 |
||
|
||
|
||
Ravindra Dani
Tarun Bharat (Marathi Daily)
February 14, 2000
About 30 years back, an episode involving the murder of a Dalit had made a lot of noise. That Dalit had grown a moustache and that was his crime. He was murdered on account of a pervert mindset, which held that Dalits have no right to sport moustaches. The Moustache was only the pretext. The real problem was of the mindset behind it. It held that Dalits have no right to self-respect (pride). This mindset had caused this murder.
The Mindset behind “Water”
Currently the controversial “Water” episode represents the same mindset. During the last 50 years a mindsent has been built up that the sentiments of a particular society and religion have no value and that it is all right if the sentiments of that society are jeered and mocked at, but the sentiments of another society should not be touched at all. The protest against “Water” and the cognizance taken by the Government has broken this mindset. If sentiment are to be cared for, then the sentiments of both the societies should be equally taken care of. Since a Government, which honours this valid protest, was ruling here, the film could not be shot under Government protection. The interested parties had to beat a retreat and this very factor is proving very difficult for them to digest. Just as some people could not put up with the growing of moustaches by Dalits, the supporters of “Water” are in the same boat today. So far it has been routine to deride and insult the feelings of a certain community only. The concerned parties have now realized that it will not do henceafter.
Javedbhai’s Reply
As a matter of fact, the problems which have been created by the shooting of the film “Water” have already been replied by Javed Akhtar one and a half years back. Here, Javed Akhtar has been specially quoted because he is the husband of the heroine of this “Water” film, ‘Shabana’. His stand, therefore, is especially important. One and half year’s back, in Maharashtra, political atmosphere had become very tense due to the controversy over a play – “Me Nathuram Boltoy”. Congress workers had vandalised and destroyed the sets/property of this play and stopped its performance. The Vajpayee Government at the Centre had counselled the then Manohar Joshi Government of Maharashtra to ban its performance. Against this background, Javed Akhtar had given an interview on 3rd August 1998 and had asked a fundamental question to the supporters of the play. It was – will the supporters of this play allow the slandering and denigration of their Gods and Goddesses by others? Javed Akhtar of course rightly expected the answer “No”. In the episode of “Water”, episode, the people of Varanasi have given this very answer. Then why the uproar against them?
The Information and Broacasting Ministry had approved the script of the dialogues of Water. Hence, Smt Deepa Mahta argues that neither the (U. P.) government nor the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has any right to stop the shooting of the film. Smt Mehta has been residing in Canada. She visits India only for the shooting of her films. It is, therefore, not expected that she would know the developments in India. But the script of “Me Nathuram boltoy” had been sanctioned by the State Censor Board. As accusations started being levelled against it that its dialogues were insulting to Mahatma Gandhi and favourable and praising Naturam, the Central Government asked the Government of Maharashtra to ban it. This play was based on the Nathuram’s statement in the court. Earlier, even this statement was itself banned from publishing. This ban order was challenged by Shri Gopal Godse in the Mumbai High Court. The High Court lifted this ban by its 217 page historical verdict given in 1967. Arguing that the assassination of Gandhiji had become a matter for history now, the High Court lifted the ban on the Statement filed by Nathuram. Although the play was based on this statement, its performance was stopped on the grounds that it hurt the sentiments of the people and the nation.
About the film “Water” the point regarding the sentiments of the people and the the nation was raised. The local populace put a stop to the shooting of the film, and the State Government also withdrew its permission to shoot. Now the Madhya Pradesh Government has invited the producer to shoot the film in Madhya Pradesh. There are signs of a new controversy being raised. The point in ‘Nathuram’ and ‘Water’ is one and the same. When the point of dispute is either, the right of the producer or the sentiments of the people, the Government has firmly taken the stand of banning the picture or play out of respect to the sentiment of the people and the sentiments of the nation.
City of Joy
Some years back, a foreign producer had prepared a picture on the destitute localities of Calcutta City. The name of the picture was “City of Joy”! This producer reached Calcutta to shoot the film. Communist Party workers stormed the sets and stopped the shooting. “Conspiracy to insult the Calcutta City” was the stand of the Communist workers. Due to this protest, the shooting had to be given up
Dying City
A programme producer on a private channel, Ruby Bhatia, had used the words “a Bania” to describe Mahatma Gandhi. On the Government of India registering its protest, the programme was suspended for some time. Later, it was resumed, but Ruby Bhatia was dropped out of it. There can be differences of opinion with Gandhiji, but calling him “a Bania” is too much. The Government immediately took action in this matter.
Nine Hours to Rama
American Scholar, Stanley Wolpert wrote, in 1962, a book “Nine Hours to Rama” on the assassination of Gandhiji. As the Government of India thought it controversial, it was banned in 1962. It is important to note that, in 1998, the ban was reviewed and was continued.
Special meeting of the Union Cabinet.
There was also a picture by title “ Paton Place Fame”. Mark Robson had directed it and German artist Horst Buckhols had acted the role of Nathuram. In 1962, to view this picture, a special meeting of the Union Cabinet was held. After viewing it, it was decided not to give approval to it. It is worth noting that Pt Nehru was presiding over this Ministers' meeting. Pt Nehru used to quote a famous saying of a great thinker, Voltaire, “I may not agree with your thoughts, but I will defend your right to state your thoughts till my death”. Inspite of this stand, Pt Nehru also refused permission to the film. That director had written the Biography of Pt Nehru, which also proved controversial. The Government refused permission to this book also. It was in 1996.
Now Indira – Sonia
A premier English Daily
of the country selected 100 women on a strange criteria of being sexy women
of the century and included in it Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi.
Congress workers demonstrated against it. At last, the concerned newspaper
had to drop these two names from that list. In all these episodes,
the question of fundamental rights and freedom of expression was cropping
up. “Sentiments of the people or freedom of expression?” This question
was raised by these events and in all of them, the Government took decisions
by respecting the sentiments of the people. How can “Water” be an
exception to this? Till now it has been the practice to protest against
anything objectionable written about Nehru-Gandhi families and a particular
society on the grounds sentiments of the people and nation but to raise
points of personal freedom and freedom of thoughts etc.when there was a
protest against anything written or said against another community. But
now Varanasi has given a strong message that this will not do henceafter.
This is a great defeat of the supporters of the “Water” Mindset. A political
colour is being given to it since this defeat is proving indigestible to
them. Let us see which additional colours are being added to this
Water. Because, the true colour of water cannot be long hidden.
|
||
|
||
|
||