The Ertuğrul kerfuffle

The Turkish historical drama Diriliş: Ertuğrul has taken Pakistan by storm, with the country’s Prime Minister endorsing it as must-see TV and millions across the length and breadth of this nation tuning in to watch the exploits of the 13th-century Turkish warrior and his merry band.

However, perhaps what is even more surprising is that a section of the Pakistani intelligentsia seems outraged by the success of this serial, particularly of its endorsement by the state. Many sages of this land have actually argued in well-written articles of the dangers of watching Ertuğrul. This, frankly, comes as a bit of a surprise.

Let me be honest here. Other than snippets on YouTube, I have not watched a full episode of Ertuğrul and have no real intention of doing so. From what I have seen, the production is slick and people I know tell me the story is engaging. As for the history behind the series, admittedly the producers have taken considerable poetic license as numerous questions about the actual details of the title character — progenitor of the mighty Ottoman Empire — remain unanswered. Up till here, the Pakistani critics of Ertuğrul are spot on.

However, their apprehensions that glorification of the proto-Ottoman Anatolian society depicted in the TV show will fuel militancy in Pakistan and create Daesh-like organisations here beggars belief. Moreover, some well-meaning folks have tweeted videos of kids in rural Pakistan acting out scenes from Ertuğrul and wanting to behead ‘infidels’. This latter issue is admittedly a matter of great concern, but a TV show can hardly be blamed for such a narrow mindset — other far more powerful factors are at work creating an atmosphere of bigotry in our country.

Let us examine both sides of the issue here. Firstly, if Pakistani viewers think they can learn authentic Islamic/Middle Eastern history by watching Ertuğrul, then they are sadly mistaken. To learn history — which we as a nation generally avoid, and therefore are doomed to repeat — one has to hit the books, and lots of them, or at least consult authentic documentaries.

Moreover, considering the actors working in the series as pious Muslim role models is also misplaced — they are actors playing a role, not saints or holy men. Indeed people in our country have gone overboard where Ertuğrul mania is concerned; some folks in Lahore actually erected a statue of Ertuğrul on horseback. Also, Ertuğrul’s visage stares back at you from the backs of rickshaws, indicating that the Turkish character has firmly placed himself in the Pakistani popular imagination.

However, to consider that such fan frenzy will further fuel extremism in Pakistan is frankly far-fetched. The problem, as I see it, is that some in the Pakistani intelligentsia tend to look at everything through a Eurocentric lens. Therefore, if something even remotely presents Islamic or Middle Eastern cultures in a positive light, it is to be shunned.

Yet in the West ahistorical cultural productions have been feted as masterpieces, even though they may be based on complete gobbledegook. Take the 1995 Mel Gibson blockbuster Braveheart, for example. The film, supposedly based on the life of Scottish chief William Wallace (also from the 13th century, interestingly) won several Oscars, and raked in over $200 million at the box office. However historians were almost united in affirming the fact that as far as historicity of the production goes, Braveheart was complete baloney.

Yet that did not result in Western commentators warning their publics that watching Braveheart would pollute young American or British minds and distort medieval history. Nobody really cared.

Take another example. This writer remembers that the American character Rambo was a major hit in this country, particularly during the 1980s and ’90s. Sylvester Stallone’s face was similarly plastered on the backs of rickshaws and buses. Now if anybody assumes that the wildly popular Rambo films were an accurate depiction of the Cold War era, they must be joking. But our intellectuals did not object to the wild popularity of the former American soldier who took on the bad guys single-handedly.

The problem here obviously appears to be Eurocentrism, particularly of our intellectual elite. They appear to be struck by what Iranian thinker Jalal Al-i-Ahmed has termed gharbzedigi, or ‘Westoxification’. Whatever flows from the West to the periphery, to the native races is to be lapped up without question, honoured and placed on a pedestal. However, if the natives attempt to glorify their own culture, they are to be dismissed as extremists and obscurantists.

As I have written in the aforementioned paragraphs, there appears to be much historical inauthenticity about the Ertuğrul TV show. But if at least Muslims and peoples of the East start making cultural productions based on their own traditions, then perhaps a time will come when more authentic and nuanced fare will be produced.

Moreover, in this age of globalisation, soft power matters, and all states seek to enhance their influence through cultural products. Turkey under the AKP has been accused of pushing a neo-Ottoman agenda, and the production of Ertuğrul seems to be part of this strategy. However, people forget that for decades, Hollywood has helped push the American agenda across the globe, so that American culture is considered global culture. Our intellectual elite seem oddly silent about this cultural imperialism.

The bottom line is that the righteous rage against Ertuğrul seems misplaced, even if the show is based on shoddy history. Moreover, if you don’t like it, you can always change the channel.

The writer is City Editor, Bol News