It was no surprise when Saudi-owned MBC TV stopped broadcasting the Arabic series, “The Road to Kabul” after airing only 8 of the 30 episodes. What was surprising was the reaction of Arab audiences. The serial started at the beginning of Ramadan on three satellite channels and was preceded by a huge publicity campaign. For an Arabic TV drama, it was an innovation as it explored still-unfolding events. Arab historical drama usually shies away from portraying living issues and contemporary events; since the matter of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan is still both hot and sensitive; the series quickly became a magnet for a wide range of viewers.
The series deals with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the role of Arab and Afghan fighters. Some people watched it to criticize; others watched it out of curiosity and still others simply wanted to get some historical information the easiest way.
It is interesting to see the reactions triggered by canceling the series. First of all, the series was extremely popular and so canceling it provoked considerable discussion. It generated a whole new breed of conspiracy theories. Having a look at some chat rooms is one way of checking this reaction. Most chat room participants did not agree that the series should have been censored. Some were happy it was taken off the air because, to them it was counter to “Islamic values. “ Somewhere in the middle between these two were the skeptics and the conspiracy theorists.
In this age of satellite TV and Internet, the imposition of censorship is patently pointless and absurd. But it is interesting to see how people are tired of being denied their right to know and the freedom to form their opinions. Saudi reaction has been amazing in that sense; for a segment of the Saudi audience, the series dealt with terrorism and religious intolerance and that hits a raw nerve. A Saudi in one of the chat rooms said that banning any work of art amounts to sticking one’s head in the sand. A young mother said that she watched the series with an open mind to reassess her attitude to events in Afghanistan while a businessman commented, “Although the topic is very sensitive as it touches lots of live issues, I am still against censoring it for whatever reason.”
This incident brings to mind the events of a few years ago, when the US asked the Egyptians to ban a show entitled “A Knight Without a Horse.” The show was based on “disputed” document, Protocols of the Elders of Zion. At the time, Egyptian TV refused to bow to American demands and continued broadcasting the show. Naturally, the show gained popularity as well as viewers because of the pressure; people were glued to the TV when it was on — even though dramatically, it was weak. But that’s what censorship does — it makes things popular because people do not like being deprived of their right to learn and decide for themselves.
The decision to ban the show presents us with the idea that viewers in the Arab world are not respected. To treat them like children is one way of losing them. Many people feel that TV stations do not care what viewers want. People often express surprise at the measures TV stations use in selecting programs without taking viewers’ opinions into consideration. Nowadays we are bombarded with all kinds of commercially-sponsored programs. Satellite channels have mushroomed in the Arab world but if we look at what they offer, most of it is pure entertainment. The programs seem to concentrate on music and movies with others adopting foreign programs and ideas. Examples of what I mean are the question-and-answer competitions, the makeover programs in which women are made over to make them look like beauty queens. Now in such an atmosphere, large numbers of people are upset and disappointed at what the channels offer but of course, no station has offered to stop any of these shows since they bring in plenty of advertising revenue. It is vital that we notice the way our media has become concerned with the consumer culture and with aping other shows without focusing on local issues. In the midst of all this, a TV station decided to stop broadcasting “The Road to Kabul” and the reason given is a very lame one certainly.
Unsurprisingly, the station did not admit to any of the real reasons for the decision, which, in normal Arab fashion, leaves the door open to all sorts of speculation. The most common idea is that the US was behind the decision since the show deals with the role of the CIA in manipulating both Afghan and Arab fighters in their war against the Soviets. Another was that the Americans did not want the idea of resistance to occupiers to cast its shadow on the situation in Iraq.
A third had it that Qatari TV had made a deal with Al-Qaeda to stop the show in return for receiving future news and videos. As unflattering as these speculations are, the producers did not try to dispel them or react to the obvious popular resentment. This reaction, or lack of it for that matter, tells more than enough about the station’s lack of respect for viewers. Since we are always eager to set up committees to deal with every conceivable problem, maybe this would be the time to create one to look into audiences’ complaints and make sure audience’s rights are not violated. Surely we have the right to know what criteria are being used to ban a popular show. Shouldn’t people have an opinion about what they are served? Or should they simply eat what is put on their plates whether they like it or not?
But to go back to the series, what is it really about? And what did people see in it? To begin with, people had different reactions to “The Road to Kabul” but those who liked it as well as those who disliked it nonetheless wanted to see it. The series deals with Arab-American relations, occupation, terrorism, using religion in war and the idea of resistance to occupation and how to carry it out. At the beginning of the series, the hero plants a bomb under a Russian tank in a market place. The bomb kills civilians and soldiers alike. Filled with guilt for the deaths of innocent people, the hero decides to leave Afghanistan and he begins to wonder about the idea of armed resistance and whether it is the best solution to fighting occupation. He goes to Pakistan to study religion and there he encounters the stricter and more intolerant way of thinking that a group of Afghans there follow. Under their influence, he changes course and joins the Taleban. The rest of his story has unfortunately been denied us. If we ever get the chance to find out what happens, we’ll find many parallels with present circumstances. And were that to happen, the audience could decide for itself and draw its own conclusions. “The Road to Kabul” has been blocked but another road to discussion and debate has been opened.
