems to be precisely what the new wave of films described by Singh are consciously avoiding doing. Yet if the shift from Pakistan centered cinema where Pakistan was the enemy to a more internally looking cinema which treats political conflict within the frame of relations between groups inside India is understandable through the need for new identities forged by younger film makers which neither experiences the colonial project nor the partition, evaluating this shift as a shift to a different type of dialogue conducive to or hostile to peace is more difficult. "Popular Indian discourse on the Pakistan has been perceived by that nation as an Indian refusal to accept its identity as a separate state." The new cinema does not seem to actively do this, but appears to sideline the issue altogether.

Aside from commenting on the state's employment of nationalist discourse through cinema to garner support for policies and maintain an image of a united front, it is clear that there is a space to be negotiated in cinema, it being a form of artistic expression, that can subvert such hegemonic discourses and bring up uncomfortable questions which are relevant to conflict and security. To link this to the conflict, in an atmosphere where a cold peace is the best option in the short term "until a long process can produce an atmosphere in which the support of elected governments in both states might realistically bring a Kashmir solution" (ICG, Asia Briefing no. 51) there is room for dialogue and construction of images and self an other which will come to bear on the last diplomatic endgame of a final settlement. In light of improved relations since 2004, taboos should ease around topics of contact and engagement with the other.

Self images are also vital in this respect. If India and Pakistan can come to terms with their internal differences and multifaceted identities as well as their common colonial history, they will be much better endowed to come to terms with each other's existence as separate nation states. It is much easier to discuss and criticize Indian cinema and its self portrayal because of the relative freedom it enjoys in comparison to Pakistani cinema. In fact, if the choice is between a vilified other or a narrative which excludes the other and focuses on the problem within the self, for now, the latter option seems to be the healthier one.

Not that such choices are ever made consciously and directly. The development of different types of narratives assumes a life of its own, beyond the competing political forces which promote one narrative rather than another. It is in this sense that conflict based cinema can affect a situation rather than just reflect hegemonic discourses. It is in the manner in which the conflict is reflected, in the aspects of it chosen to be portrayed and the highlighting of certain factors over others that cinema can come to shape consciousnesses or at least provoke questions and encourage self reflection in mass consumerist audiences in a way other media fails to capture.