Khuda ke Liye - A Review

Introduction:

A maverick film of its time, Khuda ke Liye was written, produced and directed by Shoaib Mansoor. It spans across four countries and is set in the period around The World Trade Centre blasts, from the beginning of 2001 to the autumn of 2002. It highlights three major issues – Islamic fundamentalism, state-sponsored racial profiling and the deplorable condition of Muslim women. The movie raises questions about the multi-layered conflicts in the world today, the conflict between moderates and extremes and between the Western world and the Muslims. In such a fragmented and tyrannous society where the government and religion dictate the thoughts and actions of individuals, the futility of a man’s quest to live his life according to his wishes surfaces.

The Pledge:

The movie follows the lives of three young individuals, Sarmad (Fawad Afzal Khan), Mansoor (Shaan) and Mary (Iman Ali), each one portraying a different face of the society. Sarmad and Mansoor, hailing from a liberal family, live in Pakistan and are amongst the best singers in the country. A fanatic Islamic Maulana incites Sarmad to leave music, don the traditional Muslim attire – a beard and pyjamas, and follow the life of a devout Muslim. On the other hand, Mary lives in London with a Muslim father and a Gora mother. Her father disapproves of her illicit love affair with a Christian, Dave. He brings her to Pakistan on the pretext of visiting her cousins, where he connives with his nephew Sarmad to abduct her to Afghanistan. Sarmad is instigated by the Maulana to comply with Mary’s father on the grounds of the deed being very noble for Islam.

In Afghanistan, Mary is forcefully married to Sarmad. As she tries to adjust to the austere life in the village, she constantly looks for ways to escape. After one of her attempts is foiled by Sarmad, he consummates the marriage by forced rape. He starts undergoing training to join the Islam fundamentalists fighting for jihad. Mary writes a letter to Dave apprising him of her location and situation, thus giving him evidence to fight for the support of the British government. Finally, she is extricated from Sarmad’s clutches by his own father.

Meanwhile, Mansoor goes to the United States to learn music where he meets Janie (Austin Marie Sayre) and falls in love. They get married a few days after the September 11 attack. The law enforcement authorities in the US arrest Mansoor, accusing him of being a terrorist, primarily on the grounds of him being a Muslim. He is subjected to unspeakable atrocities under the garb of trying to elicit the truth out of him. Janie incessantly canvasses on the roads of New York for the release of her husband, but to no avail. Tired of his fate, Mansoor eventually surrenders by writing, “I love Osama” on the walls of his cell. However, the intense physical torture leaves him incapacitated and sentenced to life on a wheelchair.

The film ends in an extensive courtroom drama where a liberal Maulana with a progressive outlook (Naseeruddin Shah) dispels all misconceptions surrounding the interpretation of Islam for the modern Muslim and Sarmad acknowledges his mistakes. The climax leaves the audience stunned where the modern Mary decided to open a school for girls in the Afghan village instead of returning to Dave in London.

The Turn:

Khuda ke Liye is the first Pakistani film to showcase such sensitive issues in an explicit manner. Shoaib Mansoor has effectively represented three different, though interconnected, issues by his three main protagonists. While Sarmad depicts the penetration of Islamic radicalism in the fabric of the modern Muslim society, Mansoor’s case reveals the extensive xenophobia against Muslims in the West post 9/11. The misinterpretation of Islam to suit the radical clerics and to reinforce the male supremacy is described by the incidents in Mary’s life. The paradoxical plight of the moderate Muslim, attacked by the extremists on one side and the Western world on the other, has been highlighted in a fair and balanced manner by Shoaib.

The movie exposes the inefficiency of the US Government in identifying potential terrorists post 9/11. A Muslim, by the curse of his name, was deemed culpable. This is further exemplified in the case of Dr. Hameed who was imprisoned in Australia and accused of the attack on the Glasgow airport. This deep infiltration of the government into the lives of individuals is contradictory to Locke’s theory of the importance of the ‘consent of the governed’.

The film presents two divergent views on Samuel Huntington’s theory of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’. It highlights the conflict between the Western and Islamic civilization and at the same time exposes the cracks within the Muslim community, thus lending support to Huntington’s critics.

The inherent human tendency to adopt attitudes in sync with the surroundings is evident in the behaviors of Sarmad and Mary. Sarmad, in order to conform to the teachings of Islam, gives up his modern ways of living while Mary leads a progressive life in accordance with what she sees around her in London. This need to conform to the society can be attributed to a theory propounded by Salancik and Pfeffer which contends that ‘attitude evolves from socially constructed reactions’.

Another aspect of human behavior starkly represented in the film is the will to survive. The young girls in the Afghan village derive happiness from their games and chores, in spite of not knowing life beyond the boundaries of their village. A statement made by one of them to Mary, “Please escape, we can manage without learning English”, validates this. This characteristic can be seen in the behavior of Mansoor as well, who succeeds in maintaining his sanity in the face of the inhuman torture he was subjected to, thus lending credibility to Nietzsche's words, 'He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how.’

Shoaib Mansoor has used a number of cinematic techniques to accentuate his message. Dull, yellow lighting throughout the movie underlines the dark and dreary setting that the movie revolves around and emphasizes on the gravity of the issue. Also, most of the songs in the movie are background scores, thereby, providing no hindrance to the flow of ideas. A heart-wrenching scene is that of Mary trying to make an escape from the Afghan village she is imprisoned in. A valley separates her from the road, the route to her survival. As she starts traversing the distance on a trolley, Sarmad spots her and pulls her back. This symbolizes the constant oscillation between hope and despair. Similarly, Janie canvassing for her husband’s release symbolizes hope whereas Mansoor’s surrender stands for despair. This thread runs through the entire movie, taking the viewer through a rollercoaster of emotions.

The Prestige:

Khuda ke Liye was the first Pakistani film to be released in India after 43 years. It was an instant success not only in India, but also in Pakistan despite threats from radical clerics. A week after the film was released in Pakistan, Islamic fanatics declared a fatwa on the director for showing radicalism in bad light. Numerous petitions were passed against the screening of the movie on the grounds of it being ‘objectionable’ and ‘adding fuel to the fire of terrorism’. However, the film received accolades for the revival of Pakistani cinema; hitherto revolving around romantic sagas, songs and dances; and the bold portrayal of radical Islam and its flaws.

Critique:

Although the film was the first of its kind in the history of Pakistani cinema, the director stumbled at a few places. The character development of the supporting actors is glaringly incomplete. Mary’s father, whose role could have been much stronger, was overlooked. Also, In the rush to fit three different issues into one movie, Shoaib has not paid attention to details - Samrad’s disappearance from home did not evoke concern in his parents. Similarly, Mansoor’s detention was not contested by his parents, nor was government support demanded. In a number of places, the treatment of the movie is prolonged, for e.g., the torture of Mansoor in New York was displayed in excruciating detail.

To conclude, even though the movie does not provide solutions, it raises questions in the viewer’s mind, inducing him to inquire, to not follow blindly, to live life on his own terms, in the words of Descartes, ‘I think, therefore I am.’