Clutch
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 17,022
- Reaction score
- -3
Hollywood as a means of cultural imperialism: How the United States is distorting views of development abroad.
MAY 5, 2016 BY KT KELLY
Title clear & compelling:
Hollywood as a means of cultural imperialism: How the United States is distorting views of development abroad.
Background interdisciplinary comprehensive, including major ideas:
Hollywood is more than just a neighborhood in Los Angeles, CA. It is a symbol of the motion picture industry of the United States. Hollywood doesn’t just dominate the domestic film market, “American films and American co-productions dominate the list of top 10 films in the global market and in national markets in spite of protectionist cultural policies and national subsidies in many countries,” (Crane, 2014). There are three factors that explain American dominance in the film industry: concentration of talent and resources, comparative advantage in economics of scale, and means of distribution.
Some critics see films as another form of cultural imperialism. Since Hollywood has attracted global audiences, it has made important modifications. Of the past two decades, references to American culture are less specific, while themes and motifs of other cultures are more prevalent, making the film appeal to audience on the global film market (Crane, 2014). And while Hollywood has made these modifications to diversify its content, the American film industry still faces scrutiny for not being diverse enough, as exemplified in the #OscarsSoWhite movement during the 2015 Academy Awards. Because of it’s lack of diversity and global influence, the Hollywood film industry potentially has the ability to homogenize global cultures, and therefore the industry acts as a cultural imperialist (Crane, 2014).
The United States is not just the hegemony, but it’s pop culture is also hegemonic (Wagnleitner, 2001). Ideals that the United States holds to be true are eventually adopted by lower tiers and subordinate countries. For instance, the American view of development as fast, progressive, and industrial, leaves little wiggle room for other countries influenced by American pop culture to create a national identity or perspective themselves (Su, 2011). On top of this the hegemonic devices used in the film industry function to contain social change by absorbing stories (that should be told in different perspectives) into its core ideological structure, “giving the appearnce of addressing calls for social change, while simultaneously legitimizing dominant ideologies for the viewing public,” (Cooper, 1999).
While Hollywood has made modifications to their industry to be more specific about other cultures, Hollywood is also modifying the cultures within the movies to encompass American ideals. Take, for instance, the Disney Princess movie, Mulan (1998). Before the United States even produced this film, the Chinese folk tale had already been the subject of operas, television series, and three films. When Disney production started, “American-style individualism was inserted in the story, transforming a shy, demure heroine into an outgoing and tomboyish girl… the story although set in China, is resolutely modern and American,” (Crane, 2014)
Parallel this phenomenon with the theory of modernization, a theory that modernization is a historical process by which countries are try to catch up with the world’s advanced countries economically and technologically under the framework of capitalism. Originating from the United States, “modernization was the same as ‘Americanization,’” (Peng 2009). To a certain extent, Hollywood is simply an American film industry producing films with the American perspective. Because of the influence the American film industry has and the hegemonic power of American pop culture, that the film industry has the privilege to provide that different cultural perspective. This could fight for the preservation of national cultures, while also diversifying the Hollywood film industry. As an American industry, however, does America have the ability to depict Non-Western perspectives and ideals?
There is also a difference between plots where an American character interacts with a culture outside of their own, or if a person from a different culture is depicted in a film set in the United States. Also, need to look at films that dominated the global market, not just the American one.
Questions focused & specific answerable but not known:
How is the discourse in American-made blockbuster films set abroad mindful of cultural differences, perspectives, and ideals?
Method directly addresses research question do-able clear, articulate & detailed:
References:
Crane, Diana. “Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry: Cultural Policies, National Film Industries, and Transnational Film.”International Journal of Cultural Policy 20, no. 4 (2014): 365-82.
Wagnleitner, Reinhold. “‘No Commodity Is Quite So Strange as This Thing Called Cultural Exchange’: The Foreign Politics of American Pop Culture Hegemony.” Amerikastudien/American Studies 46, no. 3 (2001): 443-70.
Su, Wendy. “Resisting Cultural Imperialism, or Welcoming Cultural Globalization? China’s Extensive Debate on Hollywood Cinema from 1994 to 2007.” Asian Journal of Communication 21, no. 2 (2011): 186-201.
Peng, Yuan. “Modernization Theory.” Chinese Studies in History 43, no. 1 (2009): 37-45.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bollywood Becomes India and Pakistan’s Latest Battleground
Indian soldiers near a building where militants loyal to Pakistan were thought to be hiding in Pampore, south of Srinagar, Kashmir, last week.TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
By GEETA ANAND and AYESHA VENKATARAMAN
October 19, 2016
MUMBAI, India — India and Pakistan, longtime enemies with nuclear arsenals, have battled over borders, killed each other’s soldiers and fought three wars since the countries’ creation seven decades ago.
Now their battle has reached the big screen.
Pakistan on Wednesday imposed a blanket ban on Indian shows on its television networks and radio stations, a day after one of India’s top film directors vowed not to hire actors from Pakistan in response to a major Indian cinema group’s declaration that it would not screen films with Pakistani casts.
The tit-for-tat measures come amid deteriorating relations between the two countries after an attack in September on an Indian Army base by militants who India says were from Pakistan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India responded to the attacks by authorizing retaliatory strikes against Pakistan and has tried to isolate the country diplomatically, pulling out of a regional economic conference and using a summit meeting in New Delhi that included the Russian, Chinese and Brazilian heads of state last weekend as a platform to attack the Pakistani government.
The Indian film director Karan Johar in 2008. He said this week that he would no longer use Pakistani actors in his films.MAX NASH/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
The tension is likely to increase in the coming months as Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party faces an election in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, where nationalism — specifically, tough talk on Pakistan — is quickly replacing economic development as the party’s election platform.
ADVERTISEMENT
That tough talk has been reverberating through the arts.
Pakistani musicians have long been a mainstay of Bollywood, whose films and songs are also hugely popular across the border in Pakistan. And Pakistani actors have recently entered Bollywood amid the growing popularity in India of Pakistani-based television serials. But those cultural ties are being cut.
The Pakistani ban on Indian shows goes into effect on Friday. The government acted on a recommendation from the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, and Pakistani officials said it was in response to escalating curbs on Pakistani films and actors in India. The license of any TV network or radio station that does not comply will be suspended, the regulating authority said.
This week, a leading Indian film director, Karan Johar, released a video in which he praised the Indian Army and said he would no longer use Pakistani actors in his films. The move was prompted by the decision of one of India’s biggest groups of cinema owners not to show films with Pakistani actors, partly targeting the planned release on Oct. 28 of a film by Mr. Johar starring a Pakistani actor.
The Indian superstar Salman Khan was denounced by a talk show host after speaking out against a ban on Pakistani actors.AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
Mr. Johar said he felt a “deep sense of pain” at being accused of working against national interests.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Indian Army’s military strikes in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir, which it conducted 10 days after 19 soldiers were killed at an Indian Army base, set off a nationalistic fervor across India that has been picked up by the country’s media.
The Indian superstar Salman Khan, who spoke out against the ban on Pakistani actors, was angrily denounced by one of India’s top television talk show hosts, Arnab Goswami.
Om Puri, an actor who has appeared in Bollywood, Hollywood and independent films, also found himself under attack during a televised debate when he said he opposed the ban. The situation escalated when Mr. Puri, pressed by the anchor about a slain soldier, retorted, “Who asked him to join the army?” The actor later apologized.
The Indian actor Om Puri found himself under attack in a televised debate when he said he opposed the ban on Pakistani actors.CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS
Sporting ties have also been severed, with Pakistan barred from playing in India at the World Cup of kabaddi, a form of wrestling and tag that is popular on the subcontinent.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We have a government that is taking a very, very hard line on Pakistan, a political context from which the cultural narrative is emerging,” said Harsh V. Pant, a professor of international relations at King’s College London who is from India. “Society and the government are in sync with this argument that we need to marginalize Pakistan.”
The cultural standoff began on Sept. 28 when the India Motion Picture Producers’ Association unanimously voted to ban employing Pakistanis in Bollywood.
“As Indians, we want a good relationship with our neighbor, but if the neighbor is not good then we have to take some steps to show him that we are not happy with him,” Manoj Chaturvedi, the association’s general secretary, said in an interview on Tuesday.
Demonstrators burned an effigy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India in Karachi, Pakistan, this month.FAREED KHAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, a far-right political party, then raised the stakes with an ultimatum to all Pakistani performers working in India to leave within 48 hours or “risk being beaten up.” It also threatened violence against theater owners who showed films with Pakistanis in the cast.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Indian television channel Zindagi, which since 2014 has aired Pakistani shows that have grown hugely popular, scrubbed them from its programming.
Then the Cinema Owners and Exhibitors Association of India asked exhibitors not to release any movie featuring Pakistani performers, putting in jeopardy Mr. Johar’s new film, “Ae Dil Hai Mushkil,” which stars the Pakistani heartthrob Fawad Khan.
Beyond a show of solidarity for the fallen Indian soldiers, that appeal was made partly because of Mr. Khan’s silence after the attacks, when many people felt he should have made “a statement against terrorism,” said Nitin Datar, the president of the cinema owners’ association. The group also worried that cinemas might be damaged amid protests, he said. Mr. Khan made a general statement opposing violence but not a specific denunciation of the attack on the army base.
Indians prepared to burn an effigy of the Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, last week.NARINDER NANU/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
“If you map out the present sentiment across the country, then you will find out how many people are against doing anything with Pakistani artists,” Mr. Datar said. “It’s not only us. We’ve taken into consideration the views of the general public also, which was conveyed to us by our members.”
ADVERTISEMENT
On Monday, the Mumbai Film Festival said it would drop a classic 1959 Pakistani film, “Jago Hua Savera” (The Day Shall Dawn), from its lineup this month. Recently restored, the movie explores the struggles of East Bengal fishermen, played by Pakistani and Indian actors, and has been called a masterpiece of South Asian cinema.
A week before the festival’s start, Prithvi Mhaske, a social activist, filed a complaint with the police against the screening of the film, threatening continued protests. “To sit in a theater and eat popcorn and ice cream as you watch a Pakistani movie is unfair to our soldiers,” said Mr. Mhaske, the president of Sangharsh Foundation, a Mumbai nonprofit. Three days later, the movie was removed from the festival’s lineup.
Some analysts say the furor is a sign of frustration over the Indian government’s inability to stop militant attacks carried out by Pakistan-based groups, despite overtures to make peace. Pakistan has denied any involvement in the attack on the base and support for the militants in Kashmir.
ADVERTISEMENT
“There is a turning of the tide about the narrative that engagement with Pakistan culturally is good in and of itself,” said Mr. Pant, the international relations professor. “Nobody in India buys that argument anymore that if you do cultural exchanges and cricket matches, it will benefit India.”
But India’s muscle flexing could have dire consequences for the region if it continues for an extended period, he said.
“In Pakistan, we have several actors: military leadership, civilian leadership, and renegade parts of the Pakistan military,” Mr. Pant said. “Anyone can retaliate.”
“We don’t know the consequences of what India has done,” he added. “This is a unique moment in Indo-Pak relations in the nuclear age. These are new, interesting and scary times.”
Correction: November 19, 2016
Because of an editing error, an article on Oct. 20 about a mutual ban on India’s and Pakistan’s film stars and TV shows, imposed after clashes in the disputed region of Kashmir, referred incorrectly to retaliatory military strikes by India and misstated the location where they occurred. They were “surgical strikes,” the army said, not airstrikes, and they took place in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir, not within Pakistan itself.
Salman Masood contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Suhasini Raj from New Delhi.
MAY 5, 2016 BY KT KELLY
Title clear & compelling:
Hollywood as a means of cultural imperialism: How the United States is distorting views of development abroad.
Background interdisciplinary comprehensive, including major ideas:
Hollywood is more than just a neighborhood in Los Angeles, CA. It is a symbol of the motion picture industry of the United States. Hollywood doesn’t just dominate the domestic film market, “American films and American co-productions dominate the list of top 10 films in the global market and in national markets in spite of protectionist cultural policies and national subsidies in many countries,” (Crane, 2014). There are three factors that explain American dominance in the film industry: concentration of talent and resources, comparative advantage in economics of scale, and means of distribution.
Some critics see films as another form of cultural imperialism. Since Hollywood has attracted global audiences, it has made important modifications. Of the past two decades, references to American culture are less specific, while themes and motifs of other cultures are more prevalent, making the film appeal to audience on the global film market (Crane, 2014). And while Hollywood has made these modifications to diversify its content, the American film industry still faces scrutiny for not being diverse enough, as exemplified in the #OscarsSoWhite movement during the 2015 Academy Awards. Because of it’s lack of diversity and global influence, the Hollywood film industry potentially has the ability to homogenize global cultures, and therefore the industry acts as a cultural imperialist (Crane, 2014).
The United States is not just the hegemony, but it’s pop culture is also hegemonic (Wagnleitner, 2001). Ideals that the United States holds to be true are eventually adopted by lower tiers and subordinate countries. For instance, the American view of development as fast, progressive, and industrial, leaves little wiggle room for other countries influenced by American pop culture to create a national identity or perspective themselves (Su, 2011). On top of this the hegemonic devices used in the film industry function to contain social change by absorbing stories (that should be told in different perspectives) into its core ideological structure, “giving the appearnce of addressing calls for social change, while simultaneously legitimizing dominant ideologies for the viewing public,” (Cooper, 1999).
While Hollywood has made modifications to their industry to be more specific about other cultures, Hollywood is also modifying the cultures within the movies to encompass American ideals. Take, for instance, the Disney Princess movie, Mulan (1998). Before the United States even produced this film, the Chinese folk tale had already been the subject of operas, television series, and three films. When Disney production started, “American-style individualism was inserted in the story, transforming a shy, demure heroine into an outgoing and tomboyish girl… the story although set in China, is resolutely modern and American,” (Crane, 2014)
Parallel this phenomenon with the theory of modernization, a theory that modernization is a historical process by which countries are try to catch up with the world’s advanced countries economically and technologically under the framework of capitalism. Originating from the United States, “modernization was the same as ‘Americanization,’” (Peng 2009). To a certain extent, Hollywood is simply an American film industry producing films with the American perspective. Because of the influence the American film industry has and the hegemonic power of American pop culture, that the film industry has the privilege to provide that different cultural perspective. This could fight for the preservation of national cultures, while also diversifying the Hollywood film industry. As an American industry, however, does America have the ability to depict Non-Western perspectives and ideals?
There is also a difference between plots where an American character interacts with a culture outside of their own, or if a person from a different culture is depicted in a film set in the United States. Also, need to look at films that dominated the global market, not just the American one.
Questions focused & specific answerable but not known:
How is the discourse in American-made blockbuster films set abroad mindful of cultural differences, perspectives, and ideals?
Method directly addresses research question do-able clear, articulate & detailed:
- Create a list of blockbuster movies (movies making $100 million and more in the box office) from the last twenty years
- Include: American citizens travelling abroad and staying abroad for the duration of the film, fictional and nonfictional accounts in real-life countries and places.
- Exclude: Movies based in fictional places, other worlds, or post-apocalyptic futures.
- Create a code to qualify the discourse in the movies
- Code must include: Are actors in movies from the same countries that their characters play? Are directors American or not? How many people are American in the movie and how many people are from the different culture of the country abroad?
- Code must also quantify discourse explaining the different cultural perspective, discourse of violence, discourse of discrimination, discourse of American ideals
- Code must also account for signs of American ideals (democracy, rights, liberty, opportunity, equality, modernization)
- Code for type of country abroad and the type of movie shot in that country. Are some countries depicted more than others? What genre of movie is depicted in what type of country?
- Research the context of the countries depicted abroad. Research the different perspectives these countries have. Also code movies to see if these ideals are represented or talked about in the movie.
References:
Crane, Diana. “Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry: Cultural Policies, National Film Industries, and Transnational Film.”International Journal of Cultural Policy 20, no. 4 (2014): 365-82.
Wagnleitner, Reinhold. “‘No Commodity Is Quite So Strange as This Thing Called Cultural Exchange’: The Foreign Politics of American Pop Culture Hegemony.” Amerikastudien/American Studies 46, no. 3 (2001): 443-70.
Su, Wendy. “Resisting Cultural Imperialism, or Welcoming Cultural Globalization? China’s Extensive Debate on Hollywood Cinema from 1994 to 2007.” Asian Journal of Communication 21, no. 2 (2011): 186-201.
Peng, Yuan. “Modernization Theory.” Chinese Studies in History 43, no. 1 (2009): 37-45.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bollywood Becomes India and Pakistan’s Latest Battleground
Indian soldiers near a building where militants loyal to Pakistan were thought to be hiding in Pampore, south of Srinagar, Kashmir, last week.TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
By GEETA ANAND and AYESHA VENKATARAMAN
October 19, 2016
MUMBAI, India — India and Pakistan, longtime enemies with nuclear arsenals, have battled over borders, killed each other’s soldiers and fought three wars since the countries’ creation seven decades ago.
Now their battle has reached the big screen.
Pakistan on Wednesday imposed a blanket ban on Indian shows on its television networks and radio stations, a day after one of India’s top film directors vowed not to hire actors from Pakistan in response to a major Indian cinema group’s declaration that it would not screen films with Pakistani casts.
The tit-for-tat measures come amid deteriorating relations between the two countries after an attack in September on an Indian Army base by militants who India says were from Pakistan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India responded to the attacks by authorizing retaliatory strikes against Pakistan and has tried to isolate the country diplomatically, pulling out of a regional economic conference and using a summit meeting in New Delhi that included the Russian, Chinese and Brazilian heads of state last weekend as a platform to attack the Pakistani government.
The Indian film director Karan Johar in 2008. He said this week that he would no longer use Pakistani actors in his films.MAX NASH/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
The tension is likely to increase in the coming months as Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party faces an election in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, where nationalism — specifically, tough talk on Pakistan — is quickly replacing economic development as the party’s election platform.
ADVERTISEMENT
That tough talk has been reverberating through the arts.
Pakistani musicians have long been a mainstay of Bollywood, whose films and songs are also hugely popular across the border in Pakistan. And Pakistani actors have recently entered Bollywood amid the growing popularity in India of Pakistani-based television serials. But those cultural ties are being cut.
The Pakistani ban on Indian shows goes into effect on Friday. The government acted on a recommendation from the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, and Pakistani officials said it was in response to escalating curbs on Pakistani films and actors in India. The license of any TV network or radio station that does not comply will be suspended, the regulating authority said.
This week, a leading Indian film director, Karan Johar, released a video in which he praised the Indian Army and said he would no longer use Pakistani actors in his films. The move was prompted by the decision of one of India’s biggest groups of cinema owners not to show films with Pakistani actors, partly targeting the planned release on Oct. 28 of a film by Mr. Johar starring a Pakistani actor.
The Indian superstar Salman Khan was denounced by a talk show host after speaking out against a ban on Pakistani actors.AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
Mr. Johar said he felt a “deep sense of pain” at being accused of working against national interests.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Indian Army’s military strikes in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir, which it conducted 10 days after 19 soldiers were killed at an Indian Army base, set off a nationalistic fervor across India that has been picked up by the country’s media.
The Indian superstar Salman Khan, who spoke out against the ban on Pakistani actors, was angrily denounced by one of India’s top television talk show hosts, Arnab Goswami.
Om Puri, an actor who has appeared in Bollywood, Hollywood and independent films, also found himself under attack during a televised debate when he said he opposed the ban. The situation escalated when Mr. Puri, pressed by the anchor about a slain soldier, retorted, “Who asked him to join the army?” The actor later apologized.
The Indian actor Om Puri found himself under attack in a televised debate when he said he opposed the ban on Pakistani actors.CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS
Sporting ties have also been severed, with Pakistan barred from playing in India at the World Cup of kabaddi, a form of wrestling and tag that is popular on the subcontinent.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We have a government that is taking a very, very hard line on Pakistan, a political context from which the cultural narrative is emerging,” said Harsh V. Pant, a professor of international relations at King’s College London who is from India. “Society and the government are in sync with this argument that we need to marginalize Pakistan.”
The cultural standoff began on Sept. 28 when the India Motion Picture Producers’ Association unanimously voted to ban employing Pakistanis in Bollywood.
“As Indians, we want a good relationship with our neighbor, but if the neighbor is not good then we have to take some steps to show him that we are not happy with him,” Manoj Chaturvedi, the association’s general secretary, said in an interview on Tuesday.
Demonstrators burned an effigy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India in Karachi, Pakistan, this month.FAREED KHAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, a far-right political party, then raised the stakes with an ultimatum to all Pakistani performers working in India to leave within 48 hours or “risk being beaten up.” It also threatened violence against theater owners who showed films with Pakistanis in the cast.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Indian television channel Zindagi, which since 2014 has aired Pakistani shows that have grown hugely popular, scrubbed them from its programming.
Then the Cinema Owners and Exhibitors Association of India asked exhibitors not to release any movie featuring Pakistani performers, putting in jeopardy Mr. Johar’s new film, “Ae Dil Hai Mushkil,” which stars the Pakistani heartthrob Fawad Khan.
Beyond a show of solidarity for the fallen Indian soldiers, that appeal was made partly because of Mr. Khan’s silence after the attacks, when many people felt he should have made “a statement against terrorism,” said Nitin Datar, the president of the cinema owners’ association. The group also worried that cinemas might be damaged amid protests, he said. Mr. Khan made a general statement opposing violence but not a specific denunciation of the attack on the army base.
Indians prepared to burn an effigy of the Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, last week.NARINDER NANU/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
“If you map out the present sentiment across the country, then you will find out how many people are against doing anything with Pakistani artists,” Mr. Datar said. “It’s not only us. We’ve taken into consideration the views of the general public also, which was conveyed to us by our members.”
ADVERTISEMENT
On Monday, the Mumbai Film Festival said it would drop a classic 1959 Pakistani film, “Jago Hua Savera” (The Day Shall Dawn), from its lineup this month. Recently restored, the movie explores the struggles of East Bengal fishermen, played by Pakistani and Indian actors, and has been called a masterpiece of South Asian cinema.
A week before the festival’s start, Prithvi Mhaske, a social activist, filed a complaint with the police against the screening of the film, threatening continued protests. “To sit in a theater and eat popcorn and ice cream as you watch a Pakistani movie is unfair to our soldiers,” said Mr. Mhaske, the president of Sangharsh Foundation, a Mumbai nonprofit. Three days later, the movie was removed from the festival’s lineup.
Some analysts say the furor is a sign of frustration over the Indian government’s inability to stop militant attacks carried out by Pakistan-based groups, despite overtures to make peace. Pakistan has denied any involvement in the attack on the base and support for the militants in Kashmir.
ADVERTISEMENT
“There is a turning of the tide about the narrative that engagement with Pakistan culturally is good in and of itself,” said Mr. Pant, the international relations professor. “Nobody in India buys that argument anymore that if you do cultural exchanges and cricket matches, it will benefit India.”
But India’s muscle flexing could have dire consequences for the region if it continues for an extended period, he said.
“In Pakistan, we have several actors: military leadership, civilian leadership, and renegade parts of the Pakistan military,” Mr. Pant said. “Anyone can retaliate.”
“We don’t know the consequences of what India has done,” he added. “This is a unique moment in Indo-Pak relations in the nuclear age. These are new, interesting and scary times.”
Correction: November 19, 2016
Because of an editing error, an article on Oct. 20 about a mutual ban on India’s and Pakistan’s film stars and TV shows, imposed after clashes in the disputed region of Kashmir, referred incorrectly to retaliatory military strikes by India and misstated the location where they occurred. They were “surgical strikes,” the army said, not airstrikes, and they took place in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir, not within Pakistan itself.
Salman Masood contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Suhasini Raj from New Delhi.
By Hira 
