Reel and Real life are two different aspects, not to be mixed. I have grown up seeing heroics of Sunny Deol, Hritik Roshan , Amitabh Bachan (angry young man) and it took me ages to realize what they do in movies is just a screenplay. In real life they don’t go out and beat the goons, when terrorists call them for ransom, they don’t go to the den of underworld terrorist and kill them. They call the cops. They should and they do, because there is a difference in real life and reel life.
Sometimes real life resembles reel life, it must as it reel life is glorified version of real life. Things we aspire, the what we want to achieve and we can’t are so easily depicted in the reel life. In 2 hours, it covers 70 years of our life. It just can’s be real , it has to be reel. So I come to ever patriotic romantic hero SRK who has entertained us from Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge ( where he takes on an engaged girl) to My Name Is Khan (again married, this time with a kid). So our hero (real life heros are different from reel life ones) has managed another heart touching flick. But was it really necessary to show him autistic. Can he not be normal and still say these words. Why is the extra sympathy needed. The whole country is saying in one single line , SRK is not a terrorist. We all know he is not. We all know he is not one in the movie. But does it matter what common man think and says and even practices.
If I understand correctly, My Name is Khan is not a mere representation of a name, but it tries to address a problem bigger than the movie itself. It tries to address the need of all Khan who are not terrorist to be recognized as innocent. It tries to address the basic simple fact that even if not all Khan are terrorist, a handful still exists who are. I should not take liberty in writing Khan as a terrorist or not, but it is the message conveyed in the movie. But it is where it leaves me confused. And I don't know why should it not leave you in same stage.
The movie shows 9/11 attacks, and that cost life and loss in millions of dollars. It is claimed as a terrorist activity ( and I personally think it is one of those activities) , so is it not feasible for the country who has been attacked in the back by some loser fundamentalists to turn back and try to find out who is that Khan who drew the airplane right into Twin Towers. Is it not feasible for a country which had the first dose of real militant power to cut through the covers and find out guilty. Is it not depicted in the movie itself that there are Khans, who are not only terrorist but making more like them ( remember mosque scene, the doctor was a Khan, who was a terrorist, strictly as per movie). I still wonder if 9/11 was a retaliation attack on the power of world ruler, and would the attackers not known that innocent Khan would be targeted. They knew it, but still went on with it. Terrorists don't have a religion, but they do carry a name.
All said and done, Khan is not a terrorist, but who is the person in Jammu & Kashmir who is killing innocent people. Must be an innocent Khan, who was trying to play with his newly acquired AK-47, or improved RDX , with no intention of killing, but the bullets in those machines do kill. They don't know who they kill, but since 1980 they have been puncturing Kashmir like no other. They are still doing it. I don't understand why. I see so many Khan living so peacefully in India, they are sheltered by India, they love India as other religion, and India also loves them back the same way. There will never be a condition in which My name is Khan is shot in India, because we know the fact that Khan is not a terrorist. But then, is he really not.
I fail to understand if India ever attacked any country, or had seized undue or unfair advantage ever in history so that it bears the ire of terrorists. I still fail to understand the bomb attack in Bangalore, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Delhi, Surat, ahmedabad and so many other Indian cities that his blog will have virtually every major Indian city striked by terrorist who is not a khan.
The way the movie is made, and the message it has it pure and crystal, Shah Rukh Khan is not a terrorist, neither is Rizwan Khan, but the way the world is today is because of someone who was a Khan and a terrorist.
If I understand correctly, My Name is Khan is not a mere representation of a name, but it tries to address a problem bigger than the movie itself. It tries to address the need of all Khan who are not terrorist to be recognized as innocent. It tries to address the basic simple fact that even if not all Khan are terrorist, a handful still exists who are. I should not take liberty in writing Khan as a terrorist or not, but it is the message conveyed in the movie. But it is where it leaves me confused. And I don't know why should it not leave you in same stage.
The movie shows 9/11 attacks, and that cost life and loss in millions of dollars. It is claimed as a terrorist activity ( and I personally think it is one of those activities) , so is it not feasible for the country who has been attacked in the back by some loser fundamentalists to turn back and try to find out who is that Khan who drew the airplane right into Twin Towers. Is it not feasible for a country which had the first dose of real militant power to cut through the covers and find out guilty. Is it not depicted in the movie itself that there are Khans, who are not only terrorist but making more like them ( remember mosque scene, the doctor was a Khan, who was a terrorist, strictly as per movie). I still wonder if 9/11 was a retaliation attack on the power of world ruler, and would the attackers not known that innocent Khan would be targeted. They knew it, but still went on with it. Terrorists don't have a religion, but they do carry a name.
All said and done, Khan is not a terrorist, but who is the person in Jammu & Kashmir who is killing innocent people. Must be an innocent Khan, who was trying to play with his newly acquired AK-47, or improved RDX , with no intention of killing, but the bullets in those machines do kill. They don't know who they kill, but since 1980 they have been puncturing Kashmir like no other. They are still doing it. I don't understand why. I see so many Khan living so peacefully in India, they are sheltered by India, they love India as other religion, and India also loves them back the same way. There will never be a condition in which My name is Khan is shot in India, because we know the fact that Khan is not a terrorist. But then, is he really not.
I fail to understand if India ever attacked any country, or had seized undue or unfair advantage ever in history so that it bears the ire of terrorists. I still fail to understand the bomb attack in Bangalore, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Delhi, Surat, ahmedabad and so many other Indian cities that his blog will have virtually every major Indian city striked by terrorist who is not a khan.
The way the movie is made, and the message it has it pure and crystal, Shah Rukh Khan is not a terrorist, neither is Rizwan Khan, but the way the world is today is because of someone who was a Khan and a terrorist.
No comments:
Post a Comment