The entire process of turning actors into marketing agents for selling certain political ideologies must stop after Kangana Ranaut
The Government’s recent decision to set up the country’s “most beautiful” and “biggest” film city in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, has to be read in its wider socio-political context. An attempt to decentralise Bollywood, negate Mumbai as the entertainment capital of this country and control the dissemination of art and creativity is under way. The timing couldn’t be any better. The debate over nepotism, drug use and the proliferation of the so-called “mafia” of film-makers in Mumbai, amid the controversy surrounding Sushant Singh Rajput’s (SSR’s) untimely death, has changed the way we, as an audience, look at Bollywood today. The Hindi film industry is allegedly ruled by a bunch of oligarchs and dynasts who are extremely arrogant, egotistical and self-absorbed in their attitude towards “outsiders.”
Globally, the entertainment industry runs on a nonpareil image that it builds for itself. The insider-outsider debate in Bollywood has tainted the larger than life image of actors and film-makers and has brought the good, bad, and ugly side of the industry out in the open. How much of it is true remains to be seen. However, interestingly, Kangana Ranaut has emerged as the unflinching face of the rebellion against power, albeit in a highly uncouth manner.
Resultantly, it has so happened that much of this controversy has led to a debate between the far-Right and the Left-of-Centre political ideologies. In their attempts at winning the hearts of the urban middle-class, political parties have paved the way for a radical overhauling of cinema, art, and artists. This will be done by creating parallel power structures within the entertainment industry that will be backed by the State. We see that happening almost ostentatiously in the SSR-Rhea-Kangana drama. We have also seen that as a gradual development since the NDA Government came to power.
The likes of Anupam Kher, Paresh Rawal and Madhur Bhandarkar, among many others, have been used to lend their voice to debates on nationalism and religion. However, the nexus between Bollywood and politicians isn’t a new phenomenon. Great politicians understand that politics alone will not get their messages to the masses. So, both the groups have, historically, looked after each other. Film personalities help politicians in their campaigns and similarly, politicians help failed actors become administrators in the name of “cultural diplomacy.” It is almost like a rule. However, what the Kangana saga has revealed is that there is an attempt to forge a parallel entertainment industry which will act as the mouthpiece of Right-wing political parties and the Government. This group will help in disseminating what is known as “fringe cultural nationalism.” The mechanism is simple, involving shifting of power structures and bringing the industry within the control of the State. For the services of such actors, the Government will either provide them with security sponsored from public money or citizenship in case you are Akshay Kumar.
What is ignored during this entire debate is that the democratisation of cinema originally meant the production and promotion of diverse ideas previously not permitted within the industry. It also meant that for an “outsider”, there would be “lower barriers to entry” without any particular pedigree. It meant experimentation with alternative modes of artistic expression and creativity. It meant due recognition for films and works of expression that display counter-culture. Diversified cinema and artistic creativity were the major goals behind the demands for democratising the industry.
The present developments pose a threat to all stakeholders, including the audience, who are the primary and the majority stakeholders in artistic expression. The emergence of newbie politicians, who are regarded as pariah actors, will serve the purposes of disseminating Right-wing nationalism and will do no good to creativity and art. Actors, on the other hand, will lose creative autonomy and will be burdened with social responsibility. Films that challenge majoritarianism or films that are against an idea imposed by the State will not be permitted to go on the floors. Existing norms on censorship will change and become worse than what they already are. Discretion will be exercised almost freely. Turning artists into marketing agents for selling a certain political ideology must stop after motormouth Kangana Ranaut. Jaya Bachchan’s “save the industry” from “gutterisation” remark in Rajya Sabha last week should act as a clarion call and must force prospective cine-goers and film-makers to do some introspection.
(Anurag is from the National Law University and Abhinav is a student of law, Amity University)
The sordid reality of the 21st century's portrayal of Indian female celebrities is that it defeats all that feminism has tried to achieve so far
As women have come into their own, do they realise that they continue to be objectified even in changed contexts for purposes of mass consumption? And are projected for the wrong reasons than the right ones? That they legitimise the male gaze as a uniform societal response by falling into a trap of imaging they believe empowers and acknowledges them? Further, if they happen to be celebrities with a fair sweep of popular culture, then they are prone to be more “sextualised” as it were as talking heads. So much so that they are now being itemised for politics instead of the big screen, used for advocacy rather than reason, prized for their appearance than their intelligence, made icons of causes that thousands of faceless women are struggling with and drawing accolades and likes that may not be earned or deserved. And should such unevolved but rapidly recognisable faces happen to represent binaries, then you have a catfight that has become the new prime-time fix. In the end, fighting women make a mockery of all that feminism has tried to achieve so far.
What else would explain the obsessive coverage of Kangana Ranaut, Rhea Chakraborty, Urmila Matondkar and their ping-pong exchanges by the media or their appropriation by political parties of the day to amplify their respective narratives? Let’s begin with Kangana Ranaut. An actor par excellence, she has lived through sordid exploitation and displayed a rare grit to carve her space and more importantly, own it. There have been many outsiders in the film industry, co-opted or rebels, but she was neither. Instead, she challenged a system that was based on nepotism and dynastic privileges and insisted on a democracy that would enrich the creative space. She even did her bit, though not the only one, to push the envelope, choosing flesh and blood roles that made real women protagonists as much a revenue-earner for the film industry as its male stars. And there was a straight-forward honesty and boldness about her approach that endeared her to everybody. Most of all she appeared independently sensible and not just fashionably articulate. And much before #MeToo, she called out her male exploiters in the industry, not denying what she had been subjected to but was frank enough to admit that she spoke when she had equal power and respect.
She did carve out a new constituency among the chatterati and was conscious enough to use it to magnify her own appeal. She became a regular at media summits and talks, thereby developing another facet outside films that would lengthen her shelf life. The media, in turn, used her to grab eyeballs. As she became sure-footed, she sailed with the prevailing political winds, beginning with nationalism and then professing her Right wing loyalties. Every citizen, including actors, is entitled to his/her ideological preferences but Kangana, who took years to craft her own disruptive brand, has been waylaid and absorbed this time around. Using her troll-worthy capacities and no holds barred verbal ammunition, the BJP has just made her a pawn in its grand design, whether it is lampooning the Nehru-Gandhis, taking on its arch enemy, the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, or stoking fires in the mysterious death of Sushant Singh Rajput. And it is here that Kangana has faltered and given into the prevailing rant and sentiments of the day than calibrating them to her advantage. Undoubtedly, the Shiv Sena leaders are not known for their standards when they decide to shred somebody apart but for Kangana to liken Mumbai to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir was not only politically immature but more hurtful to her own self than the Sena. Of course, the BJP benefitted from the scream fest without dirtying its fingers. And compared to the troublesome Anurag Thakur and Kapil Mishra, it has found a palatable public lobbyist of some repute. The fact that she is from the film industry would work both ways for it, as an asset if she got traction, maybe a liability at times and a salacious aberration at worst if she failed.
But it is in the process of cleansing the drug taint from the film industry that she has gone overboard, attacking women colleagues in the industry, unarmed with logic and defeating the very women’s cause that she loves to represent. She locked horns with Jaya Bachchan, actor and Rajya Sabha MP of the Samajwadi Party, an industry veteran and an active parliamentarian who has spoken out on societal issues. Rightfully, she decided to argue for an industry that was being vilified over a few bad apples and drug abuse, generalised as a sin city than the enormous talent it nurtures and made to look like a villain of all societal ills when fact is, it supported jobs and created opportunities. This, she said, despite the “non-support of the Government.” Kangana’s rebuttal for the sake of one not only lacked refinement, it undid the work of several women actors who made it possible for her to make her current space and be heard. Taking a potshot at Jaya’s remark that actors were ungrateful to the industry that fed them, Kangana retorted, “Got one thaali which included two minutes of fame in item numbers and one romantic scene with the hero, that too after sleeping with him. I have taught feminism to the film industry.” Reality check? Jaya Bachchan has been a bigger path-breaker than her because she etched powerful women characters despite a hostile climate set by the movie mafia, the single-hero domination and a less than encouraging commercial logic where strong women onscreen were considered artsy and NFDC material. Jaya tried to mainstream that discourse. Kangana perhaps also forgot her own sensuous numbers on screen before she called actor and now Congress member Urmila Matondkar a “soft porn” star. Apart from a pervert television audience that sees news as entertainment, this discourse did nothing but perpetuate the stereotype that “women are their own worst enemy.” Something that Jaya’s peer and BJP MP Hema Malini realised as she supported Jaya’s speech instead of mindlessly toeing what her party propagandists would have wanted her to do.
Kangana may get a BJP ticket to contest elections in the future but she would again not earn it by her own rules but by conforming to the misogynistic mindset that sees women stars as a whiff of fresh air in the dry world of politics. She should have taken lessons from the late Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha, whom she is portraying onscreen. Jayalalitha became the respected leader she was by mastering all rules of the political game, working the ground, breaking out of the shadows of her mentor MGR and battling the authoritarianism that had already been established by her male counterparts on equal terms. Kangana, sadly, is in danger of looking like a stooge. Does she realise that for all her headline grabbing acts on social and visual media, she is being used to divert attention from the nation’s more pressing problems like the pandemic mismanagement, the Ladakh incursions or the tanking economy? That she is fuelling exactly what the ruling dispensation wants her to do, namely create a cloud of inconsequential nothingness?
At the other end is starlet Rhea Chakraborty, who is on everybody’s search engine, not because of her films or work but as an exploitative girlfriend of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. No doubt he was a talent snuffed out too early, but the mysterious circumstances of his death, his troubled history with drugs and mental health, his Bihari identity and his “outsider” status in the film industry have far too many elements to be exploited by politicians and their new hand-maiden, the broadcast media. The conspiracy theory that she might have pushed him to addiction, swindled him, could have diverted funds and in the process pushed him over the edge by entrapping him in a world of debt and drug cartels, has become a credible story that the nation is devouring hungrily. Simply because legal evidence and cold facts of the actor’s death are too dry to be juiced out for news cycles. Simply because a good-looking starlet allows the masses to project their sinful obsessions, aspirations and high crimes to her kind and claim moral righteousness by exclusion. So Rhea’s going to jail becomes a visual that is more satisfying as a portrait of instant justice. Many film personalities have been involved in the drug racket. Yet Rhea’s arrest, for possessing just 59 grams of weed, makes a seething urban sub-culture a sensational discovery. She, too, is aware of the fame that the unfortunate death of her boyfriend has given her. Flashing a victory sign and sporting T-shirts emblazoned with “down with patriarchy” slogans, she, too, could emerge out of this mess as a prime pick for advocacy of women’s rights against the lynch mob trial she was subjected to. She may or may not be a success in films going forward but, like Sushant, has been appropriated as a political tool. If the BJP is fuelling the “justice for Sushant” campaign, the Congress has taken up the “justice for Rhea” crusade. Self-appointed activists shouted slogans opposing the “vilification campaign” against the “daughter of Bengal” and held up placards that said, “We will not stop till she gets justice.” Bengal Congress chief Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury even invested her with casteist respectability, calling her a “Bengali Brahmin.” What Rhea wouldn’t appreciate, if she walks into this trap, is that she is hated mostly by women with a patriarchal mindset over tea and conversations, seen as a woman who made capital out of what is called “easy virtue.” In this sense, both the newsmaker and the news recipient are defeated, simply because neither gets respect nor understanding. But they certainly perpetuate a male construct of how women are.
Sadly, women newsmakers from popular culture around the globe are being chased for their representational rather than their authentic selves. Their activism, therefore, appears to be more and more fake. And as they use social media to build intimate partnerships with their communities and followers, they are shaping a market economy of medievalism, where women are dependable worker bees but are actually living in a shell believing they are the queen bees.
(The writer is Associate Editor, The Pioneer)
We must call out all instances where the rule of law is being compromised to suit an agenda. Given the state of TV news, there’s a lot of damage to be undone
In 1958, Peter Yarrow wrote a song called “Puff the Magic Dragon” before he formed the popular band, Peter, Paul and Mary. The song gained widespread notoriety even years after its release because it was rumoured to be about celebrating drugs, particularly marijuana. Singapore and Hong Kong even went so far as to ban the song, fearing that it would promote drug abuse. In reality, the song (which is a classic), was included by the band in its album, Moving, as it thought it would be a good idea to include a children’s song. That assumption came easy as the song was written in 1958, when Yarrow didn’t even know what “pot” was. The lyrics are about the loss of childhood innocence and are actually inspired by an Ogden Nash poem that has nothing to do with marijuana.
On a completely unrelated note, in this past week, Rhea Chakraborty has been arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) apparently on the allegation that she procured marijuana for Sushant Singh Rajput and might have even consumed it herself. The arrest came after Ms Chakraborty was being grilled for close to eight hours for three days straight and without any contraband actually being recovered. The inspiration behind the arrests appears to be the WhatsApp messages that allegedly referred to the procurement and consumption of marijuana. Before the arrest, certain “news” channels had already declared her guilty with hashtags like #ArrestRhea, were displaying WhatsApp conversations and extrapolating conspiracy theories on national television from morning till late night as “political analysts” gave their non-expert commentary. After seeing the steep fall in standards of TV journalism over the past few years, it may be naïve for us to expect such channels to follow rigorous (or even lax) journalistic standards but it was amusing and a bit surprising to see viewers tuning in and even supporting such on-air antics. I say surprising because if Rhea Chakraborty can be arrested in the manner she has been, parents should be seriously worried about their college-going children and even themselves and should ponder on when the State and its informal agents may turn their glance on them. The charges against Rhea Chakraborty seem to (on the face of it) lack any weight and will be rightly examined by a court of law but the trial in all respects has already been played out on our television screens. The only real consequence, I suspect, will be that officials will now be able to scare individuals by just talking about this entire episode and extracting a larger bribe.
You, dear reader, might say you have nothing to fear and will, therefore, welcome scrutiny of my WhatsApp messages or that of your children. Maybe you have nothing to worry about when it comes to marijuana but are you sure that the State and these news channels cannot find something else to pin you on? Again on a completely separate note, let us talk about pornography. There is technically a ban on pornography in India. However, as per statistics, India is a world leader in the consumption of pornographic material with close to 89 per cent consuming it on their phones. If you enjoyed watching another person’s intimate texts displayed all over national television, I wonder if you would feel the same about your internet search history. What is especially interesting about the instances highlighted above is that rarely are the rulers governed by the same rules as the ruled.
Just look at the example of the Laxman Savadi and CC Patil, BJP Ministers who were caught watching porn inside the State Assembly.
In the case of drugs too, it is hardly ever the powerful who are punished. Most drug arrests are on charges of consumption of marijuana by watchmen, students and hardly ever well-connected politicians or media moguls. In a study by the think tank Vidhi, data from Mumbai revealed that though cannabis constituted just Rs 6.2 crore of the Rs 60.6 crore worth of drugs seized in Maharashtra in 2016, it accounted for 87 per cent of arrests and convictions. This means that more serious drug consumption, like that of heroin, opium and so on, easily slips through the cracks while minor marijuana charges are picked up to show better statistics. The nexus of politicians with dangerous drugs like heroin is well documented and this is with respect to not merely consumption but of widespread sale. However, all our attention has been on this 28-year-old woman for allegedly smoking pot, while a Bill to regulate the use of cannabis is pending in Parliament.
Even assuming the best of intent, that the Government is serious about drug consumption, it would do well to note that one of the primary reasons young people are pushed to drug consumption is unemployment. Statistics on employment generation are abysmal with the Mint reporting that India is witnessing its weakest hiring sentiment in 15 years. The media would do a great service reporting on this root cause rather than spending most of its time on what can only be called voyeuristic entertainment.
At its core, all of these episodes show that we as Indians have slowly but surely descended to a state where political agenda trumps rule of law. This cuts both ways. For example, though Kangana Ranaut’s statements on Mumbai being Pakistan-occupied Kashmir are ridiculous and would lead to sedition and NSA charges in a State like Uttar Pradesh (going by how Kafeel Khan was treated), she is seen as a “nationalist.” However, the demolition of a part of her office by the Bombay Municipal Corporation “smacks of mala fide” as noted by the High Court of Bombay and is another instance of how the rule of law has been treated as an inconvenience. The only way forward, in my humble opinion, is to course-correct and to call out all instances where the rule of law is being compromised to suit an agenda. Sadly though with the state of TV news as it is today, there is a lot of damage to be undone and this goal may be a long time coming. So till then, please make sure that you are not listening to “Puff the Magic Dragon” in your car stereo or in public. Who knows what may follow?
(The writer is a former IPS officer, a former MP and currently a member of AAP)
Kangana has become Bollywood’s bete noire but the Y-plus security makes her a pawn in a larger political game
Several years ago, the fiery Kangana Ranaut appeared on the cult Bollywood talk show called Koffee with Karan hosted by producer Karan Johar. To paraphrase from that outing of hers, she said that if a film was ever to be made about her life, Johar would be the antagonist. Over the past few years, we have seen how that has played out. First, there was the story about nepotism and how Bollywood promotes its own, and while the Indian film industry epitomises nepotism, it really is not very unique in that regard. Anywhere in the world or in India, nepotism is a byword in politics and industry. So when popular Bihari actor Sushant Singh Rajput allegedly committed suicide, Kangana was one of the first to climb onto the bandwagon to accuse the nepotism of Bollywood of pushing a young actor over the edge before quickly jumping on to the murder conspiracy theory. And then from a crusader, she appeared more and more like a headline-grabber. She has written utterly shameful tweets against mental health, questioning the very concepts of psychology, and taken on the Shiv Sena, a partner in the Maharashtra alliance government, with several party spokespersons attacking her. There is no doubt that with little to no formal media training and reverting to type, Shiv Sena leaders come across as uncouth, sexist goons while attacking Kangana, who is playing her pro-BJP card well and using it to give ammunition to the Central party’s relentless attack on its one-time ally. So she has been given Y plus category security by the Central Government to make a point, never mind the costs this will involve or the purpose it will serve. That possibly will not save her office from being demolished by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) which is controlled by the Shiv Sena, an act that, if the Sena goes ahead with, will allow the once-plucky Kangana to play the victim yet again.
While the actor is entitled to her opinions, it would be prudent for her to remember that the past can come back to haunt you. Her actions today, that make her look like a pawn, will be judged by many in the future and while she has in the past raised some very valid points against the extreme nepotism in the film industry, where a talentless child of a superstar gets breaks that others would not, that model itself is being broken by new streaming platforms and more choices. Bollywood itself will not survive the Coronavirus pandemic in any recognisable shape or form. The actions of the television media in amplifying some of the wilder allegations raised by Kangana and others of her ilk have also been shameful and must be questioned. This entire affair will leave India, the Indian media and Bollywood scarred for years to come.
Actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death has exposed the deep fault- lines in the Hindi film industry with issues such as bullying, nepotism and discrimination emerging from tinsel town rarely discussed dark corners into the spotlight of introspection and debate. The split in the glamour industry is down the middle between insiders’ and outsiders entities’. That Rajput, who came from a middle class home in Patna and made his mark in main- stream Hindi cinema in what could be the classic fairytale, ended his life led to soul searching about power structures in Bollywood and also angry accusations at the biggies who call the shots.
Rajput was considered that rare actor, after Shah Rukh Khan perhaps, to have transitioned from television to Bollywood stardom and his death opened the proverbial can of worms. The untimely death of the young actor had clearly not just touched a chord but triggered a rallying cry for change. An online petition on Change.org asking fans to boycott Johar, YRF and Salman Khan has gathered almost 38 lakh signatures so far.
BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy has termed the death of late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput murder. Taking a dig at Bollywood, Mumbai Police and the Maharashtra government, he called SSR’s death “Waterloo and Watergate for Bollywood.” Fasten your seat belts as we are about to take off and bombard and won’t give up till either guilty are brought to justice or justice is brought to the guilty,” Swamy tweeted.
SSR loss can dent moral of several young deserving talented artists seeking to establish name and fame in the entertainment industry, and nepotism off course will continue to flourish unabated. The CBI must investigate the case keeping the Mumbai Police away from the case because important high profile people and organized bollywood mafia is involved in the crime and the cover up. It is a shame for the country that wild speculations are flying everywhere yet the authorities have been complacent to secure the truth.
Report filed by Diwakar Shetty from Mumbai
Boseman was not just another Black actor pushing diversity, he showed any man could be superman
Legends die young. And 2020 has not been a kind year, particularly to those in the entertainment industry, both in India and abroad. But the death of Hollywood actor Chadwick Boseman at a young age of 43 hurts that much more. Because he was the Black Panther, the avenger of wrongs, the challenger of a White world and a transitional perfection from man to superman. Because he was the king of Wakanda, upholding the spirit of tradition and embracing modernity with that rare combination of warmth and intelligence. He may have played Black icons like Jackie Robinson and James Brown but as Black Panther, that lithe, smart and fearless warrior, he transcended barriers and made a place in everybody’s hearts. Black Panther was the first superhero film to be nominated for a best picture Oscar and one of the highest-grossing films of all time, bringing in over $1.3 billion. This despite the many icons emerging from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In life, Boseman was no less a fighter. In between his fight with cancer, numerous surgeries and chemotherapy sessions, he gave us films like Marshall, Da 5 Bloods, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom and many more. A private man, he had kept the news of his fight with the disease to himself and married his long-time partner and singer Taylor Simon Ledward earlier this year, maybe because he knew the end was near. And he never forgot to wish his friend and Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate Kamala Harris a few days ago.
Black Panther will always represent a watershed moment in popular culture, particularly for African-Americans. A legacy that Boseman was clearly very proud of and for which he had travelled to Africa. The film was considered to be a positive force for social change in the US and at that time, activist Frederick T Joseph raised money through a GoFundMe campaign called “Help Children See Black Panther.” He was quoted as saying that he was promoting “stories and content that’s combatting the rhetoric and racism of the Trump Administration.” In fact, the film made Marvel consider more inclusions. Black Widow and Captain Marvel are more than just about women empowerment, they are the carriers of the future. However, a realist, Boseman himself did not think that Black Panther had in any way solved Hollywood’s much-touted diversity issues. He said that it came about as a result of a moment that had been building over years with works like the Martin Luther King drama Selma, the Disney fantasy-adventure A Wrinkle in Time and TV shows such as Insecure. He believed that quality film-making was needed for Hollywood to embrace diversity as the new normal rather than just doing movies with a Black cast and director. His own work he considered as “just another doorway into something else.” Hopefully a perennial kingdom called Wakanda.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
As cops bicker, politicians jump in and the CBI takes up the probe into his death, point-scoring dims the talent he was
Over a month into Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, conspiracy theories surrounding it have refused to die down. Did the gifted talent wither away, traumatised and depressed? Was he pushed a bit too hard over the edge by Bollywood’s incestuous cliques? Was he blackmailed and threatened about his finances by girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty or was he exploited by some money-laundering gang? Such has been the unending volley of questions that he continues to dominate news cycles despite the pandemic. Now the Supreme Court, where Rhea had petitioned against her victimisation by the actor’s family, has taken note, seeking an impartial and comprehensive probe, following which the CBI has taken it up. Sadly and inappropriately, Sushant has been iconised by his death than his life’s work and for his sake, it is imperative the truth comes out and there is closure. So that he is not defined by the haze of the underbelly but by his achievements. For his sake, we must know if it was suicide or murder, so that we can restore his dignity and peace. For his sake, we must know how serious was he a victim of mental depression as that becomes a malaise of a generation under extreme pressure of performance and expectation. Most importantly, the blame games and needless politicking in his name must stop right now.
Hardly anybody caught in the nepotism slugfest in the film industry had been around to help him or know him better when he needed them. The turf war between the Mumbai and Bihar police, both of which are conducting parallel investigations, has turned the probe into a game of one-upmanship than about assessing the facts of the case. The Bihar police seems to be acting at the behest of Sushant’s politically-connected family and raising questions which the Mumbai police should have taken note of rather than dismissing them as a coercive tactic. Both should be exchanging notes and information to clear the haze of speculation. Otherwise, the bickering is only emaciating them and eroding public trust. But reprehensibly, it’s the politicians across the divide in Bihar who are hellbent on making justice for the “son of the soil” an electoral issue when they have had no active association with him. Such was the pressure from the Opposition, with its leader Tejaswi Yadav leading an all-party demand to treat it as a national issue, that Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had to recommend a CBI probe into his death. Question is whether they would stop at that or keep the ball rolling if the findings are not to their liking. Therefore, given the political and regional sensitivities involved, there is this lingering fear that Sushant’s case, like that of the Arushi murder case and Jessica Lal’s before it, could drag on for years. And if indeed we lost him to depression, then that is the biggest casualty of this debate.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Just look at the way party tickets are distributed during a parliamentary election and you realise that ‘being connected’ matters a lot. It’s no different from Bollywood
The sudden and tragic demise of Sushant Singh Rajput in rather mysterious circumstances has triggered a huge debate on all that is wrong with Bollywood, especially the incestuous relationship that exists within the film fraternity and the discouragement, if not hostility, with which it greets “outsiders.” While the Mumbai police is still probing the cause of his death, Sushant’s colleague, Kangana Ranaut, another “outsider” who has had to struggle to find her place in the industry, has stirred the hornet’s nest by talking about a “movie mafia” that exists in Mumbai and the nepotistic tendencies that it promotes. Her detailed interview to a private television channel recently has dredged up a lot of muck and brought the issue of nepotism to the centrestage.
One of the allegations against the “Bollywood mafia” after Sushant’s tragic death is that it drives talented “outsiders” out of the business while promoting mediocrity among “nepo-kids” (children of film stars). This is not to say that star kids are not talented. Many of them have blossomed as excellent actors. But there is no denying the fact that they have a safety net. Interestingly, what is true of the cinema world in Mumbai is also true of the world of politics in Lutyens’ Delhi and elsewhere in the country. Nepotism is so well entrenched that it is now central to our way of life. However, even if it is a bit late in the day, one must identify this trend and call it out because it militates against the democratic dharma, which demands a level-playing field for everyone.
Producer-director Karan Johar, who has been at the receiving end of Kangana’s accusations, has not, in fact, denied the part played by nepotism in the film industry. He has stated publicly that when a producer launches the son of a movie star, he is actually wanting to be in a “comfort zone” because eventually, it’s also a commercial decision. “A big movie star’s son is going to get the eye balls…you don’t want to take a chance…it’s money.” In other words, he says, producers feel “protected” when they are in that (nepotism) zone.
Is this not true of politics as well? Just look at the way party tickets are distributed during a parliamentary election and you realise that “being connected” matters a lot — or so it did for much of the seven decades that have gone by after independence. In fact, nepotism is so well entrenched that the children and grandchildren of individuals, who held public offices at the national level in India many decades ago, almost deem it their right to represent the constituencies which their grandfathers or grandmothers represented and live in the very houses which their forefathers occupied in Lutyens’ Delhi. They get so attached to these houses that after a while they even forget that these dwellings are public properties. And in case they are not living in those houses, the second and third generation politicians demand that they be converted into memorials or mausoleums.
The Nehru-Gandhis are the real initiators of this trend in our national politics and in Lutyens’ Delhi. It began in the days of our first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, when he ensured the appointment of his daughter, Indira Gandhi, as the president of the Indian National Congress in 1959. What happened thereafter is fairly well-known to the people of the country. As one member of this family succeeded another as the country’s Prime Minister, the family’s familiarity with our republican Constitution grew weaker and weaker and it began to imagine that India was indeed a monarchy.
As this family entrenched itself and started promoting its relatives and friends, the Nehruvian School became dominant and ambitious bureaucrats, academicians, thought leaders, artists, media professionals and businessmen became part of it. All of them realised that only those who were part of this caravan, could climb the ladder in bureaucracy, academia, media and so on.
Barring honourable exceptions, all the Governors, Vice Chancellors, newspaper editors, TV anchors and Padma Award winners were members of this school. There was no such thing as respect for diversity or other points of view. In politics, those who made it to the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in the days of the Congress’s complete dominance, had to be part of this ideological “biraadri” of their fellow travellers. So the whims and fancies of this family became the law and its nepotistic attitude was dignified and universalised when it promoted the children and grandchildren of its loyalists and hangers-on.
All this went on unchallenged until Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister in May 2014. He has emerged as the arch disruptor and has substantially worked towards creation of a level-playing field in Lutyens’ Delhi. Kangana is doing the same in Bollywood — fearlessly calling out those who shamelessly promote nepotism in the Hindi film industry and even launch vicious attacks on talented “outsiders” who dare to find a place for themselves in Bollywood.
For example, it appears to be common practice to crack jokes in television shows and public events at the expense of newcomers like what Shah Rukh Khan and Shahid Kapoor did to Sushant during an IIFA awards event. Kangana also talks about some extremely worrying situations, like when a noted Bollywood director told Sushant that he was not drifting but drowning.
Further, Sushant began life in Maldiha in Purnia district, Bihar. He was a National Olympiad winner in physics. A rank holder in an entrance exam for a top-of-the-line engineering college. He had eclectic interests, ranging from reading to mathematics and astronomy to dance, music and cinema. Was he too much of an intellectual for Bollywood because many “stars” have publicly gloated over their poor academic record? In fact, Karan Johar has confessed that he was told at a young age that if he wanted to make Hindi movies, “you don’t need to be qualified….and this doesn’t speak highly of the fraternity I come from.”
This writer is not a movie buff but he got to see some of Sushant’s work — his lead roles in Chichchore and in the biopic on MS Dhoni, for example. His sensitive portrayals in both these movies is there for all to see. So how come Bollywood, instead of embracing and promoting such talent, chose to drive him into a corner? If there is a “mafia” or to put it more accurately, a cosy club of nepotists, it must be identified and called out. The issues raised by Kangana call for some serious debate and cleaning up.
Further, if Sushant’s death is not to go in vain, the democratisation of Bollywood is essential and a level-playing field is absolutely essential. But this can happen only if the current national indignation at the treatment meted out to Sushant is turned into a national movement to encourage the work of talented “outsiders” and, more importantly, gets reflected at the box office.
(Writer: A Surya Prakash; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Khatija Iqbal is an original Indian girl born & brought up in the Caribbean islands. An island named, Grenada, with Bollywood dreams from childhood has led her to this fantastic city Mumbai. KI explains “this city has given me a lot, the best experiences one can ever learn. I have been working in this entertainment industry since 2015 onwards. I began my career as an anchor and I have hosted many live events”.
In 2017 she has learnt Hindi, took up acting workshops and began giving audition, and got her first show Ragini MMS returns on alt Balaji where she gained popularity from a character she played, went on to Vikram Bhatt’s Tantra for YouTube, a cameo in Namaste England, then jamai raja 2.0 for Zee5. Khatija did a small cameo in inside edge season 3 for amazon prime which hasn’t yet released and a very big show named, Cartel for ALT Balaji which is also in the shooting process.
She was first known by name of “Katie Iqbal” and later changed it to Khatija as it’s her real & birth name. Why did she decide to change it? It’s because, she realise how beautiful it was… and felt the desire to be known by her real name. As it is the industry wears a mask I didn’t wanna wear that mask to begin my career with. As of 2020 Khatija’s work is still yet to be released, just before lockdown she was suppose to shoot her debut film named, “ILA “ it’s a festival film directed by Nitin.
Apart from Bollywood, she love horse riding, like reading books mainly thrillers and psychological books on human behaviour– the mind, body meta physics. She is extremely spiritual and love yoga. Khatija is a very curious person and love learning especially ancient yogic science, she strongly believes that a human being can heal him/ herself naturally if he believes and pursues it. Besides She love watching movies & currently studying screen writing.
Well, I think it’s a matter of perspective, if one is willing to work hard and polish their craft then one can break all barriers and I decided to do so, work extremely hard and I have seen many outsiders breaking barriers in this industry. Also, cinema and the kinds of films which are being made these days has evolved drastically filmmaker’s are actually looking for real talent. Rest is luck & your hard work.
My language has been my biggest weak point, but it has also made me realise that it is one of my strength also as it’s part of my personality al-though Hindi is well polished now since I’m learning Indian classical music.
Yes! I’ve been trolled many times by mainly the Muslim community and have been told to change my name also, I’ve been trolled for my bikini videos & photographs not that they are vulgar of any sort. But, I love my name it’s beautiful, it’s sounds amassing and it is very special, because father named me after my great grand mother as he was very close to her. So I’m happy with will live with it despite the odds.
Oh! I loved it I had a long list of movies to watch which I completed, discovered writing for screen, even shot a small film from my phone, decluttered unnecessary things, completed my reading list and I discovered that I can make my own melodies on my piano simply by following tutorials online. So I really enjoyed lockdown.
Firstly, I was never into cricket… funny though I posed with all the cricketers from different teams for pictures when I was a child. I would always remain a Caribbean girl by heart, but I look completely daisy which means I am very faithful to my roots so I am going to be here for a very long time as Bollywood is my first love residing in my Caribbean heart.
Article & Interview is complied by Nithya Ramesh
The act of prioritising birth over worth and family connections over merit has wiped out several talented individuals, thriving empires, civilisations, dynasties and nations off the face of the Earth
Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s alleged suicide has once again sparked off a countrywide debate on nepotism, favouritism and dynasticism. Since time immemorial, nepotism and its offshoot, political dynasticism, have posed grave threats to the rise of an egalitarian society. The act of prioritising birth over worth and family connections over merit has wiped out several talented individuals, thriving empires, civilisations, dynasties and nations off the face of the Earth. In the second century AD, the Roman emperor and stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, committed the aforementioned mistake, which gradually brought the mighty Roman Empire to its knees. Blinded by paternal love, he went against the tradition of appointing a capable and efficient man as his successor and chose instead his incompetent son Commodus as the next emperor. Prior to this, no Roman emperor had chosen his son as the heir. The rest, as they say is history and ironically Rome itself became history.
Unfortunately, the story of our civilisation is no different. Everyone is familiar with the epic tale of the moral blindness of King Dhritarashtra that caused the great Mahabharata. In The Great Indian Novel (1989), which is an allegorical retelling of Vyas’ epic, Shashi Tharoor satirises India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru as the Dhritarashtra of modern India. His daughter and late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, on the other hand, is recast as Priya Duryodhani, a fictional representation of the eldest son of King Dhritarashtra, the antagonist Duryodhana. While writing this magnificent political satire, Shashi Tharoor would never have thought in his wildest dreams that one day he would join the Congress Party. But then, writers do enjoy poetic licence. The heart of the matter, nevertheless, is that the names of Dhritarashtra, Aurelius and Nehru will continue to be taken in the same breath.
In fact, one of Nehru’s Ministers seems to have quipped that the late Prime Minister was like a banyan tree in whose shade nothing else could grow. However, it is well-known that another banyan tree can grow and thrive under an older banyan tree. Disenchanted with the nepotism and dynasticism of the Gandhi family, the celebrated socialist poet Nagarjun had foregrounded this decadent aspect of post-Independent India. The Hindi poet exploded in rage against Indira and wrote: “Induji, Induji, kya hua aapko? Bete ko taar diya, bor diya baap ko”, which can be roughly translated as “Indu, what happened to you? You gave your sons, name and fame and brought a bad name to your father.”
If the father-daughter duo were accused of promoting their scions at the expense of others, in the post-Nehruvian era, the situation exacerbated at the level of regional politics as well. Many of Ram Manohar Lohia’s acolytes in States such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh started a rat race to send family members to the Parliament and State assemblies, often at the expense of capable party workers. “Service to the family is service to the nation,” became their motto. Therefore, while accusing Bollywood of nepotism, it becomes imperative to ask: Is there any sector which is or has ever remained untouched by it? Its all-pervasive influence can be felt in the field of arts, industry and business, the judiciary, religious circles, education, writing, film, politics and numerous other areas.
It would be apt here to adduce one instance of favouritism in the field of higher education from colonial times. Unlikely as it might sound, acclaimed authors such as Munshi Premchand and Iqbal, too, became its victims. In 1918, Premchand and Iqbal applied for lecturership at the newly-established Osmania University in Hyderabad. Iqbal had just returned with a degree from Cambridge University and was a man to be reckoned with, while Premchand had become quite famous as a short story writer. But they had no godfather. So, despite their best efforts, neither Premchand was appointed as a lecturer of Urdu nor did Iqbal manage to become a philosophy teacher. The job was eventually given to one Akbar Haidari, who was close to British officials.
Unfortunately, the situation either remained the same or aggravated further after India acquired Independence. Several stalwarts would have similar stories to share, for in academics and elsewhere, too, favouritism continued to be practised unabated.
The Hindi satirist Harishankar Parsai has put it succinctly in one of his satires entitled Rani Naagfani ki Kahani (Story of Queen Naagfani) in which the narrator quips that what matters most in an interview is the column — “Kiska aadmi (whose man are you?)” While Parsai had excoriated the ways in which interviews were being conducted by some State Service Commissions, such malpractices are still extensively practised in the appointments of faculty members and administrators across universities and colleges in the country. In recent times, several scrupulous stakeholders have highlighted the need to abolish interviews in such appointments and conduct an all-India level examination to depoliticise the nation’s higher education system and cure it of the plague of nepotism. This could be a watershed moment in our education sector but to persuade the high and mighty to accept such changes could be as difficult as cajoling a cat to give up a bowl of cream.
The battle against favouritism, nepotism and dynasticism, which are the residues of pre-modern societies, has to be fought at several fronts. But where does one start? A natural choice would be to look up to the temple of Indian democracy — our Parliament. But what a great disillusionment awaits us there. As per a survey conducted by historian and political commentator Patrick French, two-thirds of the MPs in the last Lok Sabha had a close relative in politics. Standard accounts suggest there are very few parliamentarians who have not inherited politics as a vocation and enjoyed ancestral privileges in politics. The words of the ancient Roman satirist Juvenal — “Who will guard the guards?” — seem to be quite appropriate here. Who will legislate against the legislators? Any expectation of a law against this malady, then, will turn out to be a wild goose chase.
However, the absence of a legal provision against nepotism in public life should not be so disappointing after all, for two main reasons. One, despite its prevalence in all walks of life, there are numerous individuals, who have a rags-to-riches story to share and who made it big on account of perseverance, dedication and integrity.
We may find such scintillating tales of success not only all around us but also in our epic, the Mahabharata. In the great Indian epic, characters such as Sanjaya, Ekalavya and Karna transcended their origins and went down as heroes after bravely facing the hardships of a steep hierarchical society. And two, the biggest paradox of the human mind is that human conscience cannot be governed by law. But there are moments in history when one’s conscience is definitely shaken and social awareness is created against certain iniquities.
Sushant Singh Rajput’s death is one such turning point, which must trigger a movement against favouritism, not only in Bollywood but also in all spheres of our public life. In a modern, democratic nation, one’s identity should not be determined by one’s birth, family connections, social and community ties but by actions and virtues. In pre-modern and to some extent in early modern societies across the world, such practices were quite common before the emergence of democracy and the rise of the middle class. Those who belonged to a non-aristocratic class had few avenues to achieve socially-upward mobility and were always in the pursuit of a patron or a godfather. Intellectuals and sensitive souls felt decentred and disoriented in this world order. Alexander Pope, the eminent 18 century British poet, had summed it up in a humorous and satirical couplet: “I am his highness’s dog at Kew. Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?” Although Pope had written this for the prince’s pug, the aphorism, “Whose dog are you?” was often earnestly used to denounce the system of patronage. There is an uncanny resemblance between Harishankar Parsai’s aforementioned observation — “Whose Man are you” and Pope’s biting statement. But what is fateful and worrisome is that even in the post-enlightenment world, this system has persisted.
The continuation of the culture of patronage in contemporary times poses a serious threat to our claims of being called civilised and enlightened. If we don’t protest against this rampant nepotism, which violates the constitutional principle of equality of opportunity, our society may end up producing malcontents and we may lose many more precocious talent like Sushant Singh Rajput. We all know that it will be detrimental to the rise of a new India in the post-COVID world, threatened by the expansionist policies of a hostile China.
(Writer: Lalit Kumar; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Ramayan, Mahabharat and old TV hits find takers in this generation seeking the comfort of nostalgia
Every crisis brings with it an opportunity and the present pandemic has resurrected the nearly-dead public service broadcaster founded by the Government in the late 50s, Doordarshan (DD). Time was when DD, as it was colloquially called, was the only channel in the country and people used to wait the whole week for their all-time favourites, Chitrahaar, Krishi Darshan and, of course, the Sunday movie. Then DD began expanding its fare with Sunday and primetime treats like Star Trek, Secrets of the Sea, Here’s Lucy, Yes, Minister, Different Strokes and the likes. But of course, these were watched mostly by the urban, English-speaking viewers and not by the masses. Then in the 80s came the era of the mega soaps, like Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayan and BR Chopra’s Mahabharat and the whole of India was hooked to DD like never before. No one had ever attempted something on such a huge scale before and, of course, the mythological content was lapped up by everyone in urban and rural India alike, because we in India wear our religion on our sleeves. People actually used to factor in their social commitments around Ramayan and Mahabharat, such was their hold on the imagination. Then came the era of Direct to Home channels with slick productions powered by money and unfettered use of better technology, something that DD, bogged down by red-tapism and babudom, could not compete with. But in Corona-weary times and a distraught nation seeking solace and comfort in the simple joys of nostalgia, Ramayan and other old hits have rescued DD yet again as a leader of content. In fact, March 25 onwards, most TV channels actually had a “captive” audience, viewership rising by 37 per cent.
And as live soaps began drying up due to actors being unable to arrive for shoots due to the nationwide lockdown, DD dug into its archives to pull out its hit shows of the 80s and had the nation hooked again. In the first week of April 3, a whopping 545.8 million viewers tuned in to DD National to watch reruns of Ramayan while 145.8 million watched Mahabharat on DD Bharti, says a report by Broadcast Audience Research Council. Reruns of Shaktimaan on DD National attracted 20.8 million viewers, while Byomkesh Bakshi, Shrimaan Shrimati, Buniyaad, Dekh Bhai Dekh and Circus also witnessed a similar rise in viewership. Shows that when it comes to content, DD did have a spark at one time. Maybe it will reinvent itself, post-lockdown, prizing quality once again.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month