“The BBC Approached Me And I Refused Right Away”: Interview With Mohammed Naqvi, Director Of THE ACCUSED: DAMNED OR DEVOTED?

The Accused: Damned or Devoted is the riskiest film I’ve seen in a long time. In this riveting documentary, director Mohammed Naqvi turns his lens to Pakistan’s blasphemy law and examines how it’s been exploited for political gain. He focuses on several high-profile blasphemy cases, including the internationally covered story of Asia Bibi, and examines the anti-blasphemy movement spearheaded by preacher Khadim Hussein Rizvi. With its sensitivity and insight, it’s one of the best films to probe the difficult relations between religion, politics and human rights.

In this extensive interview, I spoke to Naqvi about showing both sides of the issue, the difficulty of gaining access, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan role in the subject, comparisons between Rizvi and Trump and much more.

Musanna Ahmed for Film Inquiry: With Insha’Allah Democracy, you were part of your own film. We saw the differences between the prospective Pakistani Prime Ministers, Pervez Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif, through your personal lens as a Shia Muslim. This film is different because you’re not in it to talk about your own opinions on the blasphemy law, instead focusing on the people directly involved and affected. Was that particularly deliberate for this film?

Mohammed Naqvi: In all my body of work – this is my sixth feature documentary – I’m not in any of them except Insha’Allah Democracy, which is an anomaly. I make it a point to remove myself from the narrative completely and that was certainly a deliberate effort in this case. It was important given how charged the topic was and I wanted people to make their own conclusions by observing the people in this film, whether they’re the ones accused of blasphemy or the ones who are safeguarding this law.

It was important to show both sides not only from my perspective as a storyteller but also from a safety and security standpoint considering the access that we got. I worked with my co-producers on the ground, Musharraf Shah and Mohsin Abbas, on procuring access with Maulana Khadim Hussein Rizvi, one of the main subjects of the film. We had to be brutally honest – once the film comes out, [Rizvi] should feel that we represented his point of view fairly.

It’s similar to how I approached a film I did before called Among the Believers, which is about the Red Mosque in Islamabad, where there was a siege after Musharraf cracked down on them. We followed the khateeb of the mosque, Maulana Abdul Aziz, as he was challenging the state in the aftermath of the siege. We were able to get access to him in a similar capacity. This is such a dangerous project that if we weren’t brutally neutral and were seen to be taking sides, it would be putting myself, my crew and my subjects in danger, and of course I wanted to avoid that. 

The words around this film are indeed “dangerous”, “risky” and all the other synonyms…

Mohammed Naqvi: I should mention that this is a BBC Storyville commission and they wanted to make a film on blasphemy in general, in Pakistan. The BBC approached me and I refused right away. In fact, it wasn’t until almost a year later that I started entertaining the idea. What happened that changed my mind was that I found myself in Islamabad around October or November in 2017. Around that time, Maulana Rizvi had basically brought the city to a shutdown for about a month. His political party, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, had challenged the Parliament to rescind some of the amendments to the electoral oath which they had interpreted as anti-Islamic and essentially a relaxation of the blasphemy law.

The state caved in and kowtowed to the pressure, got the Law Minister to resign and even gave reparation payments to the protesters. I was staying under lock and key like the rest of the citizens were but I said to myself, “No way.” I couldn’t have this so-called custodian of Islam once again use Islam for his own political power and benefit because that’s what he was doing. I then had the courage to make this film. I needed the editorial lens to make the film in a way that was safe and then it came to me to include his perspective, someone who would traditionally be the antagonist. 

One of the most valuable things in your film is the access into Khadim Hussein Rizvi, rather than letting him just be some sort of villain in the background. How did you manage to procure this access? What was the pitch to him? 

Mohammed Naqvi: We shot with him sporadically over the course of around eighteen months. Because there was such immense risk on this project, we had different producers on the ground that shot with him at different times. We didn’t want just one producer to get attached full-time because we were concerned for everyone’s safety. My co-producers Mohsin Abbas and Musharraf Shah had amazingly gained access to some of his followers and handlers and let them know that we wanted to tell a story of blasphemy but we wanted to do it on a fair basis and not just show the victim’s side – we wanted to give the protesters a chance to speak.

That was basically the pitch. Typically, the stories of blasphemy have been covered from a western lens that have almost entirely focused on the victims. We didn’t want that so it was important to include Rizvi. Something else that was important to include was that, whilst minorities are victims in these cases in Pakistan, it’s not just minorities, it’s Muslims who are also being persecuted under the pretence of blasphemy. It was important for me to have this 360-degree perspective rather than make it a western agenda-driven piece.

Yes, for instance, Gulalai Ismail, one of the film’s subjects, is a Muslim under threat.

Mohammed Naqvi: Gulalai Ismail, Mashal Khan… in fact, none of these cases really have anything to do with blasphemy if you go into the specifics and the evidence. It’s all based on personal vendettas and intimation, etc.

I would say one of the “conclusions” I drew from examining all these cases in the film was that you’re guilty until innocent. Some victims never had the chance to have their allegations really explored. How easy was it to gain access to the victims and their families? I imagine they’ve been approached numerous times over the years.

Mohammed Naqvi: Well, Gulalai Islam is a very outspoken, brave activist and she was quite generous with her time. It wasn’t as challenging to get her to share her story because she’s so open about her experiences and viewpoints. We didn’t get to speak to Asia Bibi when we were filming because she was in jail on death row and, before that, mostly in custody. Joseph Nadeem, who’s looked after her family, and her lawyer Saiful ul-Malook weren’t very media-friendly.

People around the world have been covering their story but the difference with us was that our filming process was such that we weren’t going to just come in once and then leave. We keep on coming again and again to build relationships with our characters which then affords us more intimacy. With Patras Masih, I didn’t actually film with him because he was in jail so we mostly focused on the defence and prosecution figures. It took a little bit of convincing but they agreed.

Are there any more stories that you wanted to include but couldn’t get access to?

Mohammed Naqvi: There are so many famous cases – there’s the case of Junaid Hafeez, the Muslim professor who’s currently in Punjab jail, on death row, for several years since 2013. They might overturn the case – from what I understand, he’s not a blasphemer but there was some university politics involved that got him convicted of blasphemy, kind of similar to the Mashal Khan case where the higher-ups didn’t like that he was speaking ill about the university tuition fees to the public. It’s a shame.

When I listen to Khadim Hussein Rizvi speak and I get to understand how he’s allured such a big audience, I’m reminded of certain world leaders who have also managed to have the same pull despite their controversies. What would you say is the throughline between him and those who needn’t be named?

Mohammed Naqvi: That’s an interesting comparison you bring up and it’s something I also realised about Rizvi too, at least in the way how Trump has had such a reaction to many Americans. What I’ll say about Khadim Hussein Rizvi is that he is very charming. [laughs] He’s like a Bond villain in his wheelchair with a Persian cat. [laughs] He speaks so powerfully and doesn’t sound like a politician – I think people are able to relate to him and understand where he’s coming from.

One of the biggest draws of his personality is that he has this viewpoint of, “If I’m found guilty of corruption, chop my head off.” He has massive appeal, pushing an Islamic socialist agenda, an agenda empowering the poor people of Pakistan, the people who’ve largely been ignored by the elite and corrupt politicians. It’s an attractive story coupled with his plain-clothed appearance and the fact that he’s a great orator. He’s not the run-of-the-mill politician – not even the typical religious politician – and Trump’s popularity is based on that too.

You hear these stories of certain criminals saying they were inspired by him to murder but then you listen to him and see the fine line between explicitly saying and implying such actions. He’s a complex character, I wonder if there’s a whole documentary to be made just around him…

Mohammed Naqvi: He knows what he’s doing. He believes it in the sense that, if we as Muslims are not there at the frontline defending the honour of our Prophet then we have no right to be calling ourselves Muslims. But what does that mean? Who are you to tell me how do I defend the honour of the Prophet or any other Muslim?

He’s not an intellectually profound scholar – I found Maulana Abdul Aziz, who’s a Mufti, to be much more educated and sensible in Islamic studies. This man is not. I would urge viewers to look into how the blasphemy law was first integrated in Pakistan – this is something I would’ve loved to include in my film but the style of my film was much more observational than a traditional talking-head piece with a narrator.

The way it was passed was problematic. For any Shariah law to become the law of the land, you need to have Ijma (agreement) across all the different Islamic fiqhs (jurisprudence). We didn’t! There are different scholars who would disagree with the interpretation of the hadith (the narrations of the Prophet) on which the blasphemy law is based. Rizvi wouldn’t acknowledge this and there are moments in the film where he betrays his own ambition.

On the other hand, we have Imran Khan, the winner of the election your film is centred on. In the film, we see that he fully upholds the law at the time but once he’s in charge, the relationship he strengthened with the far-right starts to break down after Asia Bibi is acquitted. Would it be fair to say that his endorsement for the pre-existing law was a plea for votes?

Mohammed Naqvi: I think across the board in Pakistan, whether it’s a far-right party, a centrist-right party like Imran Khan’s, or even left parties like MQM and PPP, all of them will support the blasphemy law. That’s a given. Imran Khan was shrewd in how he placated a lot to the religious parties like Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan and it definitely built his voter base. Once he became PM, of course, things changed. Although I’m critical of Khan’s government, I will say that the judiciary under Pakistan’s own blasphemy law followed due process and found Asia Bibi not guilty, even under the auspices of Shariah law.

Not only was she found not guilty, a judicial review which was called to review the judgement was also dismissed. I think justice was totally served in this case and I think what Imran Khan did was accurate and didn’t try to step over the judges’ toes. This judgement helped enforce security in this state by holding those people accountable for breaking things in protest and causing havoc. So to answer your question, yes, it was politics as usual of course [laughs]. But I think that’s universal, people will cater to special interest groups to win then throw them away once they’ve won.

I really liked how you crafted this film technically, your music complemented the images very well and the tracking shots through the narrow streets looked very good. What were the conversations you had with your team around aesthetic?

Mohammed Naqvi: We worked with Danish composer Toni Martin Dobrzanski who also did the score for Insha’Allah Democracy. I really enjoy working with him because he really is able to understand what I’m trying to do and, in this film, the aim was always to pare back the music to avoid going over the top. It would have been easy to overstep that line because the footage and story itself is so bombastic so you don’t need music to do that. What you need to do is to complement it and enhance the moments. We used the sitar and sarangi, taking instrumental references to the area that we were in Pakistan.

In terms of the visuals, it’s difficult to have specific rules when shooting vérité but we had an amazing team of cinematographers who tried to get the gritty, rough handheld framing that I like, as much as we could. You never really know where a sequence is going in observational filmmaking so our DP’s really had to be on the gun to predict those moments and capture frames that complement the moments. We were really happy with what was achieved. 

I remember in the Q&A for Insha’Allah Democracy at Sheffield Doc/Fest, I asked you if that film was going to be seen in Pakistan. I want to ask if the film got screened there and if you think this one will too, considering Amongst the Believers was banned.

Mohammed Naqvi: Insha’Allah Democracy hasn’t had an official release there but it’s been seen and continues to be seen through special screenings. For example, recently at the Chalta Pirta Documentary Festival, which is a travelling festival in Pakistan that takes place across several cities, they showed my film in Lahore. It’s been showing in the country over the past two years in various capacities, from smaller university and arthouse settings to some of the bigger cinemas like the Capri in my hometown Karachi, which is comparable to the BFI Southbank if you will. People in Pakistan can see it if they have Amazon Prime.

Among the Believers was officially banned but we also were able to show it in similar capacities. A) It was available on Netflix. B) We showed it through T2F and other arts and cultural organisations that have private screenings. By the way, Insha’Allah Democracy, although it wasn’t officially banned, certain festival organisers got calls and were encouraged to not show my film because it’s critical of the establishment. As for The Accused, I do plan to show it, likely in a similar capacity, but I have to be hyper-vigilant and careful because this is a much more explosive film just given the subject matter.

What impact would you like for The Accused: Damned or Devoted to have?

Mohammed Naqvi: I think even talking about the blasphemy law is good because it’s so taboo and has had many disastrous consequences. I hope this film can open a conversation so people are able to speak about it without being scared. That doesn’t mean overthrow the law or get rid of it – that’s not a realistic goal anyway – but what can happen is that we can discuss it, revisit it and listen to Islamic scholars and theologians who disagree with current interpretations to the law and how it’s been implemented in Pakistani law.

I hope the film can give [scholars and theologians] the space to weigh in. There have been murmurings especially after the Asia Bibi case and even the way people reacted to Mashal Khan’s death, as you hear from Mashal’s father who says they may have killed Mashal Khan but they cannot kill an idea, that there’s the idea for a law to hold people accountable for falsely accusing someone. That would be an important amendment to prevent further danger and misuse, which is what needs to be curbed and addressed.

I just want my film to open up that dialogue. It’s very easy to make this film and assume only the western audience and elite or expat Pakistanis will see it but I want Khadim Hussein Rizvi’s followers to see it too so they can judge for themselves what kind of a man he is. Is he genuine in his faith or is he using his faith as a veneer for his political desires?

Funnily enough, my next question is indeed about the western audience seeing the film. As many of Film Inquiry’s readers are Americans, when can we expect the US release for your film?

Mohammed Naqvi: Right now, we’re showing all over via different broadcasters in Europe and it’s already out in the UK via the BBC. For the US, we have distribution plans in North America but those are still being firmed up. We’re showing in competition at the CPH:DOX festival and I have to commend the organisers for not cancelling the festival and instead digitising it. I think we’ll get a clearer idea after the festival what the distribution plans are for the States. 

As we’ve learnt, everything is up in the air for all filmmakers right now. I’m lucky that my film was pre-commissioned because some of my colleagues were premiering at SXSW or other cancelled film festivals. As independent filmmakers, we’ve been struggling for several years to premiere at a prestigious film festival. Once those premieres are taken away, this is all new – we’re not entirely sure how to navigate and have sales taken care of and such. 

You’ve established yourself as someone who strongly tackles taboo subjects in Pakistan with fantastic access. Could you tell us about any new projects you’re working on?

Mohammed Naqvi: I have two projects I’m currently working on and they actually take place in the States. They’re related to the Muslim community and that’s all about I can say for now. I’m not far along to share anything interesting yet. (laughs) The thing is, each time you finish a documentary you go through a lull and we literally just finished editing The Accused in February, just a few weeks before it was released. Now I’m in self-isolation and it’s a strange time to work right now.

What advice would you give to emerging documentary filmmakers?

Mohammed Naqvi: What’s exciting is that this is a great time for documentary films and series and there are so many more venues where these can be seen. All the streaming services are interested in making them. Documentaries might have once been thought of as dry and boring, perhaps too academic, but we follow many of the same rules as fiction and people have recognised that and therefore there’s a lot of interest from audiences, especially compared to when I started around 18 years ago when I produced my first film Terror’s Children.

I think since then, filmmakers of colour have had more of a chance to tell their own stories. I’m not saying they weren’t before but, especially in the last ten years, I’ve seen people from my own community step forward to tell our own stories. It’s so critical for us to make films because only then we can advance the conversations and look at our stories with nuance rather than through an Orientalist lens. It’s so important to control our own stories. I’m not just one voice who represents the Pakistani community – not at all. People will look at me like – and I’ll say this myself – very privileged compared to a lot of my countrymen.

But the traditional documentary outlets in the west are encouraging and supporting our voices. What’s also been key is the support for women filmmakers of colour. What I would push for emerging filmmakers to do is to be very honest and true of your own voice. It’s authentic voices that have the most nuance and resonance with the wider audience. I don’t know if that’s advice or just observation, but it’s something that I thought to comment on. 

My final question is, who are some of the exciting filmmakers coming out of Pakistan or within the diaspora?

Mohammed Naqvi: There’s a few young filmmakers working in documentaries that I should mention. There’s Hira Nabi, who made a beautiful documentary short that played in CPH:DOX last year and Sundance this year called All That Perishes at the Edge of Land which takes place in the Gadani shipyard of Balochistan. I would keep an eye on her work. There’s also Hamza Bangash, who’s made some really great shorts and recently won an award at Locarno for his film Dia.

I love Iram Parveen Bilal’s work. I haven’t seen her latest film, I’ll Meet You There, which was supposed to show at SXSW but I do hope to see it soon. There’s also Bassam Tariq who made These Birds Walk and just made a film with Riz Ahmed (Mogul Mowgli) that premiered in Berlin. Iram and Bassam are Pakistani-Americans, Hamza and Hira live in Pakistan. These guys come to mind but I’m sure there are more. It’s exciting – when I started, there were barely any Pakistani filmmakers. There should be more now, too.

Thank you for making the films that you do and for sharing your perspective. I look forward to whatever you make next and hope to speak to you again.

Yes, I hope so too. Thank you so much.

Film Inquiry thanks Mohammed Naqvi for taking the time to speak with us.