How protests against 'PK' have unwittingly validated the film's message

What is common between Aandhi, Fire, Water, Black Friday, Garam Hawa and PK? Nothing, except that all these films faced massive protests in the country from a mass of people, and some were banned by the government or courts only for it to be revoked later.

As large scale protests around PK continue, one wonders what is so offensive about the movie. (Spoiler alerts ahead)

Aamir Khan's character PK, is an alien. He can imbibe and speak any human language possible, if he holds a person's hands long enough. But nobody lets Aamir do so, except a prostitute, who later berates him for not doing more.

The female lead played by Anushka Sharma is in love with a Pakistani Muslim (Sushant Singh Rajput). She is influenced by a godman revered by her father. The godman declares that Anushka's boyfriend will ditch her because 'Muslims and Pakistanis are not trustworthy'. Later, while waiting to get married in church, Anushka receives a letter which says that the writer cannot get married to the recipient. Without contacting her boyfriend, a crying Anushka accepts her predicament and leaves in a huff.

Later, the godman goes on to steal PK's remote which would take him back to his planet, and proclaims it to be a magic stone in front of thousands of believers.

The movie is full of underlying meanings. Director Rajkumar Hirani uses comedy to lighten the mood and deliver a strong message. Holding hands is about togetherness, unity. The India-Pakistan, Hindu-Muslim love story is a statement against those opposed to inter-religious marriage. Anushka's acceptance of her fate without consulting her boyfriend, is an example of the way self-proclaimed religious men influence us to mistrust others.

PK is not the Jadoo-like alien from Koi Mil Gaya. He looks like a human being, speaks in our language, eats and sleeps like human beings, and moves around the city with ease. But he is also absolutely honest and ignorant to the ways of the world. In simpler terms, he is a pure being, stuck in a world of manipulators. 

The world in PK is motivated by the concept of God and controlled by godmen. The search for an invisible, unyielding God is too difficult and entirely fruitless, yet it becomes the main obsession of the masses and a money-making tool for godmen. The movie also takes exception to the undue importance human beings give to material differences, ironically in their quest for God. For example, wine is commonplace in a church, but blasphemy in a mosque. Putting money into donation boxes is commonplace in temples but considered an outrage in a church. 

The innocence of PK, who attempts to do all this based on unsound advice from unsuspecting individuals, casts Aamir as the innocent 'alien' against the convoluted, hateful ways of a world which (ironically) wants to approach God. Along the way, certain unscrupulous individuals have transformed God into a money-making business. 

Rajkumar Hirani had taken due care to ensure the seriousness of the message is tempered by taking recourse to comedy, way before the Hindu right-wing raised the first objection to the film. However, the question to be asked is, how can a movie be judged until it is watched? How is anything offensive if you have not experienced it? What force of nature makes you resort to vandalism without knowing why it is that you are vandalising? 

A very religious person could watch PK and be mildly offended by its ridicule of godmen. But PK is all about symbolism, and without context there can be no symbolism. Even PK's nakedness in his first scene is an reference to his innocence (and the fact that people on earth tend to clothe or mask their intentions unlike him). Therefore, one cannot simply seek offence by watching a few scenes from PK. The film is not a thriller, it is not an action movie and is certainly not about isolated scenes that grab eyeballs.

At the very most, the film could be accused of promoting atheism. It does question the existence of God by, paradoxically, making PK believe in the literal presence of such a person. Even so, PK is more a movie about the ritualism of religion than the spiritual goal of attaining enlightenment in life. All through the film, objects and sequences used to describe the moral decadence of religion have a materialistic presence. From diyas, wine bottles, money, the stolen 'remote control', the godman's exhortations to conduct bizarre rituals and engage in prayer - everything is used as a means to criticise ritualistic religion. A liberal interpreter might see the film as an appeal to rise above the petty materialism of rituals and seek true peace and love in the world.

Unlike the ongoing discourse on social media that PK is anti-Hinduism, the movie decries ceremony in every major religion in India, in specific and well-differentiated scenes. The only reason the central villain - the godman - belongs to the majority community is perhaps because being from the majority, he becomes more representative of India's experience with religion.

Therefore, the only coherent reason for the religious right in India to take objection, is the movie's vilification of godmen. One would assume that atheism would be a lesser crime in their eyes than questioning the upholders of their religion. Then again, the atheistic message is so subtle, you'd be forgiven for missing it.

However, there is a one flaw in PK, or perhaps it is intentional. The movie only criticises petty ritualism and the influence of godmen in religion. It never seeks to examine the spiritual side of religion. PK is a tirade against magic stones, godmen, astrology, petty semantics and money, but (perhaps unintentionally) represents these as the hallmarks of religion. The fact that there is much, much more to organised religion the world over, and that it is perhaps far more intellectual in nature, escapes depiction in the movie. 

If the Hindu right-wing or the All India Muslim Personal Law Board wish to truly uphold their faith, they should rather focus on how PK's message is restricted to liturgy instead of examining the concept of religion. It could easily be argued that what PK stands against is only the misinterpretation of religion, not religion itself. And surely that cannot be the basis for calling for the ban of a movie. Sadly, not many seem to be considering this line of thought. 

But here's the catch - by protesting against the film without due knowledge or appreciation of its nuances, the right-wing has in fact validated the message of the movie. The protestors have unwittingly ascribed to the very premise that PK seeks to put forth - that ritualistic faith can lead otherwise sensible human beings to senseless acts of violence.