Gaza war and celebrity silence put Hollywood–Bollywood divide in focus

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat* 

The beginning of this year has been deeply unsettling. With each passing day, the lofty ideals we invoke—“rule of law,” “human rights,” women’s rights, and children’s rights—appear increasingly hollow. Those who once claimed to be their architects now seem the first to undermine them. The killing of over 70,000 innocent people in Gaza by the Israeli state has failed to evoke meaningful condemnation across Europe and the United States.Equally disconcerting is the spectacle of global institutions losing credibility. The image of Melania Trump presiding over a United Nations Security Council meeting symbolized, for many, not moral authority but institutional helplessness. We are told she is deeply concerned about children, and reports of her outreach following a summit in Texas between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin over missing Ukrainian children were widely publicized. Yet such concern appears selective.

At the recent Oscar ceremony, Javier Bardem declared with conviction, “No to war and Free Palestine.” This was not a fleeting remark but part of a consistent stance he has taken on Palestinian rights. Standing alongside him, Priyanka Chopra appeared visibly uncomfortable, sparking a wave of commentary on social media. As a UNICEF goodwill ambassador, Chopra has spoken about children’s issues, but critics argue that such advocacy often excludes the most politically sensitive contexts—whether children in Gaza or marginalized communities like Dalits and Adivasis in India. The expectation of silence is not accidental; it reflects the constraints placed upon global celebrities.

Hollywood, often criticized as a propaganda arm of Western elites, still allows occasional dissenting voices. In contrast, India’s film industry rarely demonstrates such openness. One struggles to recall instances of leading actors publicly challenging government policies or even meaningfully engaging with India’s own social inequalities. Diversity remains largely absent from the front rows of major Bollywood events, and the courage to address uncomfortable truths is even rarer.

The issue, however, is not merely about comparing film industries. It points to a broader pattern: the selective application of human rights discourse. Western powers frequently deploy these ideals instrumentally, aligning them with geopolitical and corporate interests. While concern is expressed for Ukrainian children, there is far less attention to other tragedies. The United States and Israel have repeatedly been accused of targeting civilian infrastructure—schools, hospitals, and residential areas—in pursuit of strategic objectives. Yet the response from so-called “civilized” governments often amounts to muted criticism or outright deflection. When Iran retaliates, condemnation is swift and unequivocal. Even leaders like Rishi Sunak have framed military escalation as a pathway to peace, exposing the contradictions at the heart of contemporary diplomacy.

This double standard extends into global celebrity activism as well. Figures like Angelina Jolie have, at times, spoken uncomfortable truths to power, demonstrating that moral courage is possible within the system. The contrast with more cautious voices underscores how political and economic pressures shape public discourse.

Meanwhile, rhetoric emerging from Washington raises further concerns. Donald Trump has made controversial remarks about places like Cuba, a nation that continues to endure economic hardship under prolonged sanctions. For many, Cuba represents a symbol of resistance against imperial domination. The persistence of such policies raises a fundamental question: why does a global superpower perceive a small island nation as such a threat?

The broader reality is that the so-called “rules-based international order” is eroding. Ironically, it is often the very democracies that champion these rules that violate them most when convenient. This erosion did not begin overnight. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union removed a key counterbalance, enabling unilateral interventions, regime-change projects, and the redrawing of geopolitical boundaries. Countries like Russia have since faced sustained strategic encirclement, followed by economic warfare when military options proved untenable. Smaller nations, lacking comparable power, have borne the brunt of these dynamics.

India must carefully reflect on its position in this shifting landscape. Sections of the Indian elite continue to align national interests closely with the West. Engagement is necessary, but not at the cost of sovereignty or the well-being of ordinary citizens. India’s historical commitment to non-alignment was not an act of indecision but a strategic assertion of autonomy. It enabled solidarity with the Global South and an independent voice on global issues. Today, that voice appears increasingly muted—whether on Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, or conflicts involving Iran.

The contradictions surrounding nuclear policy further expose global hypocrisy. Powerful nations maintain vast arsenals while denying others even the means of deterrence. Democracies, meanwhile, risk devolving into majoritarian systems where dissent is suppressed and critical thought discouraged. In this regard, India’s constitutional visionaries displayed remarkable foresight, grounding the republic in pluralism and strategic independence.

The world is undeniably moving toward multipolarity, but the transition will be turbulent. In such a moment, the need for genuine internationalism is urgent. Civil society, social movements, and public intellectuals must collectively resist the normalization of war and the targeting of civilian infrastructure. The deliberate destruction of schools, hospitals, and residential areas represents a moral collapse that cannot be justified under any doctrine of security or strategy.

This is perhaps the gravest global challenge since the Second World War. Attempts to preserve imperial hegemony through force will not stabilize the world; they will accelerate its fragmentation. A new order, if it is to emerge, must be rooted not in selective morality but in universal principles applied consistently. Without that, the language of human rights will remain what it increasingly appears to be today—an instrument of power rather than a promise of justice.

---

*Human rights defender