

Bollywood vs. Bin Laden - tokenadult
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/08/bollywood-vs-bin-laden

======
alinajaf
This article sounds nice, but I'm not exactly convinced. Here comes some
anecdata... TL/DR I think economic considerations like education, healthcare
and income have more to do with uptake of militant Islamism than movies.

You live in a village in Pakistan, working fields for more or less a feudal
landlord. Work is hard, long and for relatively little pay. You can't read or
write, so have little prospects for a career change apart from other forms of
manual labour. You have to support your own family, along with any elderly or
sick relatives. In most cases you probably blow some of your wage on
drink/gambling.

Once in a while a group comes through your village. They offer free food (a
bit like a soup kitchen), spiritual guidance, and in some cases community
health services. If you sign up for membership they promise to put your sons
through school and pay for healthcare of any ageing/poorly relatives. If
you're in a lot of debt or in any other sort of trouble, they promise to
handle these things for you if you commit to them. They call themselves the
Pakistani Taliban.

~~~
nanijoe
For someone who appears to have some insight , I am surprised you are mixing
up your "terrorists". There is a fundamental diference between a group like
the Taliban whose primary focus appears to be "taking their country back" ,
and characters like Osama who have delusions about being holy warriors in some
imaginary battle with the west.

~~~
sbierwagen
Note: there's two semi-distinct groups, the Pakistani Taliban and the
Afghanistan Taliban. A Pakistani farmer-serf is unlikely to agree with the
Taliban on spiritual matters: most rural Pakistanis are Sufists, they worship
local saints. The Taliban are hard-line Wahhabi fundamentalists, they consider
Sufists to be idol-worshipers. A cultural revolution, like the ones in
Afghanistan and Iran, is unlikely in Pakistan.

The Pakistan Taliban has a pretty good reputation in the Pashtun regions.
("Taliban" is a pashtun word) One of the more popular proposed reforms is
Sharia law.

Sharia has an appeal that's difficult to understand in the West. Pakistan's
official court system is deeply, deeply compromised. The police are hopelessly
corrupt. Cases take many years to resolve, and victory goes to the person who
paid out the most in bribes.

You can use the parallel legal "system", _jirga_ tribal law. Jirga is less
"legal system" and more "binding arbitration". It evolved to end blood feuds
by negotiating settlements between tribes, and as such, can be blindingly
unfair.

Compared to these two equally terrible alternatives, Sharia looks pretty good.
In fact, Muhammed invented it back in ~600CE precisely to stamp out customary
law. Compared to jirga, it's positively _progressive_ , esp. in regards to
women. (Which makes sense, it's about a thousand years newer than tribal law)
(Many interpretations of Sharia allow women to own property, for instance; and
Islamic judges typically don't settle blood feuds by trading women)

EDIT: Ha ha, remembered the wrong date.

~~~
sses
Muhammad died in 632.

~~~
sbierwagen
Thanks.

------
w1ntermute
I don't know how true this is though. It might work in Pakistan, but doesn't
seem like it would in the Middle East. For example, the article says that
there's a lot of interest in Bollywood in Dubai, but that's because 70% of the
population is South Asian[0].

And from another article[1], which has a great analysis of hard vs. soft power
and how Bollywood's true influence on its neighbors is actually nonexistent:

> The immense popularity of Bollywood in Pakistan and Afghanistan, for
> example, has not turned Pakistan into a pro-Indian country, nor does it
> prevent Afghans (including the educated elite) from spitting on the floor
> whenever a Hindu idol is shown on TV. The fact is that the Indian
> entertainment industry has virtually no ability to influence the paradigm of
> its viewers, and can only bombard them with superficial trash.

0: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Dubai>

1: [http://defenceforumindia.com/future-indian-power-hard-vs-
sof...](http://defenceforumindia.com/future-indian-power-hard-vs-soft-491)

~~~
waterlesscloud
That sort of misses the point though. The movies aren't going to make anyone
love their enemies, but they can definitely subvert hardline values.

The idea that they're superficial trash is almost a description of why they
work.

~~~
w1ntermute
The whole point of that article I linked _is_ that things like hardline
Islamism _can't_ be combated through the use of movies. From that same
article:

> Pakistan’s ideology is based on Islamic ‘nationalism’ where it views itself
> as part of a greater ‘Ummah’, but is certainly not recognized by the members
> of the ‘Ummah’ as its leader. _In other words, Pakistan does not have native
> ownership over its own ideology_ , which inevitably leads to Pakistan
> associating itself with other, more influential members of the ‘Ummah’ like
> Saudi Arabia and Iran, at the obvious expense of its own subcontinental
> origins.

Neither Pakistan nor India wield a significant influence in the Islamic world
- that power belongs to the aforementioned Saudi Arabia and Iran. No matter
what may or may not happen in Bollywood, its influence in
Pakistan/Afghanistan/etc. will always be overshadowed by Saudi & Persian
mullahs. The reason why mullahs from those countries have the sort of
transnational power they do is because of the unifying nature of Islam, across
ethnic, cultural, and linguistic boundaries.

But the further west you go from India, the more the "influence" of Bollywood
declines (and it is quite rapid). Regardless of whether the top Bollywood
actors are Muslim, India itself is almost 80% Hindu, and that will _never_ be
forgotten by those in the Middle East watching Bollywood movies.

Although to those of us in the West, it may be easy to lump India and the
Middle East into the same "cultural" category, that couldn't be further from
the truth. Shared "conservative" values only go so far, and their respective
histories are quite different.

~~~
waterlesscloud
The article you linked merely rejects the potential of pop culture to be soft
power, and it does so out of hand. Yes, once it rejects the premise, it finds
the premise holds no power.

The whole point of soft power isn't to take on cultural change head on. The
meaning of subvert isn't to force change. It's to effect a gradual change,
which will be seen over the course of a couple of generations.

Hollywood has immense cultural power over western nations; it can, and
definitely has, changed attitudes on a number of topics over just a few
generations.

The OP makes some good points that current western media depicts situations
too far from the current core islamic nations to carry much weight. The world
depicted has to be recognizable, and I'm sure Sex And The City seems
completely alien to Karachi (hell, it's still semi-alien to Des Moines). So
Hollywood isn't going to carry a lot of weight there.

But the world of Bollywood films are not wholly alien to Pakistan. It doesn't
matter if they consciously resist the messages because India is a Hindu
nation. That's the whole point of soft power. It works anyway.

Think about this question- did the Mullahs and Imams in faraway lands approve
Pakistan opening up to Indian film imports?

------
laktek
I'm not sure about Bollywood, but I believe Cricket could make a bigger impact
on the youth in the region. Cricketers have gained equal celebrity status (or
even more) to Bollywood stars and unlike, bollywood it's a dream they can
attain themselves.

Especially, in Afganistan the game is spreading fast. Recently, they got to
play their first international cricket match against Australia in Sharjah[1].
Also, Afgan team will take part in this year's T20 Cricket World Cup, which is
starting next week.

I grew up in Sri Lanka, where there was a 30 year old gruesome war. I know how
cricket played a major role in consoling the nation in troubled times and
helped people to bond together irrespective of their races. Muttiah
Muralitharan, who was one of the best bowlers the game has ever seen, was a
Tamil himself. His success became a big influence for kids like myself, to see
there's a bigger world outside that you can conquer[2].

[1] - <http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/571947.html>

[2] - <http://laktek.com/2010/07/23/best-role-model-of-our-time>

------
paperwork
The author provides an interesting perspective but his argument misses some
subtleties. The prohibition of Indian movies in Pakistan has almost nothing to
do with religious arguments. It is basic protectionism. That is, if the ban
still even exists.

Pakistan's own film industry produces movies which have all the themes of
romantic love, action, etc. The few times I've heard Pakistani opinion on
their film industry, they are often embarrassed because these films are often
considered vulgar, while many Indian movies are not (vulgar by local
standards). Pakistani 'dramas' (basically soap operas broadcast on TV) are
well liked (and well watched) by Pakistanis and those dramas not only have the
usual romantic stories but too many of them are down right preachy regarding
social issues.

As a child, I remember watching extremely popular dramas address
fundamentalist violence. The previous generation even had several satirical
commentaries on politics, extremism, corruption, lack of literacy, etc.. Shows
like Uncle Sargam, 50/50, ...anga teRha were fantastic in their message and
their content. If their production quality was brought up, they would surely
rank very high among great television programs anywhere.

~~~
davyjones
> ... but his argument misses ...

Shikha Dalmia. She.

~~~
mayanksinghal
Quick tip: most female Indian names end with an 'a' or an 'i'. Also male names
that end with an 'a' usually have it silent.

------
malandrew

      Conventional wisdom holds that communism collapsed 
      because America forced the Soviet Union into an 
      economically ruinous arms race. But the truth is that 
      the West won the Cold War less because it pointed 
      nuclear missiles at the Soviet people—and more because 
      it won their hearts and minds.
    

This article is just making up facts. Falling oil prices had more to do with
the fall of the USSR than probably any other factor.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Falling oil prices made the giant on feet of clay fall. But how it got feet of
clay in the first place?

First, it failed to be self-sufficient. USSR failed to make an independent
economic ecosystem, it had to export oil and import numerous things it could
not make inside (nor buy from other "communist" countries).

But second, communism failed to deliver the quality of life that first world
boasted. Quality of life which of course included rock music, movies with
violence and sex, and freedom of expression, but also good clothing, abundant
tasty food and friendly service sector.

(I think that importance of Beatles is greatly exaggerated in the article, but
I was born in 85 so I'm no expert on the exacts)

------
realrocker
Soft Power at it's best. Indians excel at inventing weapons of least
destruction by packaging them into a harmless psychedelic wrapper of nonsense
and escapism. Say what you may, but Indian Cinema's song and dance routines
are a balm for a billion souls.

Song, Love,Dance & Beautiful fields. You can't make this shit up:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o060YhF4rHs>

~~~
easternmonk
Note the Cow in the Song!

------
paulerdos
The article is pretty much confused drivel with no clear substantiating data.
My observations are that India is unable to control the growing fundamentalist
Islamic element within its population. Recent riots and pogroms against native
North-Eastern Indians (they have a significant East Asian component to their
appearance) by Islamic groups is a clear marker of rapidly increasing
instability. India as a state is one of those mixed stable-chaos types that is
teetering on the brink of disaster. A mafia driven monarchy (Antonina Malno
aka Sonia Gandhi) has effectively injected massive corruption into India's
state bureaucracy and destroyed the improvements/gains made in the 1990s by
civil society types. It is a mess. I would not invest any hope in India unless
there's some massive change in their politics.

~~~
intended
Huh?

While you do use words that are technically correct they stand on the far edge
of understanding or reflecting the underlying ground realities.

First your take on the Recent riot and pogroms in NE/Manipur/Assam and the
rest of the seven sisters seems to indicate that Islamic fundamentalists are
the chief culprits.

Yes it is Islamic adherents who are involved. But their presence is not
because of religion but because they are illegal refugees/immigrants from
Bangladesh who are encroaching and settling in the traditional lands of the
indigenous tribes and Indians who live in those areas.

But this is a situation that has been building up for years, and has at its
core a socio-economic cause and the religious coherence of the encroachers is
a secondary thing.

I could go on about how the Mumbai riots and later the exodus but that is a
separate point.

Secondly - Saying that Sonia Gandhi "has effectively injected massive
corruption in India's state bureaucracy" is to take the latest head of state
and blame her for the creation of a beast that reared its head first in the
time of Indira Gandhi in the 1960s (License Raj)

Saying that it is a mafia driven monarchy further simplifies the situation and
ignores the effects of the many corrupt parties and their respective leaders
in the coalition government.

If anything India was MORE corrupt in the 1990s just prior to the reforms and
a short while after.

It was only with the dismantling of power centers and places for the corrupt
to seek rents that a lot of the old guard found themselves shunted out.

If anything I would hold Sonia and Congress responsible for being gutless and
focusing on consolidating their power base.

But most of all I would single out the swing coalition partners from Bengal
above all.

The Communist party that supported the Govt in the first few years constantly
and consistently stymied each and every forward thinking disinvestment and
reform oriented bill.

Then came Mamta Bannerjee and her equally if not more anachronistic ideas.
IIRC she managed to get rid of the TATA Nano plant which would have created
large amounts of employment in her home state. Creating a text book lose-lose
situation.

I hold these people far more accountable as they crushed a huge amount of
political capital and mired the country down into survival and further
casteist politics.

------
fmax30
I might get downvoted but i have to say something here. Most pakistanis do
like bollywood movies, but still there are a growing many who resent them.
Bollywood movies ( apart from 1 director/actor) are extremely clichéd and many
a times just very poor remakes of English movies.

This rant aside i would actually say that cricket diplomacy has more power
than this film diplomacy,but that too is minuscule compared to the pakistani
nationalism.

Pakistanis are very defence forces loving people, heck i was amazed at people
going up to their roofs and saluting a F 16 flying over their heads. (Also
Pakistanis have a bloated sense of self importance.)

------
easternmonk
The article is only feel good. The fact is the Indian film industry or rather
the Hindi Film industry is believed to be in a grasp of Mafia in Pakistan. May
be not entirely but there is some truth to it.

The reason why America is not able to defeat Islam is because it has not
engaged Islam at an ideological level. Americans or the entire west has kind
of dug it's head into some hole on this issue. Consider the brutal and inhuman
laws in Saudi Arabia (For example: [http://www.niticentral.com/2012/08/womens-
eyes-distract-so-b...](http://www.niticentral.com/2012/08/womens-eyes-
distract-so-banish-them.html)) . USA wouldnt talk against them. The political
class will always say that "Islam is religion of peace" it is only few
distracted human beings who are waging the war in the name of Islam.

That stand is fallacious. People are born equal. A Hindu is as likely to
commit a crime as Muslim and vice versa. However the ideologies they follow
have some behavioral consequences for it's believers. Tibetians in China have
gone through a lot of troubles. They are tortured in their own land, they are
dirt poor, less educated and disconnected from rest of the world. Still, we
dont see a Tibetan monk blowing up a bus or a building. That is because they
follow Buddhism which believes that bringing harm to a sentient being is
incorrect. That religion is truly a religion of peace. On the other hand
believers in Islam believe that they are superior to everyone else and they
own the world. So they very easily justify killing the Kafirs/Unbelievers.

The west has not gauged the nuisance value of Islam. It has not engaged it at
an ideological level and that is why they are losing to Islam.

------
MikeCapone
That's very interesting. I had never heard about the magnitude of the impact
of Western culture in the soviet bloc, but it makes a lot of intuitive sense.

------
eps
> _Beatles and Rock n’ Roll helped bring down the Kremlin_

Hahahaha... He forgot Tom and Jerry and Freddy Krueger.

------
ramgorur
The Beatles was the reason for the breakdown of the soviet union -- this
Dalmia guy could come up with more convincing theory.

Well, most indian people like to talk about their Bollywood crap, no wonder
why this Dalmia guy is also a fan. But "Beatles brought down communism, so
will bollywood do to Islamists"

oh come on, give me a break.

------
mcantelon
As pop culture becomes more decadent in North America, Christian
fundamentalism seems to have grown. So not sure if pop decadence leads to
moderation.

~~~
tokenadult
_Christian fundamentalism seems to have grown._

Do you have evidence for that? The polling data I have seen suggest that that
is NOT how self-reported religious preference in the United States is
trending. The United States Census does not keep official statistics on
religious affiliation in the United States (thank God), but various private
organizations do sample surveys on the issue from time to time.

<http://religions.pewforum.org/reports>

[http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-07-19/no-
re...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-07-19/no-religion-
affiliation/56344976/1)

"Barry Kosmin, co-author of three American Religious Identification Surveys,
theorizes why None has become the 'default category.' He says, 'Young people
are resistant to the authority of institutional religion, older people are
turned off by the politicization of religion, and people are simply less into
theology than ever before.'"

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx>

[http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/15-christianity-
is-n...](http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/15-christianity-is-no-longer-
americans-default-faith)

~~~
Evbn
Mathematically it is simple for a bell curve centered on deists to split into
a bimodal distribution of atheists and Christian fundamentalists.

~~~
alinajaf
Interesting, but why bimodal? I find a lot of my friends who claim to be
Christian on further questioning are in fact "Deists in disguise".

~~~
Evbn
I don't know. Culture war forcing people to choose sides instead of coasting
along in a society where no one really cares?

------
vvpan
Wait, isn't outside cultural influences what provoked Islam into radicalizing?

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
No. They've been doing that since they were founded.

Then again, so were the Christians. And the Buddhists. And the Hindus.

Then again, I cannot seem to find any sources of recent (last 1000 years)
Jewish vs other violence. They seem to be picked on more than doing picking.

~~~
el-mapache
I'm sorry, but do you mean the violent behaviour that didn't cause the bombing
of the King David hotel in Jerusalem? Or the persistent treatment of the
Palestinians as non-entities in a country in which they account for some 20
percent of the population? Or perhaps you're refering to the hawkish attitude
taken towards Iran and syria? Neither of those countries support anything
close to democracy, but it's a farce and a damn shame to pretend that the
religious extremists in Israel are anything but.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
I wasn't being clear in what I was thinking of.

I was referring to religions that go to war vs another for religious reasons.
Crusades: Christian vs Islam, for example.

Jerusalem is different, that being a country with displacement/murder of
people at its creation. Not that I agree with any sort of treatment towards
families killed or kicked out on the founding.

After having read a bit about the bombing of the King David Hotel, well, I
guess there are some radical elements there too. Pity.

------
Evbn
When we are talk about the need for western enlightenment values to triumph
over fundamentalism, this is what it means, not Brzynsky and Kissinger and
Cheney's War on Non-Americans.

------
aj700
Question: should links to reason.com, instead of just saying (reason.com) have
something like WARNING: Objectivism for people who forget that this site is by
people who think free markets still work as a concept. I haven't read this
link. If it's taking a pro-intervention stance, I'm ok with that, but many
aren't.

~~~
waterlesscloud
If people can't read something and make up their own mind about it, there's
nothing we can do to help them.

