Ban on Pakistani artists justified?

I don't think anyone could have said it better.

@ms1864 Humbled :)

Absolutely. We can always go about parading the rhetoric of bad government good people.The fact is that any form of government exists only due to the legitimacy provided to it by the people. Yes, it is possible for a legitimate government to turn oppressive but it still cannot exist without the public mandate. If we accept things as they are, we will be stuck in a perpetual cycle of sporadic violence and escalations which would flare up tempers time and again and cause passionate responses instead of calculated ones. That, in turn , would be more harmful to the general citizenry on both sides. Henceforth, it would be a lot better to make them taste the bitterness of economic isolation and our strong stand against their general hypocrisy.

They are not banned by the government but by the Indian Motion Picture Producers Association. So there is no legal ban on their stay per se, but a ban prohibiting them from working in Indian movies. The decision comes in the wake of the recent terrorist attack in which 19 Indian soldiers lost their lives. Cross-border terrorism has been a reality since 3 decades now. It is a well-known fact that the Pakistani establishment is run not by their civil government but by their army. The army, in turn, uses terrorism as a state policy to foment trouble in India since it is economically incapable of sustaining a direct confrontation. Despite all this, India has always been welcoming to the general citizenry of Pakistan, the artists included. Many have come and earnt a fortune in India, garnering a huge fan base and receiving all the love that any Indian artist would. But while they earnt their bread and butter on Indian soil, they didn't have the courtesy to even condemn the attack. The same people would write poems and songs in the case of attacks in France and Brussels, or their own country. But here in the country which provides them their livelihood, they couldn't garner the basic decency to condemn a terrorist attack. This hypocrisy didn't go down well with the Indian public and seeing this two-faced approach of the actors, the IMPAA decided it wasn't possible for "business to go on as usual". Also, while it is true that freedom of speech is imperative, considering that ours is still a maturing democracy which is an amalgam of a very large number of distinct cultures, our constitution has not provided for freedom of speech as a fundamental right for non-citizens in order to prevent foreign elements from creating social disharmony. That being said, the Pakistani actors still had the right to silence and a non-govt body such as the IMPAA has it's own right to decide who it allows to work. Thus, India has still not compromised on its democratic values.

@TheAythingGuy - Very gracious of you to supply such a thorough explanation. Do you think maybe it was fear that caused the Pakistani actors not to speak out? No doubt. I understand your point about condemnation. But we all like to believe that we will do the right thing no matter what. But one never knows when they will have a moment of strength and courage and stand up OR a moment of weakness and fear and RUN!! I'm not excusing them. I view country relations the same as neighbor relations. If I am kind to my neighbor, opened a door to allow them a comfortable life and then someone from where they come from, barges into my house and harms or injures my family, and they don't say or do anything, I would feel – in a sense – betrayed and might think of them as ungrateful. In that case I clearly understand the action or reaction of the Indian Motion Picture Producers Association. The Association may not be the government but in the same way the actors can choose to remain silent, that organization has the right to not remain silent and express their feelings of betrayal. Who's right? Who's wrong? It's a personal opinion but I think the ban is the right thing to do. There is a familiar expression in America that I think is applicable to this situation: “There comes a time in life when you got to take a stand and that time is now!” It's not just about acting and making a living but remaining in a “safety zone” or your "comfort zone" so you don't get dragged into the politics of the situation. It's about taking a stand. The actors did not “risk” taking a stand when they should have. I'm an outsider, looking from a distance. That's my two cents which may not be worth anything. But I said it!

@cmoneyspinner I couldn't have expected a more appropriate response. Your analysis, as well as your conclusion, is impeccably on the spot. You are perhaps right when you say that fear could've been an impediment which prevented them from being vocal with their condemnation. But we must bear in mind that the general psyche of countries in our region is a lot different from those in the global north. If we were to condone such behaviour, the inaction is implicitly interpreted in the neighbourhood as impotency and lack of will to retaliate. That, in turn, motivates terrorist groups like the Jaish-e-muhammed and the Hizb-ul-mujahideen to raise the stakes against a "weak" India. That being said - “There comes a time in life when you got to take a stand and that time is now!”. That perhaps sums it all up. The course of history is never altered by those who know, but by those who act. And if history has taught us anything, equilibrium has always been an epilogue to sporadic instability and action. The devastation and consequent peace caused by the little boy and fat man hold testimony to this fact. Nonetheless, you sir, have earnt my following.

Well humanity doesn't beat terrorism.

@Fleurnight Humanity is still alive. Terrorism is still flourishing. No surprises that real humane people are the first casualty, not the proponents of 'humanity'. :)