A mouthpiece with a memory hole
It's becoming difficult to watch Javed Akhtar without feeling a profound sense of pity over his descent from a mid-tier writer to a bitter provocateur. And no, that's not an ad hominem. Bollywood has given Pakistani audiences many icons to love. Even when some of them turn into vitriol-spewing mouthpieces for the far right, fandom on this side of the border has often trumped jingoism.
That is not some unique generosity Pakistanis are blessed with. It is, however, indicative of a more organic circulation of art that has survived decades of regional instability and repression, and comes with multiple, if partial, reality checks. For every inane political take, one can hope for a sane needle in the haystack. In Modi's India, both the needle and the haystack are saffron.
Akhtar's response to Pakistani artists working in India in the aftermath of Pahalgam is that saffron needle begging to be found. In conversation with Indian news agency PTI, the screenwriter insisted that India allowing Pakistani artists to work has always been "one-way traffic". Citing visits by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Mehdi Hasan, Ghulam Ali, and Noor Jehan, Akhtar maintained that the Indian government treated these artists to ornate protocol. Even Faiz Ahmed Faiz, whom he calls "a poet of the subcontinent" and not a "Pakistani poet," was received with complete decorum.
"I am afraid this has never been reciprocated. I have no complaint with the people of Pakistan. Big poets of Pakistan have written poems for Lata Mangeshkar. I'm quite convinced that in the '60s and '70s, Lata Mangeshkar, hands down, was the most popular Indian in Pakistan.
But why was there not a single performance of hers in Pakistan? We have received their artists with open arms, but it was not reciprocated by [the] establishment." Any familiarity with this statement is not at all coincidental. Akhtar had the same intellectual miscarriage in 2023 when he was visiting Lahore for Faiz Festival.
Same old drivel
There is something both tired and dangerous in this recurring refrain. Tired, because it has been said and corrected before. Dangerous, because it reeks of a culturally coded nationalism that dresses up state policy as artistic grievance. Akhtar's remarks, delivered from a Pakistani stage, betray not only a lack of historical memory but also an opportunistic blindness to what transnational exchange has really looked like in the subcontinent.
Let's begin with the obvious counterexamples. Indian singers, poets, actors, and artists have repeatedly been hosted in Pakistan with state patronage and fanfare. In February 1999, Akhtar himself was part of the official cultural delegation accompanying Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on his historic state visit to Lahore. Alongside Akhtar were Dev Anand, Shatrughan Sinha, Satish Gujral, Mallika Sarabhai, Kuldip Nayar, and Kapil Dev - all accorded state guest status by then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's government.
Just the year before, the late Bollywood Peshawar-born icon Dilip Kumar received Pakistan's highest civilian award, Nishane Imtiaz, for his contribution to the arts. In 2004, Jagjit Singh performed at various venues, including DHA Golf Club, to further better Pakistan-India ties. In August 2010, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani publicly invited Bharat Ratna Lata Mangeshkar to Pakistan as a state guest, urging her to visit for her millions of fans. Singer Adnan Sami, then still a Pakistani citizen, was asked to help coordinate the visit.
These events are not obscure trivia. They are widely reported, highly visible, and factually refute Akhtar's portrayal of Pakistani cultural policy as some sort of paranoid nationalist lockdown. On the contrary, it is both exhausting and futile to chart all the instances of Indian artists being welcomed by the Pakistani government or vice versa, for all it will reflect is two state narratives, a postcolonial collateral of long-standing tensions.
Akhtar can posture as the subcontinent's conscience all he wants, but one wonders why anyone would willingly commit to a life of such hypocrisy: dissenter in exile, mouthpiece at home. Any overview of his cognitive dissonance treads risky waters, especially when he's still processing childhood trauma at this ripe age. But even the most afflicting darde disco wouldn't possess a teenager, let alone an 80-year-old, to sustain a hormonal rebellion long past its expiry date.
Ghosts of his past
Perhaps, the most painful recall that accompanies Akhtar is who preceded him. Born to the hardline communist poet Jan Nisar Akhtar and son-in-law to the equally principled Kaifi Azmi, his journey from self-proclaimed Marxist to a muddled, undifferentiated leftist ought to be taught as a cautionary tale for progressives. Akhtar is emblematic of a collapsing liberal intelligentsia; famous for knowing what it stands against (BJP, Hindutva, censorship), yet rarely able to articulate what it stands for. On the other hand, he is a lonely, tormented man living in a country that simply won't love him back.
Given his steady decline in sense, it may be wiser to analyse him through the latter lens. For if not unresolved daddy issues, what else could explain his 180-degree pivot from everything India's progressives once stood for? Only a staunch right-winger could inhabit the world in 2025 and conclude that the "average Indian citizen" inspires envy for "the kind of privileges and freedoms" supposedly at their disposal. It's easy, then, to frame Pakistan as a stage-hungry neighbour whose stars come begging, and India, the benevolent patron left unthanked. But this framing doesn't hold up, not even within the dynamics of cross-border stardom.
Beyond the borders
Art nationalism - the idea that cultural production must mirror the state's image of itself - is always a tool of authoritarianism. When Akhtar scolds Pakistan for failing to reciprocate a cultural embrace, what he's really doing is echoing India's current border-thickening regime: a belief that art must serve the state, or else be exiled as suspect. What should be a call for solidarity becomes, in Akhtar's voice, a lament that Pakistan isn't doing nationalism as well as India.
But cultural power doesn't need symmetry to be meaningful. Many of the Pakistani artists who've found fame in India - Fawad Khan, Mahira Khan, Atif Aslam - were already icons at home. That they were welcomed by Indian fans doesn't make them guests at a magnanimous banquet; it shows how porous, vibrant, and horizontal cultural affinity can be.
In reality, India's entertainment industry has long benefitted from Pakistani creativity - copying music, borrowing ghazal traditions, and riding on the realism of Pakistani TV dramas when their own serials degenerated into surrealist saas-bahu battles. Visibility has not been a one-way traffic - it's been a quiet, continuous churn of influence, often uncredited, but deeply felt.
What is conveniently left out of Akhtar's telling is the asymmetry of scale, not affection. India has a gargantuan industry with global distribution and diaspora capital. Pakistan, by contrast, has a far smaller market, still grappling with censorship boards, moral policing, and a fragile infrastructure. It doesn't mean Pakistani artists aren't welcome - it means there are simply fewer big-budget platforms to host cross-border productions. It appears that what Akhtar really laments is Pakistan's relatively slower embrace of big, flashy capital. And whatever perks this fictitious "average Indian" enjoys is a yet-to-be-fulfilled promise of India's hegemony in South Asia.
If only Akhtar, on his many visits to Pakistan, had grasped what Fahmida Riaz once so wisely penned: "tum bilkul ham jaise nikle." That the exchange of violence and repression between Pakistan and India has always been two-way traffic. Just as the flow of art and dissent has never respected borders.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Khalilur Rehman Qamar claims talk show clash on 'Taghoot' was staged
Listen to article Pakistani screenwriter and poet Khalilur-Rehman Qamar has made a startling claim regarding last year's viral 'Taghoot scandal,' stating that the controversial talk show confrontation was 'pre-planned' and not spontaneous. Speaking on a podcast this week, Qamar alleged that the televised clash between Islamic scholar Saahil Adeem and a female guest was orchestrated for dramatic effect. The episode, aired in June 2024, had sparked nationwide debate over gender roles, religious authority, and freedom of expression. Qamar claimed that the show's producers intentionally staged the conflict to provoke public outrage and media attention. 'It wasn't an accident. The narrative was scripted to reach a certain climax,' he said. According to Qamar, as soon as Saahil Adeem referred to women as ignorant, he was about to intervene to clarify that ignorance is not exclusive to women — he considers anyone who hasn't read the Holy Quran with translation, whether male or female, to be ignorant. However, before he could speak, a female participant interrupted, and the direction of the discussion took a sharp turn. Khalilur-Rehman Qamar also expressed his astonishment at the woman's demand for an apology from a scholar like Saahil Adeem. In his view, everyone makes mistakes, but what triggered his anger was the perceived disrespect. He stated that the entire incident clearly shows the producers' intention was to create provocation and extract a specific type of reaction — and that they succeeded in doing so. The programme, aired in June last year, featured Saahil Adeem making harsh remarks about women. He claimed that if 100 women were surveyed, he would find 95% to be ignorant, obsessed only with makeup and TikTok, and unaware of fundamental Islamic concepts such as 'Taghoot'. In response, a participant named Azbah Abdullah protested against his statements and demanded an apology. The situation quickly escalated into a heated exchange. Adeem questioned whether the young woman even knew the meaning of 'Taghoot'. When she admitted she didn't, he declared that this was precisely what ignorance was — and that she should accept it. The argument didn't stop there. The woman countered that the reason many women are deprived of knowledge is due to a patriarchal society, but Saahil Adeem disagreed, insisting that calling out ignorance is a religious obligation. During the heated discussion, Qamar also lost his composure. He expressed anger at the young woman, stating that if listening to Arabic verses was painful for her, it was unacceptable. He then asked the host to cut her microphone — a moment that intensified the controversy. The episode quickly went viral on social media. Now, nearly a year later, Qamar's revelation that the entire incident was 'scripted.'
Express Tribune
9 hours ago
- Express Tribune
‘Deemak' review: Brilliant until the ghosts arrive
Without question, Deemak is the most divisive Pakistani release of the year. For those who still invoke 'support local cinema' regardless of a film's craft or coherence, this is perhaps the moment they've been waiting for. A harsher critique of director Rafay Rashdi's horror-family drama might be too easy — were it not for the sobering state of Pakistani cinema. When the only local competition is a film like Love Guru, hopes for a lively Eidul Azha at the movies are already dim. If audiences are weary of seeing Humayun Saeed and Mahira Khan replay the same formulas Hollywood created and Bollywood retired, Deemak is at least a departure. Rashdi deserves credit for venturing into a genre still novel in Pakistan's mainstream — psychological horror — and for roping in A-listers like Faysal Quraishi, Sonya Hussaiyn, and Samina Peerzada, who are compelling enough to carry a lesser film. Unfortunately, there's little novelty, or even the bare minimum, to distract an audience raised on Zee Horror Show or accustomed to the polish of big-budget US and UK. The result is a film that reminds you — every ten minutes, if not every second — how much better it could have been had it dared to be original. There are brief stretches when you can lose yourself in Samina's commanding performance or the slow unravelling of Faysal and Sonya's marriage. But just then, the ghosts arrive in all their ridiculous CGI glory. An ugly genre It's hard to tell whether the film assumes its audience is gullible and unfamiliar with horror, or simply so starved for content that it'll watch anything. Because there's no way the filmmakers genuinely believed their GTA-gameplay-style CGI ghosts would convince anyone. If the cross-border success of last year's Stree 2 is anything to go by, the lucrative appeal of comedy-horrors is undeniable. Stree 2 in particular — unlike the Bhool Bhulaiyaa franchise — leans heavily on preposterous CGI and still manages just fine. However, Deemak is anything but a comedy-horror. Cut the CGI ghosts, and you're left with a politically resonant, emotionally intelligent family saga — not groundbreaking, but grounded. The writing does well to reimagine a typical saas-bahu conflict as a multi-generational horror, haunted less by ghouls than by grief, control, and intergenerational rage. Most remarkably, Samina delivers the performance of her career as the embittered mother-in-law who knows only how to wound those around her. Sometimes she's domineering and ruthless, other times sickly and scheming, and by the second half, somehow all at once. Samina is also, single-handedly, Deemak's most effective off-screen source of fear. If Samina is gorgeously uninhibited, Sonya, as the begrudged daughter-in-law, cannot escape the demands of stardom. Most scenes find her composed and impeccably put together — not a hair out of place. It's no secret that the pressure to look attractive often clashes with acting freedom. But Sonya may be a star beyond her looks. When she lets go of the prim, proper façade — her gel-manicured nails forgotten — and comes undone over a plate of bland rice and curry, she becomes something else entirely. With rice and grime smeared across her face, she looks simultaneously deranged and ethereal. If horror is an ugly genre, Faysal gets the memo and enthusiastically complements Samina, his on-screen mother. Their dynamic as a possessive mother and protective son isn't surprising, especially if you recall the 2008 supernatural drama The Ghost, a Pakistani TV adaptation of Danielle Steel's novel. Set in an old, eerie Scottish castle, Faysal knows a thing or two about being haunted by the ghosts of the past when Samina is around. And boy, does it show. He's livid, raging, and spooked — not by what he sees, but by what he remembers. For those wary of mama's boys, watching Faysal's patience snap as yesterday's horrors bleed into the present adds the film's richest layer of emotional complexity. Missed opportunities It is these powerful performances that dash any hope of passing Deemak off as a comedy horror. Unfortunately, this leaves us with an emotionally rich palette that cannot reconcile its comical reliance on ghosts without revealing an underlying confusion. It's not just that Deemak fails to scare — after all, few films genuinely do. The bigger indictment is that it haunts you in ways it never intended. While the frequent appearances of CGI ghosts are hard to ignore, the film feels burdened by a rigid allegiance to what a horror film should be. Cue the infamous scenes of people levitating off their beds, and the exorcist who spells out the supernatural menace for the audience. If the resources to execute special effects and clichés are sparse, a film like Deemak could arguably dispense with them altogether. Its primary audience is, after all, well-versed in the visual vocabulary of the unseen. We cherish our saints, myths, and spirits — even when they have no face or flesh. With the right direction, it's clear that Deemak's real horror lies in grief, not the ghosts. Unfortunately, Deemak is unwilling to risk being misunderstood at any cost. But there's only so much you can explain within a reasonably paced two-hour runtime before it borders on boring and pedantic. By the time Deemak ends, the leading trio will have delivered solid performances, bolstered by capable child actors and memorable turns from Bushra Ansari, Javed Sheikh, and Saman Ansari — all anchored by a promising emotional core. Yet, at the end of the day, Deemak remains a ghost story haunted by its own potential. Have something to add to the story? Share it in the comments below.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Haunted by missed potential
Without question, Deemak is the most divisive Pakistani release of the year. For those who still invoke "support local cinema" regardless of a film's craft or coherence, this is perhaps the moment they've been waiting for. A harsher critique of director Rafay Rashdi's horror-family drama might be too easy — were it not for the sobering state of Pakistani cinema. When the only local competition is a film like Love Guru, hopes for a lively Eidul Azha at the movies are already dim. If audiences are weary of seeing Humayun Saeed and Mahira Khan replay the same formulas Hollywood created and Bollywood retired, Deemak is at least a departure. Rashdi deserves credit for venturing into a genre still novel in Pakistan's mainstream — psychological horror -— and for roping in A-listers like Faysal Quraishi, Sonya Hussaiyn, and Samina Peerzada, who are compelling enough to carry a lesser film. Unfortunately, there's little novelty, or even the bare minimum, to distract an audience raised on Zee Horror Show or accustomed to the polish of big-budget US and UK. The result is a film that reminds you — every ten minutes, if not every second — how much better it could have been had it dared to be original. There are brief stretches when you can lose yourself in Samina's commanding performance or the slow unravelling of Faysal and Sonya's marriage. But just then, the ghosts arrive in all their ridiculous CGI glory. An ugly genre It's hard to tell whether the film assumes its audience is gullible and unfamiliar with horror, or simply so starved for content that it'll watch anything. Because there's no way the filmmakers genuinely believed their GTA-gameplay-style CGI ghosts would convince anyone. If the cross-border success of last year's Stree 2 is anything to go by, the lucrative appeal of comedy-horrors is undeniable. Stree 2 in particular — unlike the Bhool Bhulaiyaa franchise — leans heavily on preposterous CGI and still manages just fine. However, Deemak is anything but a comedy-horror. Cut the CGI ghosts, and you're left with a politically resonant, emotionally intelligent family saga — not groundbreaking, but grounded. The writing does well to reimagine a typical saas-bahu conflict as a multi-generational horror, haunted less by ghouls than by grief, control, and intergenerational rage. Most remarkably, Samina delivers the performance of her career as the embittered mother-in-law who knows only how to wound those around her. Sometimes she's domineering and ruthless, other times sickly and scheming, and by the second half, somehow all at once. Samina is also, single-handedly, Deemak's most effective off-screen source of fear. If Samina is gorgeously uninhibited, Sonya, as the begrudged daughter-in-law, cannot escape the demands of stardom. Most scenes find her composed and impeccably put together — not a hair out of place. It's no secret that the pressure to look attractive often clashes with acting freedom. But Sonya may be a star beyond her looks. When she lets go of the prim, proper façade — her gel-manicured nails forgotten — and comes undone over a plate of bland rice and curry, she becomes something else entirely. With rice and grime smeared across her face, she looks simultaneously deranged and ethereal. If horror is an ugly genre, Faysal gets the memo and enthusiastically complements Samina, his on-screen mother. Their dynamic as a possessive mother and protective son isn't surprising, especially if you recall the 2008 supernatural drama The Ghost, a Pakistani TV adaptation of Danielle Steel's eponymous novel. Set in an old, eerie Scottish castle, Faysal knows a thing or two about being haunted by the ghosts of the past when Samina is around. And boy, does it show. He's livid, raging, and spooked — not by what he sees, but by what he remembers. For those wary of mama's boys, watching Faysal's patience snap as yesterday's horrors bleed into the present adds the film's richest layer of emotional complexity. Missed opportunities It is these emotionally turbulent performances that dash any hope of passing Deemak off as a comedy horror. This leaves us with an emotionally rich palette that cannot reconcile its comical reliance on ghosts without revealing an underlying confusion. It's not just that Deemak fails to scare - after all, few films genuinely do. The bigger indictment is that it haunts you in ways it never intended. While the frequent appearances of CGI ghosts are hard to ignore, the film feels burdened by a rigid allegiance to what a horror film should be. Cue the infamous scenes of people levitating off their beds, and the exorcist who spells out the supernatural menace for the audience. If the resources to execute special effects and clichés are sparse, a film like Deemak could arguably dispense with them altogether. Its primary audience is, after all, well-versed in the visual vocabulary of the unseen. We cherish our saints, myths, and spirits — even when they have no face or flesh. With the right direction, it's clear that the film's real horror lies in grief, not the ghosts. Unfortunately, Deemak is unwilling to risk being misunderstood at any cost. But there's only so much you can explain within a reasonably paced two-hour runtime before it borders on boring and pedantic. By the time Deemak ends, the leading trio will have delivered solid performances, bolstered by capable child actors and memorable turns from Bushra Ansari, Javed Sheikh, and Saman Ansari — all anchored by a promising emotional core. Yet, at the end of the day, Deemak remains a ghost story haunted by its own potential.
