In a recent legal saga that unfolded before the Bombay High Court, a prominent figure named Faaiz Anwar Qureshi, who identified himself as a cine worker and artist, initiated a legal petition that demanded a rather striking move. Qureshi’s petition called upon the Indian government to impose a sweeping ban on any form of professional association with artists from Pakistan. This ambitious request included a call for a prohibition on the employment, solicitation of work, or collaboration with Pakistani cine workers, musicians, singers, lyricists, and technicians by both Indian citizens and companies.
However, the division bench presiding over this matter, consisting of Justices Sunil Shukre and Firdosh Pooniwalla, categorically and resoundingly rejected the plea. In their eloquent ruling, the court emphasized that such a move would represent a backward step in fostering cultural harmony and unity, not just within India but also extending across the border with Pakistan. The court profoundly observed that patriotism is not demonstrated by hostility towards foreign nationals, especially those hailing from neighboring countries.
This judicial decision left many fans and entertainment enthusiasts longing for the return of their beloved Pakistani artists to the Indian entertainment scene. This landmark ruling signifies a significant shift in the perception of cross-border artistic collaborations and kindles hopes for the return of Pakistani artists to India.
Read about the Hidden talent of Taylor Swift.
While the focus has predominantly centered around actors, there is also a palpable anticipation for Pakistani musicians to make a resounding comeback. The recent success of Ali Sethi’s “Pasoori,” which achieved global acclaim, serves as a testament to the enduring appetite for Pakistani music in India. This hit song, originally from Coke Studio Season 14, even prompted an Indian adaptation sung by Arijit Singh.
The ban on Pakistani artists working in India, which had been enforced by the Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA), invoked “security” and “patriotism” as its justifications. This ban had led to a significant pause in artistic collaboration and deprived Indian audiences of the exceptional talents of renowned artists like Fawad Khan, Mahira Khan, Ali Zafar, and gifted musicians such as Atif Aslam and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan.
Intriguingly, the court also addressed the matter of Pakistan’s cricket team’s participation in the ongoing World Cup in India, commending the Indian government’s proactive measures to allow it. These measures were aligned with Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, which fosters global peace and security. The argument presented against this was that the presence of Pakistani artists in India during the World Cup could potentially diminish job opportunities for Indian artists. However, the bench of judges found no merit in these arguments and affirmed that the judiciary cannot mandate the government to formulate specific laws or policies in this regard.
The petitioner had gone to lengths to request the court to halt the issuance of visas to Pakistani artists and to penalize those who disregarded the ban. This plea highlighted the resolutions passed by various Indian cinema associations, including the All-Indian Cine Workers Association (AICWA), the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA), and the Federation of Western Indian Cine Employees (FWICE), all of which had imposed bans on Pakistani artists in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror attacks. The Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) Cinema Wing had also issued cautions to filmmakers against hiring Pakistani artists.
Advocate Vibhav Krishna, representing the petitioner, argued that allowing Pakistani artists to work in India could lead to discrimination against Indian artists. He contended that the favorable environment available to Pakistani artists in India is not reciprocated for Indian artists in Pakistan. The ban, he asserted, was necessary to prevent the exploitation of commercial opportunities by Pakistani artists in India, which could potentially deprive Indian artists of similar opportunities.
Read about the Ultimate showdown of the Show Business.
However, the court, in its wisdom, deemed the petitioner’s stance as misplaced. The court emphasized the paramount need for cultural harmony and peace between nations, driving home the point that patriotism should not breed hostility but rather should be a force that promotes unity and cultural exchanges.
Moreover, the court underlined that the resolutions passed by private associations, though wellintentioned, lacked statutory force and could not be enforced through judicial orders. Enforcing such bans, the court stressed, would contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
In a broader context, the court also made astute observations about the “positive steps” taken by the Indian government in promoting international peace and security. One such example was the government’s decision to allow the Pakistani cricket team to participate in the World Cricket Cup held in India. The court asserted that entertaining petitions like the one brought by the petitioner would undermine these positive efforts.
In the legal arena, advocates Vibhav Krishna, Anmol B, and Tahir P, represented the petitioner. Advocate Rui Rodrigues represented the Central Government, and Government Pleader PH Kantharia, along with AGP Manish Upadhye, represented the State.
The case, with the reference number Writ Petition (L) No. 28838 of 2023, was titled “Faaiz Anwar Qureshi v. Union of India.”
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s ruling is not just a legal verdict but a testament to the enduring power of art, unity, and cross-border cultural exchange, serving as a beacon for fostering peace, tranquility, and harmony between nations.
