Perceived by many as a ‘propaganda’ tool of the ‘establishment’, the recently released movie, Maalik has received ambivalent response by the public. While some of the more urbane viewers regarded the movie to be lacking sophistication and refinement, others considered the movie as inspiring as it revived their feelings of patriotism and respect for the armed forces. However, the movie’s fate remains as foggy as its reception, since the federal government has banned the movie, presumably, over its depiction of ethnic stereotyping and celebration of vigilante justice. Interestingly, the ban received a mixed response by provincial governments as the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa repudiated the ban by claiming that it supports the anti-corruption theme of the movie. The response of the Sindh government was somewhat less resolute as it first issued a notification banning the movie, even before the federal government’s notification, only to revoke it a few hours later. Surprisingly, in this intriguing web of events lies a new site where the civil-military tension is being played out. As the narrative of ‘corrupt politicians ruling the country’ has reached a heightened state of sensitivity following the allegations of the Panama Papers and the resulting response of the army chief as he sacked his own military officers, it seems that the government is becoming increasingly insecure. The Sindh government revoked the ban on the grounds that such an action goes contrary to the principle of ‘freedom of expression’. However, the provincial government did not qualify this statement by revealing how the depiction of ethnic stereotyping in Maalik was innocuous enough to be within the limits enjoyed by the principle. Moreover, the movie promoted vigilante justice, which, although, is a routine feature of most superhero films produced by Hollywood, is not a good idea given the context of Pakistan. As in the not-so-distant past, the former governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer was shot by his own bodyguard, scenes celebrating similar acts, although in a different context, is abhorrent to say the least. Given that the movie depicted the assassination of a fictitious chief minister of Sindh who was extremely corrupt, it may not be so absurd to suggest that the initial ban by the Sindh government was out of paranoia. However, if this explanation is presumed to be true, then it seems that the provincial government took too seriously a work of fiction. Movies all around the world use themes of corruption and politics to make a statement, and this does not necessarily endanger the lives of real people they are allegedly based on. Needless to say the depiction of that in Maalik was in bad taste but not so bad as to elicit such a strong response by the provincial government.The government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has used this opportunity to score political points against the federal government as it highlighted its commitment against corruption. While it is true that corruption is a serious issue in Pakistan, and substantial steps need to be taken to make leaders more accountable, the current narrative that is being constructed out of this will only serve to undermine the democratic future of this country. Pakistan has a history of unwarranted military interventions, and the same old story of corrupt politicians unable to govern has been repeatedly used to justify military rule. In light of that background, Maalik can be viewed as an attempt at shaping this narrative again, and the federal government’s ban as its response. However, the government has overreacted this time, and making it appear unnecessarily insecure. It is true that the movie does have problematic content but it was not enough to have elicited such a strong response by the government. On a much broader level, the ban goes to show the crude manner with which the federal government is dealing with issues at the moment. Be it the intransigence over the ToRs of the Panama Papers, or the brazen advertisements of self-vindication, it seems that the ruling party is not going to let go of its aggressive posture any time soon. And while the PML-N and other parties are justified in their wariness regarding the ‘intentions’ of the military, it is also unwise to let ghosts of an awful past delineate the narratives that shape the civilian-military relationship in Pakistan. Mistrust and paranoia would only widen the existing divisions, none of which are good for the short or long term stability and prosperity of Pakistan. Therefore, it is churlish, what to say of dangerous, to let a mere movie become the metaphor of the dynamics of the civilian-military status quo in Pakistan. *