The whole Adipurush fiasco created a lot of noise but failed to accommodate two key issues that will continue posing problems if they are not addressed. The first issue is with regard to the scope of accountability and the second is about the nature of modern-day nationalism.

The imposition of the ban on Indian films evoked memories of a previous incident in 2012 when the CPN-M, led by Mohan Baidya, took a similar step to counter India’s perceived negative influence in Nepal. However, it is worth noting that the ban by Baidya was not restricted solely to films but encompassed a broader scope of restrictions.

The controversy comes not long after the revelation of the Akhand Bharat mural inside India’s new parliament, which was in turn followed by Kathmandu’s mayor putting up the ‘Greater Nepal’ map in his office as a response.

Quite understandably, the current chain of events has led to a loud and uniform nationalist voice against India. But while the provocations have originated from the same geography, it is important to distinguish between the originations of these provocations, of which one emerged from the state and the other from the private sector.

The Ministry of external affairs maintains that the Akhanda Bharat mural is only symbolic in nature and portrays the spread of the historical Mauryan Empire, which it looks up to with pride and reverence.

In that case, the map would then theoretically include parts of, not just present-day Nepal but also Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Maldives and Sri Lanka.

Even though the mural might very well have nothing to do with current reality, the placing of the mural which is in the parliament of all places raises alarms for all neighbouring countries and more so for Nepal given that the Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh dispute happened not too long ago and still goes unresolved.

In any case, the origination of this provocation happened by the government that represents India, so it is understandable that the resulting frustration is directed at India in general.

The case curious case of Adipurush

The case with Adipurush however was different because the provocation happened from the private sector. Unlike the government, which broadly represents the state and its people, one movie or one production house does not represent the entire Indian film industry.

For instance, would it be fair if a movie like Uunchai, which was filmed in Nepal and portrayed its beauty to the point of serving as a powerful marketing campaign, be banned had it been slated for a July release? When a transgression is committed should it not just be the transgressor who is prosecuted?

Expanding the scope of punishment to others who have no role in the transgression and are merely guilty by some nominal form of association suggests stereotypical generalisation, which should be absent when it comes to administering punishments.

If one Nepali export company sells subpar products to India and India bans all imports from Nepal in that category then would it be a fair decision? These are hypothetical examples, but the logical framework of punishing all for the actions of one remains the same.

Whether for right or wrong reasons, the mayor’s response to Adipurush has elicited strong feelings from among the masses. The only problem is that it comes without any functional utility and serves merely as a cathartic feel-good response.

And in the absence of functional utility benefitting the nation, the feeling becomes limited to outrage and cannot transform into an act of nationalism. Because in this day and age where the battlefield has shifted from physical locations to economic domains, a contribution to the nation’s socio-economic prosperity is a bigger display of nationalism than sloganeering.