Author: Francois Gautier
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: April 12, 2001
Since some time, India's intellectual
elite, the historians, some journalists, film-makers, writers and social
activists, have been making a lot of noise, complaining that they are being
hounded by the Saffron Brigade, that the RSS/BJP combine is edging them
out of their position and that generally, the country's secular fabric
is being "torn apart."
There are a few flaws in this persecution
complex. Firstly, what the secularists do not say, is that for more than
fifty years, they had no qualms about imposing on Indians their impression
of what India's standards should be in terms of literature, journalism,
film making, or painting. Secondly, that their idea of intellectual standards
is totally foreign to India: it is borrowed from Marxism, an ideology which
is profoundly hostile to India's culture, traditions and ethos. And lastly,
that barely a handful of Indian intellectuals have held sway over this
huge and diverse nation.
Historians like Romila Thapar, Harbans
Mukhia and Bipan Chandra, for example, professors at the JNU, the Mecca
of secularism and negationism in India, have constantly upheld theories,
such as the Aryan invasion, which have been proved totally false by recent
archaeological and linguistic discoveries. We have seen on the other hand,
how Thapar, who had no scruples in trampling upon others who did not share
her views, made such a racket when she was edged out of the ICCR.
The recent controversy about the
film awards has once again brought to the fore this kind of secular Talebanism.
The best feature film award went to Shantam. a film which deals with the
RSS/BJP and the CPM bloodying each other in Kerala. One of the boys is
killed and his faction swears to take revenge on the other faction. But
sacrificing her thirst for vengeance, the mother of the killed boy finally
prays for peace and both the factions forego their enmity. "Apart from
the message, said one of the members of the jury, the overall presentation,
action, direction are so superb that none had any doubts about it to be
the best one."
The next is Sayahnam. a film on
the life of E M S Namboodripad, who died a couple of years ago, one of
the leading lights of Marxism in India. It rightly won the Swarna Kamal
award for the best first film -- and nobody complained, not even the "saffron"
members of the jury, who could have objected to a man known for his hatred
of Hinduism from being honoured. Then, Soumitra Chatterjee acted in Dekha,
an aesthetical film, which makes a few barbs about the Babri Masjid and
Partition. Yet again, Soumitra got the best jury award -- and none of the
non-Marxist members of the jury resigned in protest.
But the other side did not show
the same generousity. They ran down Pukar, a patriotic film. But being
proud of one's country and culture is deemed as an 'obscurantist trait',
and slandered Raveena Tandon because she campaigned for the BJP (she did
not) and said 'the film is bad'. "And although," recalls one of the members
of the jury, "Pukar was accepted by the majority for what it stands for
-- victorious Indian people, national integration and an excellent performance
by Anil Kapoor, why should we punish Raveena for factors not under her
control? The jury recompensed her for her acting and not for the film direction!"
Another controversy: Pandavas, which
won for the best film in the English language category. It was attacked
"for projecting the Hindu ethos." But what's wrong with the Hindu ethos?
It is the ethos of 850 million people today, and a wonderful ethos: generous,
tolerant, spiritualised, as ancient as the history of humanity. But no,
the Marxists of the jury wanted to award Split Wide Open for this category,
because "it dealt with a bold theme' and characterization. But a majority
of the jury felt that like many films made brilliantly by people such as
Deepa Mehta, Split Wide Open sought to debase Indian culture and applied
standards and judgments on India which belong to the West.
"This film," accuses one of the
members of the jury, "shows sexual relations between son-in-law and his
old mother-in-law, between father and daughter, and we felt that it was
not proper to award such a movie." Instead, the jury decided in favour
of Pandavas "for its beautiful portrayal of an epic in animation form and
its overall presentation." Of course, the Marxist members (all Hindus by
the way -- and of course, Hindu-bashers) objected to Hinduism being portrayed
so delightfully (although, not even once, they uttered the word Hindu),
but what's wrong in honouring one's culture? The West does it all the time
-- even lately when it gave the Oscars to Gladiator, a film which goes
back to the much loved -- and hyped -- Roman roots of European culture
and civilisation* and glorifies violence *
Says one of the attacked members
of the jury: "A jury member may lodge a protest or submit a note of dissent
if dissatisfied. How do you run a democratic institution? Put forward your
views and respect the majority. Many of the films strongly advocated by
others were simply rejected. They too could have walked out. Where would
that all have led to? To label the entire jury as saffron is a travesty
of truth. Each one was there in his individual capacity. Even then, each
and every decision can be discussed threadbare if that would satisfy anyone."
But that's not the reason behind the furore of the three holy jury members.
The reason is the deep-rooted sense of apartheid in their minds. Taleban
mindset. Which just does not tolerate a different viewpoint.
So what is the message? Those three,
just three, are right and the rest of the 13, just wrong. They simply do
not matter because they have come directly from the shakhas (and believe
you should because these three have said so) and it is immaterial if many
of them have made more and better films, or won more awards than these
three respectable members. T hey say, Vyjayantimala Bali is unfit because
she is from BJP. So you are suggesting that the other great actors like
Rajnikanth, Sunil Dutt, Dilip Kumar too should be outlisted from any awards
list or joining any awards jury because sometime or the other they worked
for the Congress, Dalit Muslim Mahasangh or BJP.
Instead of bothering with the political
affiliation of juries, one should concentrate in cleaning-up the rot in
Bollywood, where blood money finance films, where Muslims writers, actors,
musicians, who should have their country's interests first, use their talent
and money to subtly attack the very culture which gives them the licence
to express themselves freely.
Tarun Vijay editor of Panchajanya,
who was particularly hounded by the three above-mentioned individuals,
is not only a fine man, an upright journalist, but he was also very much
in his element when he was asked to be part of the jury of the recent film
awards: he has worked with Basu Bhattacharya and Bill Greaves -- one of
the greatest Black film makers of the USA, wrote on films in various English
and other language newspaper, covered several film festivals as an accredited
film critic and was on the jury for best writing on cinema which awarded
The Times Of India film critic* But he is suspect because he is saffron!!
Why not demand the removal of saffron from the tricolour too? They would,
if they could!
The hue and cry made by the outnumbered
Marxist panelists show how much the secularists realise that they are in
the process of losing the iron grip they have on this country's intellectual
pulse. Are we then hearing the last cry of the Hindu negationists?