The attack in an Andhra Pradesh school, where a 21-year-old man assaulted two students with a chainsaw, has reopened a familiar argument: do violent Hindi films push impressionable viewers toward violence? Singer-composer Amaal Mallik has entered that debate with a double-edged response—condemnation of the crime, and a refusal to accept cinema as its lone cause.
Films shape, but do not determine
Mallik did not dismiss influence. “Films and music can influence young people, and some kids copy what they see,” he said in a statement. He added that filmmakers should think about how they show violence, and described the attack as “horrifying and completely wrong.”
But he pushed back against the claim that a film provides a template for such an act. Behaviour, he argued, is shaped by family values, upbringing, the political climate, personal experience and trauma. Reducing violence to what someone watched is, in his words, an oversimplification. “If you are getting so influenced by a film, you’re the fool,” he said.
The music question
Mallik, who said he has watched and enjoyed Animal, Kabir Singh, Dhurandhar and KGF while being bothered by some scenes, turned the spotlight on the music industry. His question: if films are criticised, why are songs with suggestive or aggressive lyrics still celebrated?
He named tracks including Kar Gayi Chull, Beedi Jalaile, Pink Lips, Chikni Chameli and Munni Badnaam, and asked why they remain fixtures on reality shows. He also pointed to rap and other short-form content on YouTube and Instagram built around murder, power, aggression and the objectification of women—content, he said, that parents often play around children without examining the words.
Where responsibility sits
Mallik’s argument lands on a shared burden rather than a censorship-first response:
- Age ratings: children and infants have no place at screenings meant for adults.
- Parental responsibility: what kids watch and hear at home is not the creator’s burden alone.
- Fiction and reality: adult viewers should be able to tell the difference.
His defence parallels Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s response. Vanga, whose Animal was named in the post-attack commentary, said the crime should be met with empathy and an effort to understand the wider problem, “not finding a convenient scapegoat in cinema.” He also attacked critics he called “frustrated, jobless actors and directors.”
For Hindi cinema’s chroniclers, the exchange is another chapter in a long-running argument over what a film owes its audience. Mallik’s intervention matters because it widens the frame: if the concern is influence, he asks, why does the scrutiny stop at the theatre door?
Source: The Times of India
Comments