GUWAHATI: It’s not every day that a proscribed outfit releases a diktat concerning films, a realm of art that doesn’t essentially feature in their roster of demands.
Yet, in the case of the United Liberation Front of Asom – Independent (ULFA-I), such departures from convention are not unheard of.
In an unexpected appeal to the people of Assam on Wednesday, the proscribed ULFA-I urged the public to throng cinema halls to watch an upcoming Assamese film, Protishruti.
This unusual call, diverging from their usual discourse on “sovereignty”, encourages people to engage with the film’s narrative, which addresses pressing issues such as the drug menace and various social concerns prevalent in the state.
In the statement, the outfit said that since narcotics and its trafficking have always been issues that the outfit has battled against, the people of Assam must watch them being recreated on reel, and engage in conversations to wipe out drug menace from the state.
The outfit has asked cinema hall owners to run Protishruti for three to four weeks so that these social challenges can be addressed upon.
This isn’t the first time the ULFA’s anti-talk faction, led by fugitive rebel Paresh Barua, has thrown its weight behind a film.
Back in 2014, the banned outfit had taken up filmmaker Prabin Hazarika’s complaint that Assam theatre owners were reluctant to screen his film, Shrinkhal.
In what could be seen as a subtle warning, Barua urged theatre owners to show the film, suggesting that those who neglect Assamese films “aren’t well-wishers of the state”.
This isn’t an isolated incident – the Assamese film industry has previously sought Barua’s assistance in compelling theatre owners to screen their films.
One notable instance involves filmmaker Himangshu Prasad Das, a National School of Drama alumnus.
In 2017, Das revealed that he had reached out to the ULFA-I after his film, Shakira Ahibo Bakul-tolor Bihuloi, was allegedly removed from cinemas despite its popularity among audiences.
Following Das’s appeal, the police had registered a suo moto case, initiating investigation against him under various sections of the IPC, including Section 66f of the IT Act.
