‘Gunda Raj’ back in Mumbai

Shiv Sena who….? And how come they have become the deciding authority in Mumbai. From when….? Does it mean now we have to go to a senile old fellow to ask permission for visiting Mumbai…Did we know that they were voted out of Maharastra long time back. Is it again the beginning of the underworld or …criminal rule in ‘Mumbai’.

It is the complete crumbling of the law and order in our great ‘financial capital of the country’. The Congress government should step down, as they are not able to handle a handful of ‘gunda’ element in Mumbai. How come in televised threat so called activists of the Shiv sena, threaten people …or Shahrukh Khan from entering Mumbai. Where is the state administration or it is sheer the ‘anarchy and criminal rule in Mumbai’now.

The state government has made just false assurances and promises to provide security to common people. Had it been so, the entire Bollywood so used to facing threats in the eighties and nineties from the underworld and bowing to pressures, would not have felt the heat once again. Why does Amitabh Bachhan apologetic to the Raj Thakeray, for his wife Jaya bachhan’s love for Hindi. It is the same language that has earned him crores in business. Be it business or no business, it is’nt it sheer disrespect to the ‘national language’. Rather it infringes the right of ones choice to speak and how does it really matter if ‘Thakerays are hurt’ as Mr Bachhan had said being apologetic and owing his allegiance to Mumbai and the Thakerays. Isnt it ironical, that hurting ‘Thakerays’ matter more than disrespecting the constitution.

Karan Johar had to go and be apologetic for calling Mumbai as Bombay in his film Wake up Sid’. A Ram Gopal Verma had to do a special screening for the ‘Balasaheb’ of his film ‘Sarkar’, and get his approval.

The Thakerays, who are now roaring as lions as they self proclaim (we better want human beings than lions to rule Mumbai) now on the move of destroying and destructing for not being saluted properly. And the recent victim is Shahrukh Khan. Surprisingly Shahrukh is conciliatory, though putting up a defiant front, wanting to know his mistake and antagonizing the ‘law breakers’. But on the other hand why should he not. He has children, home and business in Mumbai. And there is no law to safeguard him. His stakes are really high.

The question here is why should a Shahrukh speak the language that acceptable to the ‘Thakerays’. The answer is if he wont, his films will be not be screened in Mumbai, fans willing to see his films would be beaten up , and cinema halls screening his films would be ransacked. The fear psychosis was the only reason for Amitabh Bachhan and Karan Johar to reconcile with the ‘law breakers’ and get going. Since ‘common man’ is unsure of the efficiency of the state administration and protection by law hence they adapt the conciliatory tone.

The question here is not endorsing what Shahrukh said. It is whether he has the right to speech and expression or not. And how come Mumbai sleeps in silence when the rest of the country argues for the rights of common Indian.

The same is the case of North Indians being targeted in Mumbai. They question is not whether they should go to Mumbai for employment or not but whether they have the right to go to Mumbai or not. And if they have the right then what action is being taken against people indulging otherwise through criminal activities.

Where is the government and where is the Indian home minister? It is not about pacifying the lawbreakers, it is about taking them to task. And if the Indian law is same for everybody, Mumbaikars wake up for your right and join hands against the fight for democracy lest the disease of ‘lawlessness would just spread’ from ‘Mumbai’ to other parts of the country.

Basu: The Democrat Communist

Seeing Jyoti Basu wrapped in the national flag at Vidhan Sabha generated all the more mixed feelings for me. Hounded by politicians and journalists even in death I was wondering if ‘deads, could deliberate what must Jyoti Basu be going through now’.


‘The man has definitely outgrown his party’, I was thinking, ‘a belief Jyoti Basu always detested’ and stood for the greatness of his party till he lived.

It must be really difficult a decision to resist the offer of being the ‘Prime minister of a nation’, for the sake of the party ie.. for the sake of the ‘collective decision of his comrades’. He called it a ‘historical blunder’ later not for himself but for ‘the party’. He had said, ‘ Opportunity comes once’, and it is indeed ‘the party missed the opportunity of having a communist prime minister in the biggest democracy of the world’.

It was ‘a blunder’ and ‘of course it is historical’ for India and ‘for the Communist movement’ in the world. India is not a nation having one party or the two- party system. Its democracy is the biggest because it gives the opportunity to every adult Indian to vote and select their leaders. More so, it also gives the opportunity to every citizen to also lead the nation. India missed the opportunity of having a democratically elected ‘Communist Prime minister ’ and ‘the communists missed the opportunity of leading the biggest democracy’.

Jyoti Basu fought the parliamentary system of elections and won. He won to lead the state of West Bengal for twenty-three years consequently.

Indeed a leader who brought in legitimacy to the communist movement in a democratic setup. He left the post at the helm of his career without any challenge to his leadership.

Be it communist or no communist, this is a rare trait amongst politicians all over the world.

Jyoti Basu donated his body for medical research and will be used by medical students as any other body known by its allotted number. No one would know that this was the body of a national leader. He must have wanted it that way. As he had abided by his party’s belief ‘no one can outgrow the party’. An idealistic thought from a comrade, a communist and a leader.

But with the national flag wrapped around him, the comrades raising their hands saluting their leader with ‘Lal Salaam’, he did outgrow his party.

For that is what happens to ‘leaders’…to ‘path breakers’. At end for sure it was the salute to a great leader whose ‘personality’ outdid the party or again the ‘collective thought process of his comrades’.

Today Jyoti Basu made me believe ‘ that communist rule is not the dictatorship of the proletariat’ but ‘representation by, of and for the proletariat’.

So ‘Lal Salaam’, Comrade Jyoti Basu.

Why Jyoti Basu matters so much?

I was quite surprised at the inflow of messages from people all over the country wanting to know about the health of the 96-year old veteran communist leader Jyoti Basu undergoing treatment at AMRI hospital in Kolkata. ‘He did matter to us but I did not know that all over people would be that concerned”. But they were and as days are passing and he still remains critical people from unexpected quarters seem concerned.

It could be because Basu is an era in Indian politics. As far as I could remember, I had seen him and known him as the chief minister of West Bengal until he retired. During his last day in the assembly, I as a new reporter asked him, “ How does it feel to retire”, He responded, ‘How old are you?’ ‘I have been the chief minister of this state probably all through your age’, ….I was quiet and upset with his arrogance, as he continued, ‘Who said I am retiring. I have been the chief minister for twenty-three years’, ‘it feels great not because I was the Chief minister but because I represented a democratic elected government’.

He really did not retire even after not contesting his seat in 2001. His seat, after him was lost to the Trinamool Congress then.

But he remained very much in active politics even much after that. His small sound bites days after his retirement mattered to all of us. For he, remained above all in his party. Jyoti Basu until recently was considered to be the voice of the party and even in matters the party had varied opinions his voice stood firm for all of us. Though in communist party personality cult never seems to be promoted, yet for Jyoti Basu it was different. Not that he was the eldest member of the party in terms of age but that he was the tallest as the democratic communist in India.

Later just before the 2004 general elections, I had the opportunity to interview him once again. It was then he was being filmed for a documentary of his life by filmmaker Gautam Ghosh. Sometime back he had donated his body and I asked him if it was his philanthropic ideas or his communist belief so as to donate his body. He said, ‘Nothing like that. I was, approached by some people to donate my body and I agreed. I would anyway be dead by then. They wanted to make me useful for medical purposes even after my death and I agreed.’

‘Any more desires now’.

“What more would I want. I have been the chief minister for so many years and I have got the support of the people. Only regret is that the ideology (of my party) could not go beyond certain pockets in India’.

Indeed, it could be true as he fights back in the hospital in a critical condition. The party waits to be unseated even in West Bengal after almost thirty-five years of being democratically elected. The regret of losing own ground after so many years could be really difficult.

Jyoti Basu’s death means the end of a political era through which two generations have lived. And we cannot deny his individuality and stature as a politician around us till now.

It is not supporting or opposing his ideology. It means to get used to the changed directions of the wind we were so used to.

Victims finally get their Voice in India: Can question judgments

Ruchika Girhotra must be really proud of her death. After sixteen years of her lonely suicide, and running away from life, finally she has made her death meaningful. If at all the dead could see around, she must be the one most satisfied and fulfilled on this last day of 2009.

Not just because her sinner is having his turn in this world. But because the government decided to make a remarkable amendment to the Victorian CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) giving victims the right to fight back against an ‘unjust’ judgment.

Ruchika’s case has brought forth in the public domain that ‘victims cannot be further more victimized’ because the court did not have enough evidence. The amendment in the CrPC has given the victims the right to appeal against a court order ‘acquitting the accused or convicting the accused of a lesser offence’. Under the amended section 372 CrPC, the victim will not need the permission of any law enforcement or prosecuting agency to appeal a court order. Till about now an appeal could have been made only if the prosecution so decided and most cases the victims had to be contended with whatever punishment was conferred to the convicted by the court.

A further new amendment to be notified is in section 357A where victims will be entitled to compensation if the offender is not caught and tried. More so in the case of child rape the police has to complete investigation within three months of registering the case.

In Ruchika’s case the CBI had concluded that Rathore had indeed ‘molested Ruchika’. But the offence is punishable under Section 354 (i.e outraging the modesty of a woman) of the IPC, and the punishment for which is imprisonment up to two years. The limitation for filing such cases extends upto two years. The CBI had to move an application for condoning the delay as the case had been filed a good 10 years later. However, Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) empowers the court to take cognisance after the expiry of the period of limitation if the court is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

In Ruchika’s case first of all it was justice delayed for nineteen years. ‘ Justice delayed is justice denied’. Justice was delayed, as the process for seeking justice was long and complicated. Ruchika’s case was not even registered until 1997 and investigations got concluded in 1999. But it took another ten years time for pronouncing judgment leading to a mere six months rigorous punishment and a thousand rupees fine. No wonder a laughing S P S Rathore came out of the court.

Rathore is convicted for outraging the modesty of a girl. The law says he could get a punishment for a maximum of two years and he got six months. That is fine. But, Ruchika has lost her life because of the trauma and the torture to her family. Her family suffered with hopes of justice for long nineteen years. And finally now Ruchika and her likes have the right to voice their opinion against the quantum of punishment conferred to their offender.

I really feel it is a great commendable change in our system. If justice is done it should also appear that justice has been done. Not with a judgment where the victim is abetted to suicide and the perpetrator walks off with a six months imprisonment.

In Rizwanur Rehman even after the hype and the media glare, the perpetrators are on bail walking freely even as his old mother silently cries in one corner of her small house. The same is the situation with the family of those been run down by the Bollywood hero Salman Khan. If we look around there would hundreds of cases where the high and the mighty have the power and the money to delay and influence justice.

With the victims right to appeal judgment, justice can still get delayed but will not be denied, that easily.

‘Rahul, it is not competency but opportunity that makes India’s Prime Minister’

India is a democratic nation. So when Rahul Gandhi addressing the group of students in Aligarh Muslim University was asked a very pertinent question by the students of the muslim community as to when can a ‘muslim become the Prime Minister of this country’, his reply really touched our hearts. We try to believe him for what he answered, ‘It is ones competency that makes a Prime Minister in India’ and ‘Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’ is the Prime minister not for which community he belongs to but for his competency and his high acclaimed Curriculum vitae’.

We wish it was true, for this should be the story of the biggest democracy of the world. But had competency that easy a factor, then Sonia Gandhi, the UPA chairperson and the President of the Congress party and of course Rahul’s mother would have had the opportunity to also lead the nation.

I raised the issue to one of my senior fellow journalist. And we discussed that had Rahul faced this question he would have replied in a la politician Rahul’s justification that it was not for competency that Sonia Gandhi did not lead the nation. It was certainly not the origin issue either. It was that ‘she abided by her much publicized inner voice’ that asked her to lead the Congress party of India, the biggest winning coalition ‘United Progressive alliance’ (UPA) but not the country.

Does it not sound far from true? And Rahul would have actually wanted all of us to believe this. But his discomfiture can be understandable when he conceded that there were other factors as well that were somewhat ‘secondary’.

It is true, that Manmohan Singh became the Prime Minister not because he came from the minority community but certainly not because he was the most competent person available then. He became the Prime minister in 2004 only because he suited the first choice of Ms. Sonia Gandhi then and till now. Until he signed the nuclear deal he was termed the weak Prime minister and there is no denial that with due respect to his competency he is still termed as a ‘caretaker PM', guarding the chair for a more deserving dynastic surname.

This does not mean that Rahul’s leadership qualities are being questioned. He does deserve to be the Prime Minister for the kind of leadership and political grooming he is displaying. But certainly India has even more competent candidates waiting for opportunities.

Democracy is the number game. It cannot really be criticized for not abiding by the majority factor. But democracy is also about representation of all. An American democracy made history with ‘Barrack Obama’ representing the 14% minority population of the African Americans leading the nation although he is half white by birth.

Indian democracy has a sixty percent average representation in parliament. That still means that forty percent are neither being heard nor can they say anything. Moreso, no wonder this sixty percent has in places been represented by ‘majority community based cent percent representation’ while the others went on almost ‘cent percent non representation’. Gujrat after the 2002 riots are the best example in this regard where the ruling government was voted to power with the cent percent majority community votes while the rest went without a say. This is the side effect of democracy or better still we can say Indian democracy. Hence no wonder our leaders look for more ‘divisive number game’ by their ‘divide Indian community politics’ funda for their leadership goals.

So. Mr. Gandhi I would definitely want you to believe that it is not just mere competency but also ‘the opportunity and the avenue to be competent’ that paves way to lead India. And those getting the opportunity are far privileged to compete with the ‘competent’ in the nation. And not just competent muslim leader but any one opportune enough shall definitely lead India

“Are good films the ones that fetch good turn over?”

During a televised discussion at the ‘Taaza Khabar’ (a Kolkata based TV Channel) I got in the opportunity to discuss about ‘films of today and their relevance for the future’. It was a striking subject with the 15th Kolkata Film Festival being held in the city and at a time when there is a political upheaval with ongoing political violence in and around the state. The panel had Filmmaker Ashok Vishwanathan, quite a name in the city along with the documentary filmmaker Arvind Sinha of the Shaziya fame and journalist Vishambar Newar as the moderator. What struck me was the fact that the focus of the discussion meandered through how with limited resources film makers make films these days and how India suddenly has explored the great world of International viewership that is capable of bringing great turnovers for the films.

It is true and I fully agree that films are to be made for selective audience who can relate to the movies and in turn fetch good proceeds for the films as well. And if the International audience is the answer and our filmmakers are getting applauded and acknowledged for the piece of art they produce what is the harm in it. And as Ashok Vishwanathan said whether good or bad, filmmakers make a film on the subject they believe in and leave it to the audience to respond. So was conceded by Arvind Sinha as well but here lies the big questions.

My question here is whether our films really reaching to the right and the larger Indian audience. If so where is the forum? With multiplex culture, films seem to be so audience targeted that even contents do not represent the entire country. In the last, I don’t know how many years but most of the films I saw were either set for a multiplex audience only or for the film festivals. And hence the increase in numbers of ‘B’ and ‘C’ grade films believing ‘good films are meant only for the good audience’. To particularly mention here the latest ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ bringing Oscars to India showcasing the other India, found place in the elitist Indian cities whereas in the smaller towns public did not even get to know the film. It was not because of the English language in which the film was made but because it did not reach to India’s greater audience. Even films or documentaries made on Nandigram and the great naxalite movements have been set with a very urban mindset. I want to question here as to why the rest of India is left behind. Are filmmakers not finding a ‘returning proceeds’ from the rest of India that constitutes the greater India or else the urban rural divide is so big that the urban or the more ‘return fetching’ audience would not find the subjects so exiting.

It is true, film fairs and film festivals are great forum for filmmakers to showcase their art. But why are filmmakers hesitant in reaching out. If Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the Chief Minister of the state while announcing the film festival in Kolkata says that ‘even hungry stomachs sing songs’ did he mean that his audience for whom the Kolkata film festival was being held did have people with empty stomachs.

I am personally not against the film festivals that give us as urbanites the opportunity to view good films and even multiplexes that bring in new films. But I want to actually believe that why has this divide between the rural and urban India deepened over the years that films of today don’t fit anywhere in between. As when Arvind Sinha said that films are not made for ‘everybody to watch’ did he not mean that it is for ‘selective audience’.

We have known that films have been a means of education. Films have been the measures to build bridges between communities, classes and countries irrespective of language, region or even ethic divide. If the content today is so focused and targeted and ‘turnover oriented’ are they not becoming the reason for the ‘great rural urban divide’. It is true a filmmaker needs lots of fund to make his film and to reach out to people. In this world of show business one also needs to make profits. So, if in the ‘film industry’ as it is called today and the ‘turnover market’ why should it then remain a piece of art and not just sheer sector of business.

Ashok Vishwanthan himself conceded that when ‘Pather Panchali’ was made it did not find very elite audience because people did not understand them. Yet, it is an extraordinary piece of work. What I meant to ask them, is whether there is a dearth of content or the rural urban divide is so deep that films cannot be made with the entire Indian viewers as audience.

Who would have the last laugh? Buddha or Mamata

On a day when Mamata Banerjee was addressing a public meeting in Nandigram first time after her much hyped Lok Sabha win in the state, her bete noir Buddhadeb Bhattacharya was holding a press conference to announce the schedule of the Kolkata film festival. When Mamata was saying Buddhadeb was a ‘Moaist’ and hands in gloves in killing people in the state’, Buddhadeb was philosophically justifying the timing of holding the Kolkata film festival. ‘Even hungry people sing songs and the film festival will bring in creative work in the state that would show them path in this time of crisis’. ( read a time when there is disturbance and discontentment all over the state.)

This was no Gandhigiri. Buddhadeb has pretended to overlook even grim situations many a times. From the uprising in Nandigram, to ration riots in Birbhum, Bankura, Murshidabad, Singur, to political riots all over the state, he has tried to play cool and hence been caught in fire in most of the cases. The state now in turbulence even as the ruling Left blames the opposition for lighting the flames along with the Maoists while the latter led by Mamata Banerjee trying hard to keep the flames lit so as to char the thirty year old Left rule in the state completely.

Here comes in the big question as to who will have the last laugh in this turbulence. Be it either, the state is in flames and the situation grim. There are political riots everywhere in the districts from Hoogly to Midnapur, to South 24 paraganas to Burdawan. Maoists are on a free run dictating terms, political activists unleashing a phase of terror, arson and killings, state agricultural productivity gone down and development static. Where is the state heading towards and what is being achieved?

Buddhadeb had not banned the Maoists despite their growing menace in the state since last couple of years. During Nandigram’s capturing and recapturing mode it was a state of war ie fight for ‘ Dakhal’ ie ‘the political dominance’ leading to political riots in that area. He looked the other way until his own supporters and followers fell prey directly. Finally his party lost the people’s support but rather than counting his own failures he concentrated blaming his opposition parties for conniving with the Maoists in unleashing violence.

On the other hand, Mamata has been spitting fire always. She knows populist slogans can set fire against Budhadeb particularly at a time when most in the state is disillusioned by Buddhadeb’s philosophical attitude. And all the violence in Trinamool dominated areas now are also as a result of that old war of ‘political dominance’. Had it not been so, Nishikant Mondal the Trinamool Congress panchayat pradhan of Nandigram whose killing Mamata was mourning in Nandigram yesterday would not have been a victim of brutal killing in the area he ruled and ensured the wipe out of the CPIM there. His killing has not come with the CPIM goons but the Maoists who have now returned as Frankestein’s Ghost in Nandigram and started to haunt Mamata. And it is for so that Mamata has had to approve for the first time in public that military action should be taken against the Maoists. Until now she had proclaimed that she wanted the joint operation to stop at Lalgarh and security forces to be withdrawn. Does this means she has changed her stand after realizing that the Maoists are back to bully her now. She seems to be particularly sure now after the ‘Rajdhani hijacking’ in Banstala last week where Maoists leader ‘Kishenji’ wanted to talk to her and do the bargain.

Moreso, be it the Maoists or no armed political activists. Clashes turning to rioting have become just another common part of everyday life in West Bengal now. That which had started with Budhhadeb’s ‘paying back people in their own coin’ to Mamata’s joining hands with the Maoists and capturing and recapturing Nandigram, has turned into a total era of anarchy and it will not be easy for ‘Budha babu’ or ‘Mamata didi’ to calm down Bengal now. And the one who would have the nerve to reinstate faith back in the democratic values will only have the last laugh. As for the present the chances for which is quite dim.