Kerala has been buzzing with the news of Mollywood superstar Mohanlal joining BJP. Not a big deal otherwise considering that another star Suresh Gopi has already made a similar journey and many other movie stars have become MLAs and MPs after joining other political parties. But what assumes significance is the timing of this news.

Political parties have been roping in people of fame from all spheres of life into their ranks for a long time. But initially, after Independence, this was not the case. There was a separate mainstream political class that used to leverage the reach of famous personalities among people for their needs. It was exactly similar to the way they used to manipulate and use the thugs and goons who in turn fueled the growth of the underworld. Finally, it reached a point where the famous and the notorious came to the same conclusion. Why be the slaves and expendables of the political class when they can become part of the political class themselves? This is how they forayed into politics and became political leaders.

Many movie stars have become amazingly successful in their political lives. MGR in Tamil Nadu, NTR in Andhra Pradesh and Rajkumar in Karnataka were the early trendsetters who went on to become Chief Ministers in their respective states. The fact that MGR was originally from Kerala and had moved to Chennai makes his success even more baffling. They did nothing more than leverage on their enormous and blindly loyal fan base to establish their political careers. All other movie stars have followed the same strategy as well. It does seem like once they have their grip on our attention and faith the next natural step is to start ruling us. After years of speculation, Kamal Hassan and Rajnikanth have stepped inside the political ring as well.

What assumes significance with Mohanlal is the timing of his entrance into politics. The 2019 general elections are inching closer with each passing day. Every strategy of the BJP has failed miserably in Kerala till now. To add fuel to the simmering fire, the callous and inept handling of the recent floods in Kerala by the central government has stoked a huge fireball of resentment against BJP among Keralites. BJP needs someone in their ranks with a massive fan base to potentially divert a chunk of votes towards them. There seems to be a strategy of confusing people as well here. In spite of all the negative perception about BJP and RSS in Kerala, if someone like Mohanlal is joining their ranks, it would set the cat among the pigeons. The strategy must be to make people start thinking in the lines of “if Mohanlal is joining BJP then there could be something right about them”, thereby polarising and splitting votes.

How does this work? From the time of MGR and NTR, these stalwarts have all played the quintessential good guys on screen, time and again in each one of their movies, who take on all the odds and triumph in the end. This has played on our psychology and made us believe that they can do no wrong. What has really happened is that in our minds, the line between these actors and the characters they played has vanished. We have started believing that these actors embody the qualities of the characters they play because being good actors they get into the skin of the characters and play with such conviction. The flip side holds good as well. T G Ravi, another movie star in Mollywood has a similar profile as Ranjeet in Bollywood. Both have played so many villainous roles in their early careers that they are still remembered as reel rapists.

The real question is – what is the intent of elections? My understanding is, elections are conducted for better representation of people so that governance can be improved. Through their votes, people are giving their representatives 5 years to prove that they are fit to represent them again and if they are not they need to be replaced. This is how true democracy should work. But India is miles away from this. Political parties nominate their leaders, people blindly vote for them and hope that they will do their duties properly. But our representatives become our rulers the moment they win elections and we are at their mercy. Time and again, the same story has repeated and thereby emboldened the political class which is why we are being represented by people who know nothing about governance.

But I believe all is not lost. The Delhi government has made giant strides in the field of education and healthcare and has been receiving widespread international recognition. The Aam Aadmi Party has no stars or famous people in their ranks which is the best evidence that ordinary well educated people and not people with fame are best suited FOR governance and fulfilling the needs of the society. Couple this with the fact that Keralites have always been critical thinkers. We have been critical of our leaders if they fail no matter which political party our affiliation has been. The same line of thought goes into every aspect of our lives. Be it of any superstar, if a movie is bad, word of mouth will make sure that the movie fails at the box office. This is why Mollywood is one of the best and the most content driven movie industries in the country and movie stars from even Bollywood desire to work in Malayalam movies.

We do not need good actors who can act as our representatives. Rather we need real people who can become our representatives. I write with the hope that people will understand this one simple difference before choosing to align their loyalty.

The post Malayalam Superstar Mohanlal To Join BJP: Do Good Actors Make Good Representatives? appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

In the autumn of 1619, when the days were clear and cool, perfect for travel, the royal cavalcade of Emperor Jahangir and Empress Nur Jahan, his twentieth and favorite wife, set out from Agra, the capital of Mughal India, headed for the Himalayan foothills. The people of Mathura, a popular pilgrimage site along the emperor’s route, were anxious for his arrival. For months, a tiger had been attacking villagers and visitors, then disappearing into the forest, evading local hunters. No divine intervention seemed to be forthcoming from Lord Krishna and his consort Radha, the Hindu deities worshipped in Mathura’s temples. But the emperor could solve the problem. Killing tigers had long been a royal prerogative. Jahangir—his name meant Conqueror of the World in Persian, the language of the court— was the fourth of the Mughal emperors, a Muslim dynasty established by invasion early in the sixteenth century. Descendants of the Central Asian nomad kings Chingiz [Genghis] Khan and Tamerlane, the Mughals ruled much of Hindu- majority India for more than three hundred years.

According to one excited observer, the imperial procession included “fifteen hundred thousand” people— men, women, and children; courtiers, soldiers, and servants— along with ten thousand elephants and a great deal of artillery. The procession halted near Mathura, and attendants began erecting hundreds of magnificent tents, with the harem quarters marked with intricately carved red screens. While the traveling court was still being set up, a group of local huntsmen appeared and begged Jahangir to do something about the tiger. Unfortunately, the emperor was obligated to decline. Several years before, Jahangir had taken a vow to give up hunting when he turned fifty. After that, he’d promised Allah, he would injure no living being with his own hands. He was two months past that milestone birthday, and had recently renewed the vow as an offering on behalf of a favorite four- year-old grandson, traveling with him, who suffered from epilepsy. Shooting a tiger was now out of the question for Jahangir. The empress, however, was there to protect her subjects. Beautiful and accomplished, Nur Jahan was the daughter of nobles who’d fled persecution in Persia. She was also the widow of a court official implicated in a plot against Jahangir, but that didn’t stop the emperor from falling hard for her. She was thirty- four when they married, nearly middle- aged in the Mughal world. Since their wedding in 1611, the same year that Shakespeare premiered The Tempest , Nur Jahan (Light of the World in Persian, the name bestowed by her husband), had proved to be a devoted wife, a wise and just queen, a shrewd politician— and an expert markswoman. Her shooting skills were already legendary. A few years earlier, she’d amazed her husband and his courtiers by slaying four tigers with only six shots. On October 23, 1619, Nur Jahan mounted an elephant and settled into the howdah, the elaborate litter on the animal’s back, holding a musket. The mahout, the elephant handler, led her along the sandy track toward the forest. Nur Jahan accompanied her husband, Jahangir, on his own elephant, and they were followed by a long line of courtiers, some on superbly ornamented elephants and horses and others in red and gold jeweled palanquins with silken seats, decorated with garlands of flowers and carried by attendants. Portraits of Nur Jahan from the period suggest that she was wearing a regal turban, much like the ones favored by the emperor and distinguished noblemen, but highly unusual for a woman; a knee- length tunic with a sash around the waist over tight trousers; and earrings and a necklace of rubies, diamonds, or pearls. Her shoes were open at the back, exposing the henna designs on her feet. At forty- two, she was still praised by her contemporaries for her luminous beauty. Local hunters on foot guided the party past fields of barley, peas, and cotton, lush from the recent rains. Along the way, they spotted herds of cattle, goats, and blackbuck with long corkscrew horns. When they reached the forest, the emperor and empress could barely see beyond the dense wall of creepers, bushes, and trees— lofty nim, thorny babul, and many others. The hunters showed the empress and her retinue the spot where the tiger was likely to appear, and they waited. Soon Nur’s elephant, in the lead, began groaning and stepping nervously from side to side; the mahout couldn’t make it stand still, and Nur Jahan’s howdah lurched precariously. From his own elephant, Jahangir looked on, silent and focused.

Later, he would recall the moment in the Jahangirnama (The memoirs of Jahangir), a journal he began when he ascended to the throne in 1605 that would serve as the public record of his reign. “An elephant is not at ease when it smells a tiger, and is continually in movement,” he wrote, “and to hit with a gun from a litter is a very difficult matter.”  The tiger emerged from the trees. Nur lifted her musket, aimed between the animal’s eyes, and pulled the trigger. Despite the swaying of her elephant, one shot was enough; the tiger fell to the ground, killed instantly. Jahangir was delighted. A woman shooting publicly was rare; a woman shooting with such expertise was unheard- of. Nur’s shooting skill wasn’t the only thing that made her highly unusual. She held a position in the empire never before filled by a woman: co- sovereign. For more than a decade and a half, from a few years after their wedding until Jahangir’s death, Nur Jahan ruled along with her husband, effectively and prominently, successfully navigating the labyrinth of feudal courtly politics and the male- centered culture of the Mughal world. She issued her own imperial orders, and coins of the realm bore her name along with her husband’s. In Islamic thought and practice, the edicts and the coins were convincing technical signs of sovereignty. Furthermore, Nur sat where no other Mughal queen had sat before or would after, in the jharokha, an elaborately carved balcony projecting from the palace wall, from which government business was conducted.

While Nur ruled the empire alongside her husband, dispensing justice and masterminding daring rescues, she also wrote poetry and designed clothing, gardens, and buildings. Though modern South Asians embrace the legends of Nur with affection, gusto, and pride, the emphasis on her romance with Jahangir truncates her biography in a way that diminishes her. In the popular imagination, Nur’s story seems to stop at the very moment when her life’s best work began. Between 1614 and 1627, the year of Jahangir’s death, Nur served as her husband’s co- sovereign, a decisive player in courtly and succession politics, and a commanding strategist. She defended her subjects against oppressive landlords and otherwise championed social justice. At the height of her power in the 1610s and ’20s, princes and courtiers sought her advice and followed her commands; she had the faith and trust of her husband. In 1626, when Jahangir was taken prisoner by a rebellious nobleman, it was Nur who led her imperial troops to rescue him. Many of her male contemporaries were in awe of Nur, whom they saw as a person of uncommon political and cultural acumen, and a remarkable leader. But in a conservative patriarchy, they had trouble accepting, despite empirical evidence, that she could be both womanly and a sovereign. Some commentators pronounced her cunning and conniving, precisely the way certain authoritative women are described to this day.

Thomas Roe, the British ambassador to Jahangir’s court, saw Nur as manipulative and mysterious: “[Jahangir’s] course is directed by a woeman, and is now, as it were, shut up by her soe, that all justice or care of anything or publique affayres either sleepes or depends on her, who is more unaccessible then any goddesse or mistery of heathen impietye.” 10 In the view of Peter Mundy, a merchant with the British East India Company who visited Agra in 1630, Nur was “hautie and stomakefull”—that is, stubborn. Europeans like Roe and Mundy seemed especially bewildered by the phenomenon of Nur Jahan. She hadn’t inherited an empire, as had Queen Elizabeth I of England, crowned twenty years before Nur’s birth, nor was she exactly a favorite, the familiar adviser- minister figure they knew, a staple of European courts but always a male. They couldn’t quite wrap their minds around a woman’s coming to power because of her own talents, but they could understand a wily consort winning the indulgence of a love- blind emperor. Jahangir’s marriage to Nur in 1611, the critical moment thought by many to explain her rise, launched a multitude of legends about every phase of Nur’s life— her birth, her first marriage, harem life, an alleged early affair with Jahangir when he was a young prince, her meeting and marrying Jahangir, her power over her husband. The legends soon engulfed the truth, overshadowing her actual personal history.

Excerpted from “Empress: The Astonishing Reign Of Nur Jahan” by Ruby Lal, published by Penguin India.

The post Not Just A Pretty Face, Nur Jahan Was A Badass Feminist Queen appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

There is no denying the fact that art is one of the most fundamental means of human expression, of representation, and of inclusion. Humans have been associated with art since the beginning of civilization. The pristine human qualities of empathy and understanding lends colossal significance to art, especially in rapidly transforming times, such as now. In a country like India, with such densely crosscutting streams of culture and religion, art finds a new powerful purpose, that of representing and engaging with new ideas.

Art, especially contemporary art, is no longer limited to sculpture or paintings. It has become a merging wave of different creative professions such as spoken word poetry, cinematography, animation, and the like. The importance of art lies not only in its intrinsically inspiring and communicative characteristics, but also in its effect in our daily life. Then, in a society known for its gaping contrasts in every walk of life, it isn’t surprising that the gatekeepers of art thrive only in metropolitan cities.

The majority of artists survive only in streets glittering with urbanity and vanity. There are several reasons for this, whose origins, perhaps, lie in our deepened rigid public conscience that art is supposed to be enjoyed by the privileged class on the ladder of our social spectrum. Other major reasons include accessibility, popularity, lack of awareness, dearth of resources. This may also have something to do with our apparent lack of faith in new emerging artists which leads to many of them straying further away from their fields. There is a paucity of free spaces to exhibit, to perform, to showcase and, well, of organisers who can identify budding artists in small towns and provide them with necessary resources. It also concerns our primary mindset of not encouraging art enough for it to be forged into a tangible career option.

Art, as the institution it is now, isn’t all that well known in small towns. It is seen as something foreign, something to be gulped down only by the “eccentrics” of society. It all comes down to money and time. The majority of Indians living in tier 2 cities (which neither fits into the definition of town nor into cities) primarily belong to the middle class, which earns enough to satisfy its needs but not enough to afford its wants. They neither have time nor money to expend on the luxury of art. That explains why “rebellious brats”, a term coined for millennials, escape to metropolitans to find sowing ground for their art. Though, with the smart phone generation, and people are getting to know about Van Gogh and Murakami, there is still a lack of interest and a lack of awareness about artists and art. But people can’t be solely blamed, can they? We have been conditioned to take interest in anything which can be converted to money. This is the crux of the conflict.

This is not to say there haven’t been incredible strides in our cultural fabric due to art. There is a burgeoning outburst of creative talent across the nation in the last decade, courtesy to globalisation and utilisation of internet in spreading information and opportunities.

Art carries the powerful voice of our generation, which is on the cusp of transformation. Especially around the nation’s capital city Delhi, young students use their art to voice their concerns in revolutions and marches which is in and of itself an incredible sight to witness.

But the question remains, whether art and its reflections will trickle down to the smaller towns and its people. Will art, one day, will break out of the shackles of privileged rich people and be enjoyed by middle class for all it is worth? What we need more than anything is an unbridled appreciation and encouragement of art and artists (no matter what field they belong to). Art breaks the rot of a mundane life. It inspires and motivates and stimulates and uplifts and enhances people. Connoisseurs of art have known this for a long time now. A proper decentralisation, if it happens, will bring about unprecedented transformations in our society which is in the midst of an exciting churn.

The post Is Contemporary Art A Luxury That Only A Privileged Few Enjoy? appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

सम्पूर्ण सिंह कालरा उर्फ गुलज़ार का जन्म भारत के पंजाब के दीना गांव (अब पाकिस्तान) में हुआ था। बंटवारे के बाद आपका परिवार अमृतसर (पंजाब, भारत) आ गया, फिर आप मुंबई चले गये। वर्ली में एक साधारण काम से जीवन की शुरुआत की। खाली समय में कवितायें लिखते थे। फिल्मों में उन्होंने बिमल राय, हृषिकेश मुखर्जी और हेमंत कुमार के सहायक के तौर पर काम किया।

हिन्दी सिनेमा में फिल्मकार-गीतकार-संवाद लेखक और साहित्यकार गुलज़ार जैसा व्यक्तित्व रखने वाले बहुत ही कम हैं। सफेद झक कुर्ता और पायजामा, चेहरे पर मुस्कान और मृदुभाषी, हिन्दी और उर्दू का साफ उच्चारण। गुलज़ार से मिलो तो ऐसा लगता है कि मिलते रहो। बातों का सिलसिला कभी खत्म ना होने पाए, ऐसी इच्छा होती है। गुलज़ार भले ही शख्स के रूप में एक हों, लेकिन उनके हज़ारों चेहरे हैं और उन्होंने अपने हज़ारों चेहरों से लाखों प्रशंसकों को अपने से जोड़ा है। बॉलीवुड में एक महान स्थान बनाई है।

एक फिल्मकार के तौर पर ‘मेरे अपने’ के बाद पीछे मुड़कर नहीं देखा। एक के बाद एक अलग-अलग विषयों पर लीक से हटकर फिल्में बनाई। ‘कोशिश’ फिल्म में गूंगे-बहरे माता-पिता की इच्छा है कि उनका बेटा उन जैसा नहीं हो। ‘आंधी’ फिल्म में इंदिरा गांधी के जीवन की एक झलक है। मौसम, किनारा, खुशबू, अंगूर, नमकीन, इजाजत, लेकिन, लिबास और माचिस जैसी फिल्मों में उन्होंने रचनात्मकता का इंद्रधनुषी रंग बिखेरा। आज भी फ़िल्म लेखन में सक्रिय हैं।

गीतलेखन के क्षेत्र में अब तक नाम कर रहें हैं। फिल्मफेयर पुरस्कार सर्वश्रेष्ठ गीत श्रेणी मे गुलज़ार को आंधी (1975) के गीत ‘तेरे बिना ज़िन्दगी से कोई शिकवा’ के लिए पहली बार नामित किया गया। सन 76 मे आयोजित सामारोह मे ‘अमानुष’ के गीत ‘दिल ऐसा किसी ने तोड़ा’ को पुरस्कार मिला। इस वर्ष के बाद गुलज़ार साहब करीब हर साल ही ‘बेस्ट गीत’ के लिए नामित हुए।

‘जहां पे सवेरा हो’ (बसेरा), ‘दिल हुम-हुम करे’ (रुदाली), ‘चप्पा –चप्पा चरखा चले’ (माचिस), ‘आजा माहिया’ (फिज़ा) ‘बीड़ी जलाई ले’ (ओमकारा), ‘तेरे बिना’ (गुरु), ‘तू ही मेरी दोस्त है’ (युवराज) और ‘कमीने’ के दो गानों के लिए नामित हुए, मगर पुरस्कार नहीं मिल सका।

सन 76 मे रिलीज़ हुई फिल्म ‘मौसम’ के गीत ‘दिल ढूंढता है’ को भी फिल्मफेयर नहीं मिल सका, साहिर लुधियानवी के गीत ‘कभी-कभी मेरे दिल में’ को अवॉर्ड मिला। तीसरी बार ‘किनारा’ के गीत ‘नाम गुम जाएगा’ और ‘घरौंदा’ के गीत ‘दो दीवाने शहर में’ नामित हुए, इस बार वह फिल्मफेयर अवॉर्ड से नहीं चूके , दो दीवाने के लिए अवार्ड जीत लिया। सन 80 मे ‘गोलमाल’ के सदाबहार गीत ‘आनेवाला पल जानेवाला’ के लिए नामित हुए, गीत लेखन के लिए फ़िर अवार्ड जीता। यह सिलसिला 81 मे भी जारी रहा और ‘थोड़ी सी बेवफाई’ फ़िल्म के गीत ‘हज़ार राहें मुड़ के देखीं’ के लिए अवॉर्ड मिला।

इसी तरह ‘तुझसे नाराज़ नही’ 84, ‘मेरा कुछ सामान’ 89,‘ यारा सिली- सिली’ 92, चल छैंया –छैंया’ 99, ‘सथिया तेरी हंसी’ 03, ‘कजरारे ’06 और अभी –अभी सन 2011 मे विशाल भारद्वाज की फिल्म ‘इश्कियां’ के गीत ‘दिल तो बच्चा’ के लिए फिल्मफेयर पुरस्कार जीता। 2013 में दादा साहेब सम्मान के साथ ‘जब तक है जान’ के लिए सर्वश्रेष्ठ गीतकार का अवॉर्ड जीता। विमल राय और ऋषिकेश मुखर्जी की छाया मे अपना फिल्मी सफर शुरु कर गीतकार के रूप में सचिन देव बर्मन के लिए ‘बंदिनी’ मे पहली बार गीत लिखे।

The post रचनात्मकता का सदाबहार सितारा ‘गुलज़ार’ appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

People worship Lord Ganesha (Vigneshwar) during the celebration of Ganesh Chaturthi. Ganesha is one of the most well-known and loved gods in Hinduism and is admired by most members of a Hindu family. People worship/invoke Sri Ganesha before starting any important work. At present, this festival is widely celebrated in its full glory in Maharashtra, Telangana, and the surrounding states. Ganesh Chaturthi is also one of the most important festivals of Hinduism. People worship the god of wisdom, knowledge and prosperity on Ganesh Chaturthi with complete devotion and faith.

On Ganesh Chaturthi, people generally start their day with a bath in the morning, after which they wear clean clothes and perform the Ganpati Puja rituals. Puja rituals include worshiping the idol by chanting mantras, offering aartis and sweets, and singing devotional songs to Lord Ganesha to seek his blessings. Earlier, this festival was observed at a local level only, but now the zeal and enthusiasm of this festival can be seen nationwide. On the last day of the ten-day festival, the statue of Lord Ganesha is carried in a public procession and immersed in the river.

For the first time in 1893, the festival was turned into a grand public event from that of a private celebration that it had been before, by Lokmanya Balgangadhar Tilak (a social reformer, Indian nationalist and freedom fighter) in Pune. At that time, he made a tradition of worshiping Ganesha to unite Indians against the British rule.

Lalbaugcha Raja, Mumbai

Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations commence on September 13 this year. Ganeshotsav (Ganesh Utsav) is celebrated every year with much passion and enthusiasm. Apart from the ones inside private homes, large idols of Ganesha are installed in many places and the most famous is the King of Lalbaug- Lalbaugcha Raja. In 1934, a big statue of Lord Ganesha was set up in Mumbai in the Lalbaug area. This year also the King of Lal Bagh was established with great enthusiasm and was decorated beautifully with a golden crown, sitting with pride. The Ambani family and many Bollywood personalities also visit the King every year.

Importance Of The Festival

People believe that Ganesha brings great joy and prosperity every year and removes all our obstacles. In order to please Ganesha, devotees make various food preparations for the festival. The day is celebrated as Ganesha’s birth anniversary so that it can be welcomed and respected. This festival starts on the Chaturthi in the month of Bhadrapad (August or September), in the Shukla Paksha and ends on the 11th day, on Anant Chaturdashi. It is very important to worship Ganesha in Hinduism. It is believed that those who worship him with full devotion and faith will be blessed with happiness, knowledge, wealth and a long life.

Nowadays, Ganesh Chaturthi is celebrated as a national festival to remove inequality between Brahmins and non-Brahmins. Lord Ganesha is known by various names, some of which are Ekadanta, God of limitless powers, Heramba (obstacle remover), Lambodara, Vinayaka, God of Gods, God of wisdom, God of wealth and prosperity amongst others. People see off the Ganesha on the 11th day (Anant Chaturdashi) with the complete Hindu ritual of Ganesha Visarjan. They also pray to the God to come back again next year.

The post Why Do We Celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi? appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

Ganesha is one of the most central gods in the Hindu pantheon of gods and goddesses. Hindu rituals have made it mandatory to invoke Lord Ganesha with sacred hymns prior to any festive celebration. It is believed that Lord Ganesha has the power to remove all obstacles in one’s path.

There are many stories connected to the birth of Lord Ganesha. Here are two of them:

Story 1: Goddess Parvati went for a bath. Being privacy conscious, she created a young boy out of turmeric paste (face/body pack) on her body and warns him not to let anyone enter her room while she is bathing. Lord Shiva turns up and is refused entry. Matters heat up and Shiva is triggered enough to strike the boy with his trident. Boy dies. Parvati is horrified and threatens to destroy the Universe. Shiva promises to restore life to her child by finding a new head, as the original head of the boy got destroyed. And for this, a young elephant is selected from a forest, killed and its head is attached to the boy via some mega plastic surgery or 3D body printing. (In some other stories, it is a demon named Vigneshwara who sacrifices his elephant shaped head to earn divine grace). Once the life of the child is restored, he is named Ganesha.  Shiva scolds Parvati for creating a badly behaved child, and thereafter losing her temper over his death owing to her attachment, and Parvati repents.

Story 2: Goddess Malini/ Vinayika was an attendant of Goddess Parvati. She adored Parvati and likewise Parvati was fond of her. It so happens that one fine day, Malini was busy cleansing Parvati’s body with a special concoction of herbs and oils. Post bath, Parvati leaves. Instead of throwing away the bathwater, Malini drank it and got pregnant. The child born was later given to Parvati. As Malini happened to be elephant headed herself, the child born was elephant-headed like her. She was worshiped as Vinayika, the Mother of Ganesha.

Now readers will notice that the 2 stories have the same subject i.e. Lord Ganesha. However, there are two separate approaches. The first story sees patriarchal elements all over: physical assault and murder of a child , hi-tech plastic surgery and über sexism.

In contrast, the second story involves no violence. A child born through union of two women is accepted minus any major sacrifice (except on the part of Malini). Even Malini gets due recognition later as she bore the child in her womb.

In the wake of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code being amended, it is important to revisit our folk tales and legends. Patriarchy has imposed a patina of conservatism and dogma to myths and legends, and thereby silencing queer voices. It’s high time we dusted off the same to reveal a more feminist and queer version of it.

The post Ganesha Through A Queer Lens: How I Believe Patriarchy Changed Mythology appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

फिल्म ‘स्त्री’ के अंत में श्रद्धा कपूर ”स्त्री” की कटी हुई चोटी को अपने बालों में समाहित कर लेती हैं। फिर रहस्यमयी तरीके से देखती हैं और चलती हुई बस से गायब हो जाती हैं। इससे पहले के दृश्य में वो विक्की (राजकुमार राव) से कहती हैं कि ये खंजर स्त्री के सीने में उतार दो, वो मर जाएगी। मैं तीन साल से उसे मारने की कोशिश कर रही हूं, पर मार नहीं पाई। विक्की खंजर ले कर जाता तो है पर चला नहीं पाता। तब श्रद्धा कपूर (फिल्म में ये बेनाम हैं) कहती हैं कि चोटी काट लो इसकी, ये कमज़ोर हो जाएगी, विक्की चोटी काट लेता है।

ऐसा प्रतीत हुआ कि श्रद्धा कपूर भाजपा हैं और स्त्री काँग्रेस। राजकुमार राव एक राजनीतिक भक्त। भाजपा ने शहर को काँग्रेस-मुक्त करना चाहा, पर भक्त अंत में सिहर गया, मार नहीं पाया, तो भाजपा ने उसकी चोटी काटकर स्वयं में समाहित कर ली। काँग्रेस को खत्म करने का प्रयास तो वो कई सालों से कर रही थी, कर नहीं पा रही थी। भक्तों की मदद से ये संभव हुआ, राजकुमार राव भक्त इसलिए हैं, क्योंकि वो श्रद्धा कपूर की उपस्थिति मात्र से ही सम्मोहित हो जाते हैं, वो कुछ सोच ही नहीं पाते। कहते हैं कि बात इतनी ही होती है कि लड़की (श्रद्धा कपूर) ने कहा, लड़का करेगा। पार्टी कहेगी, भक्त करेगा, सोचेगा नहीं।

उनका दोस्त बिट्टू (अपारशक्ति खुराना) जब उन्हें समझाता है तो वो नाराज़ हो जाते हैं। यहां पर बिट्टू एक इंटेलेक्चुअल की भूमिका में है। वो लगातार अपने दोस्त को बचाना चाहता है, उसे श्रद्धा कपूर (भाजपा) पर शक है, पर वो कुछ कठोर निर्णय भी नहीं ले पाता। श्रद्धा कपूर के बारे में कुछ कहने के बाद ये भी कहता है कि उसे बताना मत।

श्रद्धा कपूर (भाजपा) और स्त्री (कांग्रेस) का रोल आपस में बदला भी जा सकता है। कहीं पर भाजपा ही काँग्रेस हो जाएगी और कहीं काँग्रेस ही भाजपा हो जाएगी। मूलतः ये दोनों चरित्र सत्ता को निरूपित कर रहे हैं।

ये फिल्म हॉरर-कॉमेडी के तौर पर प्रचारित की गई थी। फिल्म के कुछ संवादों में आज के राजनीतिक हालात पर व्यंग्य किये गये हैं। पर आश्चर्यजनक रूप से इस फिल्म में राजनीतिक तत्व कई स्तरों पर शामिल हो गए हैं। चूंकि ये फिल्म आज के राजनीतिक परिदृश्य में ही बनी है, जाने-अनजाने राजनीतिक बातें स्वतः ही उभर के सामने आ जा रही हैं।

विक्की और बिट्टू का तीसरा दोस्त जना (अभिषेक बनर्जी) कहता है कि वो हर स्थिति में कुछ करने से पहले गहराई में अध्ययन करता है और तब बोलता है। इसके पहले वो इतना उदार है कि विक्की को जज नहीं करता और हर काम में उत्साहित करता है। पर जब उसे स्त्री का डर लगता है तो वो बिट्टू को झिड़क देता है और कहता है कि स्त्री तुझे उठा ले जाए पर स्त्री जना को ही उठा ले जाती है। यहां पर जना अर्बन नक्सल की तरह है। सोचता-समझता तो है, पर अपने साथ के लोगों से जो उसके जितना नहीं सोचते, चिढ़ जाता है। फिर उसे सरकार उठा ले जाती है। अर्बन नक्सल को काँग्रेस या भाजपा, दोनों ही उठा सकती हैं।

फिल्म में चोटी काटकर खुद में लगा लेना वर्तमान भाजपा सरकार द्वारा कांग्रेस की योजनाओं को अपने नाम करने के तौर पर भी समझा जा सकता है। फिल्म में ये भी दिखाया गया है कि स्त्री ज़बरदस्ती नहीं करती। पर मर्दों को ले तो जाती है, छोड़ती नहीं। उसकी आवाज़ इतनी मदहोश करनेवाली है कि लोग खुद को रोक नहीं पाते। ‘गरीबी हटाओ’ और ‘अच्छे दिन आएंगे’ जैसे नारे लगने पर कहां लोग कुछ समझ पाते हैं, मदहोश हो जाते हैं।

सरकार की ही तरह स्त्री जनता से पूछकर ही उनका सब कुछ हड़प लेती है। वो अपने भक्तों से मंदिर में ही मिलती है। विक्की से श्रद्धा कपूर हमेशा संध्या आरती के वक्त ही मिलती हैं पर वो खुद कभी मंदिर नहीं जातीं। उनको मंदिर से कोई मतलब नहीं है, कहती हैं कि भगवान से उनकी बनती नहीं है। पर विक्की भगवान के नाम पर ही उनसे मिलने पहुंच जाता है। श्रद्धा को राम मंदिर से कोई लेना-देना नहीं है, वो तो बस राजकुमार राव को मंदिर पहुंचाकर आश्वस्त करना चाहती हैं कि सब ठीक है।

श्रद्धा को भक्त से अपना घाघरा ही सिलवाना है, वो सिल भी देता है आधे घंटे में। यही नहीं, श्रद्धा की उलजलूल मांग जैसे कि छिपकली की पूंछ, सफेद बिल्ली के बाल इत्यादि भी वो बिना कुछ सोचे ले के आता है। वो मीट भी ले आता है।

फिल्म के राजनीतिक होने का प्रमाण विक्की (राव) के घर में भी मिलता है। विक्की के पिता (अतुल श्रीवास्तव) ने अपनी पुरानी सिलाई मशीन की कब्र बनवा रखी है। उसपर लिखा है- 1964-1983। 1964 में पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू की मौत हुई थी और 1984 में इंदिरा गांधी की। इसके बीच तक देश में इंदिरा-इंदिरा ही रहा। इसके बाद के एक दृश्य में पिताजी विक्की को समझाते हैं कि स्वयंसेवी बनो, ऊर्जा मत बर्बाद करो। ये सीन अपने आप में बहुत कुछ कह जाता है।

इस दौर को एक और सीन से समझा जा सकता है। फिल्म में विजय राज (लेखक) इमरजेंसी के दौर से बाहर ही नहीं निकल पाए हैं। उनके मुताबिक आज भी देश में इमरजेंसी ही है। ये 1975 के इमरजेंसी से लेकर उसके बाद की सरकारों द्वारा अपने हिसाब से देश में इमरजेंसी जैसी स्थिति बना लेने पर गहरा व्यंग्य है।

फिर श्रद्धा कपूर और स्त्री दोनों ही सालाना पूजा के चार दिनों के दौरान ही आती हैं। इसके बाद वो कहीं नज़र नहीं आतीं। ऐसा लगता है कि ये वोट मांगने के दिन होते हैं। दोनों ही अपना जाल बिछाती हैं, अपना काम करती हैं और निकल लेती हैं। दोनों हर जगह हैं, उनको सब दिखाई देता है। लोगों के बीच जाकर रहती हैं, पर कोई उन्हें पकड़ नहीं पाता।

पंकज त्रिपाठी (रुद्र भैया) कहते हैं कि स्त्री के पास सबका आधार लिंक है, ये तो सच है सरकार के पास सब है। यहां रुद्र भैया एक चालाक व्यापारी हैं। ये व्यापारी पहले अश्लील किताबें बेचता था और बाद में वेद-पुराण का पुस्तक भंडार खोल लिया है इसने। भक्ति-भाव का माहौल बनाकर रखा है पर फोन पर बात शमा से करता है। ये उन नेताओं की तरह है जो जनता के सामने हिंदू बने रहते हैं पर शादी मुस्लिम स्त्री से करने में कोई गुरेज़ नहीं है। यही नहीं, इस व्यापारी ने मायाजाल फैला रखा है कि इसे सब पता है। ये लोगों को बैठा के ‘स्त्री से बचने के चार निम्नलिखित नियम’ भी बताता है। कहता है कि चप्पल उठा के चुपचाप चलो, ये नहीं कहता कि भाग भी सकते हो या लड़ सकते हो। बस सिर झुकाकर चलने की बात करता है। चौथा नियम बताता भी नहीं।

जब लोग कहते हैं कि ‘ओ स्त्री, कल आना’ के बजाय ‘ओ स्त्री, कभी मत आना’ क्यों नहीं कह सकते तो ये व्यापारी लोगों को बहका देता है कि ऐसा थोड़ी कहा जाता है। जबकि बात तो सही थी। चुनाव के दौरान लोग कह सकते हैं, कि नेताजी अब अपना मुंह मत दिखाना पर ये व्यापारी लोगों को ऐसा नहीं करने देगा। चाहे कुछ भी हो, चाहे किसी घर से लोग किडनैप हों, ये बुलाएगा ज़रूर। यही कहेगा- ओ नेताजी, कल आना।

ये व्यापारी राजकुमार राव (विक्की) को तैयार करता है शहर की रक्षा के लिए। हर दौर में सरकारें युवकों को सुपरमैन बनाने का ही दावा करती हैं। सैनिक मरते हैं, बॉर्डर पर जांबाज़ी से लड़ते हैं, ऐसी बातें की जाती हैं। एक कर्मकार जो हाथों की मेहनत से कमाई करता है, वो खुद को शहर का रक्षक समझने लगता है। डिजिटल होने से भक्त स्त्री के चक्कर में फंस गया है और भूतहा जगह की लाइव लोकेशन भी व्यापारी को भेज रहा है। जबकि व्यापारी और स्त्री का क्या संबंध है, कोई नहीं जानता, वो उसको पकड़ती भी नहीं है।

वहीं फिल्म में होमलेस मैन (संभवतः फिल्म डायरेक्टर अमर कौशिक) को स्त्री दिखाई नहीं देती। यहां होमलेस मैन एक आम गरीब जनता है, जिसे सरकार कभी दिखाई नहीं देती। उससे विक्की देखने को कहता है, वो देखेगा। वोट देने को कहेगा, वो वोट दे देगा। फिल्म में बिट्टू बार-बार पचास रूपये का ही पेट्रोल डलवाता है। रेट तो रोज़ बदल रहे हैं, पर वो पचास का ही डलवा कर खुश है। उसे लगता है कि महंगाई का क्या फर्क पड़ रहा है, वो तो पचास का तेल डलवा ही रहा है।

सबसे ज़बर्दस्त है- विक्की, प्लीज़। श्रद्धा कपूर के ‘विक्की, प्लीज’ बोलने पर ही राजकुमार राव सुध-बुध खो देते हैं। ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि साक्षात मोदीजी जनता से आकर कह रहे हैं- विक्की, प्लीज़। और जनता के पास कोई चारा नहीं है, वो मदहोश होकर वोट दे ही देगी। कोई आश्चर्य नहीं कि 2019 के चुनाव में मोदीजी ‘विक्की, प्लीज़’ बोलकर ही काम चला लें। बाकी सब तो 2014 में ही बोल दिया था, विक्की प्लीज़ मोदीजी का जुमला है।

फिल्म के आखिरी सीन में स्त्री अपनी मूर्ति देखकर खुश हो जाती है। यही नहीं, जनता ने उसी को अपना रक्षक भी चुन लिया है। लिखा है- ओ स्त्री, रक्षा करना। ये दृश्य हमारी सरकारों के मूर्ति प्रेम को दर्शाता है। चाहे सरकार कांग्रेस की हो, भाजपा की हो या मायावती की हो, मूर्ति ही इन्हें खुश करती है।

The post फिल्म रिव्यू: “श्रद्धा कपूर भाजपा हैं, स्त्री काँग्रेस और राजकुमार राव एक राजनीतिक भक्त” appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

By Shambhavi Saxena for Youth Ki Awaaz:

When Rituparna Borah took a brief trip to Puri, Orissa, it was quite by accident that she ran into one of the subjects of the upcoming film, “Ishq, Dosti, And All That”. He introduced himself as Rups, a trans man with a long list of unread WhatsApp messages from multiple girlfriends, stories of flings with a Russian woman, and a never-ending stream of phone calls from admirers. Borah, who is a founding member of Nazariya: A Queer-Feminist Resource Group, immediately rang up her colleague Ritambara Mehta, and the pair of them got to work.

Following Rups in his home state, and Priyam, labelled an “infamous lesbian” in her South Delhi university, the two debuting filmmakers weaved together a story very unlike most in its genre.

Not A Sob Story

“Few films about queer people and lives do not talk about violence, or identity, or romantic relationships,” Mehta tells YKA, over a cup of tea at the Nazariya office. To that, Borah adds, “We were tired of seeing the same narrative, of ‘coming out’, and rona dhona (sob story).”

The idea for an alternative came to them during a discussion about how queer people found ways to meet in India’s pre-internet days. Or rather, the ways in which queer interactions were circumscribed. As Borah says, “It seems like the identity of a queer person is only within the frames of coupledom, and not friendships.”

So does friendship hold a lesser position in queer lives? Absolutely not! But it looks like most films about queer subjects missed the memo.

“We specifically didn’t want ex-lovers, or current lovers, or future lovers,” says Mehta. “We wanted somebody who is queer but does not want to date and is happy in their own friends circle.”

Not A Love Story Either

And so, completely avoiding the slippery slope into a ‘love story’, the film delves into the idea of a “queer commune”, instead. Borah explains it as “a sort of togetherness, which is not romantic”, shown through Priyam’s banter with her flatmates, or when Rups and his friend sing beachside songs in Puri. These friendships are, in themselves, a challenge to traditional notions of family. And for many, the family home can be particularly unwelcoming of queerness. But does a ‘queer friendship’ arise only out of a shared feeling of being unwelcome? Borah says it might be true to a certain extent, but there’s a positive aspect we all need to consider: solidarity. Speaking about her own circle, she says, “In 2014, some of us became thick friends, because of a certain betrayal in the political system. And this is also how queer friendships are built.”

Apart from male-dominated buddy films, friendship is a rare theme. but it’s equally rare to find these stories about people who are assigned female at birth. And that’s almost the entire cast of “Ishq, Dosti, And All That”. When I bring this up, Borah says it was intentional. When asked why, she and Mehta laugh, “Because we are an LBT group!”

How many of us actually do get to see lesbian, bisexual and trans women represented well (or even at all!) in the vast majority of media we consume? A GLAAD report from 2011 found that of all queer characters on US television (and there are so few to begin with), only 34% were women. Now consider this: Autostraddle released a list of 198 lesbian and bisexual women characters that were killed off in their respective TV shows.

Queer Life Through A Happy Lens

In Indian media, the numbers are too abysmal to even report! But let’s forget about the numbers for a moment, and focus on the stories themselves. When I ask Borah and Mehta what they think of the general state of LGBTQ media representation, they sit in a knowing silence for a stiff few seconds.

Borah is the first to speak: “It’ll be ‘Mai itne saal ka tha, mujhe yeh mehsoos hua, mujhe ghutan aati hai’ (I was so many years old, this is how it felt, I was suffocating)’. I’m not saying ghutan nahi hota hai, but this is 2018.”

“Ghutan ke alava aur kuch bhi hota hai (there’s more to it than just feeling suffocated),” adds Mehta. And it’s true that across regions, and time, and means of expressing queerness in pop media, nuance is the needle in the haystack. But something has got to give, right? That’s where “Ishq, Dosti, And All That” comes into the picture.

While Nazariya does want to carry it to schools and colleges, it won’t go as an educational film, or a tool to understand the individual components of an acronym like LGBT*QIA+. There’s plenty of films (good or bad, that’s up to you) and studies and blogs for all that. Many films thrive on tragic story arcs, on emotions that run high. But Borah says, it’s the sense of everydayness in this film that she hopes will stand out for audiences.

Catch “Ishq, Dosti, And All That” at 2.30pm, September 16, at the India International Centre, on Max Müller Marg, New Delhi.

The post ‘Ishq, Dosti, And All That’ Spills The Beans On LGBTQ Friendships appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

यह तो सच है कि सिनेमा के दर्शकों को समझने का कोई टूल्स अभी तक खोजा  नहीं जा सका है । एक फिल्म को देखकर दर्शक क्या सोचता है इस पर भी कई विरोधाभाष हमें देखने को मिल सकते हैं। उदाहरण से समझे तो खुद सेंसर बोर्ड के अधिकारी जिन फिल्मों को देखते हुए यह तय करते हैं कि यह दर्शक वर्ग के लिए सही है या नहीं, उन फिल्मों का उन पर कोई असर पड़ता हुआ आज तक नहीं दिखा। तो कैसे मान लिया जाए कि एक फिल्म आपके लिए सही है दूसरों के लिए नहीं ? यह दर्शक पर निर्भर करता है कि वह क्या देखे और किसे पसंद करे । हालांकि दर्शकों की पसंद को लेकर ही अगर बात करें तो क्षेत्रीय सिनेमा का स्वभाव पूरी तरह भिन्न हमें दिखता है। पूर्वोत्तर भारत के ही एक राज्य असम का सिनेमा का सबसे बड़ा उदाहरण है ।

असमिया सिनेमा की शुरुआत तो सन 1935 से फिल्म जोयमती से होती है लेकिन यह वही दौर था जब भारत में फिल्मों को आए महज़ कुछ वर्ष ही हुए और भारतीय सिनेमा ने अपनी आवाज़ पा ली थी। यानि फिल्मों में साउंड का पदार्पण हो चुका था। जोयमती असमिया संगीत जगत के प्रतिष्ठित नाम ज्योति प्रसाद अग्रवाल ने निर्देशित की थी। स्वतन्त्रता सेनानी रहे ज्योतिप्रसाद अग्रवाल ने फिल्म कि पटकथा जेल में रहते हुए तैयार की थी। जिसमें उन्होने अपने सपनों और कल्पनाओं को मूर्त रूप देने की पुरज़ोर कोशिश की थी।

चित्रलेखा मूवी टोन के बैनर तले बनी इस  फिल्म को इस लिए भी याद किया जाता है क्योंकि इसमें निर्देशक ने ही लेखन, निर्देशन, नृत्य निर्देशन, वस्त्र सज्जा, गीत व संगीतकार कि भूमिका स्वयं वहां की थी। 10 मार्च 1935 को फिल्म रिलीज़ होती है और असम के फिल्म इतिहास का पहला पन्ना बनती है। लेकिन दर्शकों ने इसे पूरी तरह नकार दिया। 60 हज़ार के लागत में बनी फिल्म बुरी तरह बॉक्स ऑफिस पर परास्त हो गई थी। 4 वर्षों बाद ज्योतिप्रासाद ने अपनी दूसरी फिल्म इंद्र मालती (1939) का भी निर्माण किया दर्शकों ने उसे भी कोई खास तवज्जो नहीं दी। यह असमिया सिनेमा का दुर्भाग्य ही रहा कि ज्योतिप्रासाद अग्रवाल की मृत्यु हो गई। यहाँ गौर करने वाली बात यह भी है कि असम से ताल्लुक रखने वाले प्रथमेश बरुआ ज्योति प्रसाद से पहले फिल्म निर्देशन कि दुनिया में कदम रख चुके थे लेकिन उन्होने भाषा बंगाली चुनी।

प्रथमेश ने प्रेम सम्बन्धों पर आधारित बंगाली फिल्म देवदास का निर्माण 1934 में ही कर लिया था। फिल्म सफल फिल्मों में से गिनी जाती है।
ऐसे में यह कहा जा सकता है कि दर्शकों के मर्म को समझने में ज्योति प्रसाद अग्रवाल या तो नाकामयाब रहे या फिर उन्होंने सिर्फ फिल्म माध्यम को असमिया भाषा के विकास में स्थापित करना ही मुख्य ध्येय बना लिया था।

ज्योतिप्रसाद ने एडिनबर्ग यूनिवर्सिटी में अपनी पढ़ाई के दौरान UFA स्टूडियो जर्मनी में फिल्म की तकनीकों के बारे में काफी कुछ सीखा था। वहीं उनकी मुलाकात हिमांशु राय से भी हुई थी। उसी दौर में भारत के फिल्म निर्देशकों कि फिल्मों पर अगर गौर करें तो पाएंगे कि प्रगतिशील निर्देशकों कि संख्या अत्यधिक थी, विषयों में खुलापन था। ऐसे में ज्योतिप्रासाद ने महिला विमर्श को अपना मुख्य बिन्दु बनाया। और दोनों ही फिल्मों में स्त्री चेतना को दिखाने का प्रयास किया। यह वही समय था जब भारतीय सिनेमा में महिलाओं कि स्थिति कमज़ोर थी। नगण्य भी कही जा सकती है।

भारत की पहली ऐसी फिल्म जिसमें डबिंग और रिकॉर्डिंग तकनीक का प्रयोग किया गया हो महिला नायक की कहानी हो, वास्तविकता और राजनीतिक सिनेमा के करीब रही हो, उसे दर्शकों द्वारा उन दिनों पसंद ही नहीं किया गया। साथ ही स्वतंत्रता सेनानी रहे ज्योति अग्रवाल जिन्होंने असम की संस्कृति और समाज को पहली बार संकलित करने का प्रण लिया उसे भारत सरकार सहेजने में नाकामयाब रही।

आज़ादी के बाद देश की सरकारों ने फिल्म को लेकर जिस तरह कि उपेक्षा की वह शोध का प्रश्न ज़रूर है। जिस सिनेमा ने आज़ादी में अपनी भूमिका का स्पष्ट निर्वहन किया उसे सहेजने की नीतियों में देरी भी की गई। फिल्म संग्रहालय अगर आज़ादी के बाद तुरंत बना होता तो हमें आज उन फिल्मों को देखने का अवसर ज़रूर मिलता जिनका इतिहास तो है लेकिन भूगोल पूरी तरह गायब हो चुका है।

असमिया सिनेमा के इतिहास की पहली फिल्म के बाद का इतिहास और भी रोचक है। जोयमती के मुख्य किरदारों में से एक फानी शर्मा ने, ब्रिटिश शासन का विरोध करने वाले सेनानी पियाली फुकन पर आधारित फिल्म ‘पियाली फुकन’ बनाई जिसे पहली बार प्रेसिडेंट मेरिट सर्टिफिकेट मिला था। इसी के साथ असमिया सिनेमा के इतिहास में एक नए दौर की भी शुरुआत होती है। जहां क्षेत्रीय भाषाओं में सर्वश्रेष्ठ फिल्म का चुनाव होने लगा वहीं फिल्मों के विषयों में भी विविधता आने लगी। व्यक्ति विशेष पर केन्द्रित फिल्मों के अलावा अब सामाजिक मुद्दों को भी फिल्मों के विषय के केंद्र में लाया जाने लगा था।

यह वही दौर था जब छोटे बजट की फिल्मों को लेकर स्वतन्त्र निर्माता आ रहे थे। यह नेहरू मॉडल के विभिन्न प्रयासों में से एक था। लेकिन एक चीज़ जो बिलकुल नहीं बदली वो थी दर्शकों की पसंद। दर्शक क्या पसंद कर रहा था इसे समझ पाना तत्कालीन निर्देशकों की समझ से परे था। फिर भी उन्हें उनकी फिल्मों के लिए राष्ट्रीय पुरस्कार दिये जा रहे थे। आखिर दर्शक वर्ग जिन फिल्मों को पसंद नहीं करता उसे किस आधार पर राष्ट्रीय पुरस्कार दिया जाता रहा है यह भी सोचने वाली बात है।

आखिर क्या वजहें रही है कि राष्ट्रीय पुरस्कारों की चयन समिति और दर्शकों के फैसलों में हमेशा से विरोधाभाष रहें हैं? क्या यह भी एक कारण मान लिया जाए कि दर्शकों को सिनेमा देखने के प्रति ज़रूरी तत्व बतलाए जाने चाहिए थे वे नहीं मिल सके। क्या असम के दर्शकों में फिल्म संस्कृति को लेकर जागरूकता का अभाव हमेशा से रहा है? क्या निर्देशकों ने सिर्फ पुरस्कारों के लिए ही फिल्मों का निर्माण किया? दर्शकों की चाह को हमेशा से नज़रंदाज़ किया ?

हम देखते हैं कि प्रभात मुखर्जी, ब्रजेन बरुआ, भावेंद्र नाथ सैक्या आदि फिल्मकारों ने फिल्में तो राष्ट्रीय पुरस्कार जीतने वाली बनाई लेकिन दर्शकों ने उन्हें सिरे से नकारा। यहां तक कि 9 राष्ट्रीय पुरस्कार जीत चुके जाहनु बरुआ को अपनी मूल भाषा में फिल्म निर्माण प्रक्रिया से हिन्दी की तरफ रुख मोड़ना पड़ा। आखिर असम का दर्शक अपनी फिल्मों में देखना क्या चाहता है ? यह प्रश्न प्रासंगिक बना रहेगा।

The post असमिया फिल्म दर्शकों को समझना मुश्किल ही नहीं नामुमकिन है appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

It has been quite a while since this film came out, yet ‘The Stoning of Soraya M.’ is still relevant. Its underlying themes of patriarchy, greed, and misogyny manifest themselves in various forms (maybe not as brutally as in the film) even today. I sincerely felt the need to write a review on this and make a few more people give it a watch, for this masterpiece deserves to reach beyond linguistic barriers.

The film tells the horrific tale of Soraya Manutchehri, an Iranian woman who was pushed into a pit dug for her by patriarchy, literally as well as figuratively. Soraya is caught in an abusive marriage which her ruthless husband, Ali. He offers to end things on his terms, terms that would leave her and her daughters unable to fend for themselves. She has few options left before her. After a particularly violent episode of domestic-abuse, she storms off to her widowed aunt Zahra’s place with her daughters, seeking refuge.

A convict-turned-mullah, whose unwanted advances were turned down by Soraya, aides Ali in hatching a plan that ends in her paying dearly with her life. The wicked duo manage to convince their fickle-minded mayor that Soraya is guilty of adultery with Hashem, the local mechanic. A lack of sufficient evidence doesn’t stop anyone from sentencing her to be buried till the waist and stoned to death. The village mechanic Hashem, played by Parviz Sayyad, out of fear for his life and what would become of his mentally-challenged son, agrees to utter a lie that leads to the death of Soraya, the woman who cooked, cleaned, took care of his son, in order to earn money to support herself and her daughters. The complex nature of his character is highlighted when he weeps and drops the stones he was given in order to hurl at her, though it was he who was pivotal to the scheme.

Iranian-American actress Mozhan Marno portrays the brave woman who refuses to let her troubles pull her down and looks out for her daughters. Be it the distress of having her own sons turned against her or the cynicism at her husband’s desire to marry a 14-year-old or the simple joys of watching birds fly over hills with her daughters, she emotes it all.

Her aunt, Zahra, played by Shohreh Aghdashloo, is the feminist the remote village of Kuppayeh needs, but doesn’t deserve. Her feisty nature makes her defend her niece to the best of her abilities, for she even offers to be stoned so that Soraya could be spared.

Navid Negahban plays the repugnant Ali, who, unwilling to support two wives, plans to be rid of one, in order to marry another from a well-to-do family and does extreme justice to his role for one can feel hatred burning through them for his character. The stoning scene is gruesome to watch, yet one cannot take their eyes off the screen and the piteous waling of the helpless Soraya fills one with anger that is impossible to shake off. The mob that hurls stones at her is somehow Shakespearean, but alas, Soraya is no Mark Antony to sway the public opinion to her advantage.

The screenplay does not drag along with unnecessary sub-plots and is cleverly written. The arrival of a circus and the first stones missing their mark are depicted as the divine signs that the mayor prays for, vowing to stop the heinous punishment, were they to appear, but are unheeded nevertheless. The background score is kept to a bare minimum, yet complements the cinematography.

The story is narrated by Zahra to Iranian-French journalist, Freidoune Sahebjam, who is stuck in the village for a few hours owing to the breakdown of his car, and barely manages to escape with his life and the tape carrying the recording. The image of Zahra blocking the men pursuing the journalists’s car and exclaiming that the whole world will know the story of Soraya and that truth cannot be silenced, burns into one’s mind and stays on as a reminder that the story of her niece is one of the many innocents who fell prey to greed and misogyny. The film, excellently made, makes for a very emotionally disturbing watch which makes one bubble with anger, long after the film has ended.

Featured Image source: YouTube.

The post No Matter How Emotionally Disturbing, ‘The Stoning of Soraya M.’ Is A Must-Watch appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

A Meera sitar set on a chair beside her, 25-year-old Vedi Sinha is carrying two other bags. Without a fixed place to stay in Delhi, she says she often lugs most of her bags around. It is not that surprising since she is a folk musician and a storyteller.

Coming from a middle class family based in Delhi, Vedi’s parents were fairly liberal for their time. One of three daughters, Vedi was an obedient child, with ideas of what’s right and what’s wrong learnt from her social surroundings. In school, she felt self-conscious and insecure. “It was so easy to break me,” she says. It was only later, while studying Sociology in Delhi University (DU), that she became conscious of the all-pervasive gendered discrimination in society. Her conversations with her family had always been relatively ‘open’, but she saw the subtle gendered roles that existed between her parents masked under a façade of equality.

When she was in college, Vedi was in a 5-year-long relationship. Being in the drama society, she would spend a lot of time with a fellow theatre artist, who subjected her to a long-term sexual and mental torture. “See, as a child, you are often taught to care for people, listen to their problems. You don’t learn that you also have to care for yourself.” Much later, while in Mumbai, a colleague raped her. “I did not know how to talk about it.” After eight months spent dealing with this trauma she finally gathered up the courage to tell her boyfriend online, only to receive a response that was lukewarm, at best. Her experience of a person raping her coupled with her boyfriend’s inability to provide comfort, destroyed the ideas she had harboured about relationships.

Vedi explains how she slowly succumbed to depression. She joined the National Institute of Design (NID) where she would sit in a corner, work, and forget to eat or take care of herself. After spending a torturous year in the institute, she decided to close this chapter of her life and leave. “What it did was break me completely. And one day, I didn’t want to do this anymore.”

She then realised that her life had always been controlled by her father or her boyfriend, not because they wanted to control her, but because she would think about their concerns and opinions before she thought about her own. On a whim, Vedi left to join her twin sister, Pakhi, in Bangalore for three months. “But this was different from Delhi. At this point, I was feeling in control, and doing what I wanted to do.”

“Then someone told me about Kabir Yatra–a travelling folk music festival that takes place in Rajasthan around Barmer and Jodhpur.” Coming from a left-leaning family, her upbringing made her loath anything considered religious or spiritual. She had just bought herself a Meera iktara, which she found herself playing without much knowledge of instruments, and left for the yatra. “For the first time, I found no one judging anybody or with any weird intentions! People were just enjoying their food, music, and travelling, and were just talking to each other. It was a very calming space.” She stayed another week with the organisers, visiting ashrams and singing. “Whatever conversation we had there, it was through music.” The yatra had changed Vedi’s opinion about spirituality; as opposed to the saffron religious connotations, she understood spirituality as practicality.

That’s what brought her to start the Project Aahvaan—based on conversations and story-telling through folk music which is based in and around Delhi.

With her sister Pakhi working alongside her, Aahvaan emerged as a medium for her to create and hold conversations regarding basic, simple truths of life—that people seem to have forgotten with the fast pace of life—in small spaces that help her connect to each person. “When I was looking for a guru, I realized there is as much to learn from a domestic help as from a rickshaw-wala. All we need is patient conversations.” She collaborates with other artists too, such as guitarists and percussionists, managing to pay them by raising small amounts of money.

The first leg of her project entails working with children of public schools. “But these conversations are also needed in juvenile justice centres and rehab clinics,” where Vedi wants to take them in 2019. Vedi explains how, metaphorically, the human mind is like a camera that constantly captures images, but fails to find time to review the results. Her workshops give people the time to know themselves. The workshops include physical exercises to help people interact with each other, along with meditative ones. Every workshop culminates with a performance, which, for Vedi, is the element that helps her build her confidence and strength.

“People who call themselves great or enlightened are often the ones spreading sexist sh*t. My aim is to stop that,” she says.

When Pakhi asks her why she doesn’t call out the pro-right activities happening at present as they are, she explains that she doesn’t want to box anything as good or bad for people, she just wants the initiated conversation to take an organic shape.

Featured image source: Wikimedia Commons. For representation only.

The post If Music Be The Food Of Love: A 25-Year-Old Woman’s Story Of Healing appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

Being Indian gives you an opportunity to experience a magical weave of various festivals and traditions. The festival of Pola, which signifies the importance of farmers and bullocks who majorly contribute to ploughing and enriching the fields and marks the end of Shravan maas in Maharashtra. Attending this festival gave me an opportunity to witness the grandeur of worship and discipline. I engaged in watching the performance of Dhol Tasha Pathak, an art form performing music during visarjan of the Ganapati idol. The performance of this four-decade-old art form has now evolved to a different level. The Dhol Tasha Pathaks have hundreds of members- all playing tasha and dhols with an excellent discipline and rhythm.

The history of Pathaks as an art form can be traced back to the year 1965. A riot had taken place and police had banned the playing of musical instruments during visarjans. However, this did not deter Jnana Prabodhini, founder Vinayak alias Appa Pendse, to go out and play tasha to protest against the ban. Before Appasaheb started the Pathak, people from rural areas used to come to cities and play the instruments.

It was not looked upon with very high standards. Earlier men used to dance to the beats under the influence of alcohol, due to which women and children kept away from such processions. But in the past five decades, the Pathak has evolved itself into a landmark stature in the field of local performance art. The changed social status of women allowed them to not only watch but also take part in these performances. Many young girls can be seen performing with energy and enthusiasm beating the dhols with equal strength and zeal, as their male counterparts now.

I was invited by one such young and vibrant girl- my niece to attend her first performance in the Pathak. I have seen her toil for hours in past two months, practising and preparing for the upcoming Ganeshotsav festivities. It was a performance of Maanvandna by the Shiv Pratishtha Dhol Tasha Pathak. When I reached the temple courtyard, there were hundreds of young boys and girls dressed up in the traditional attire of red kurta and white churidaar with tunics. The girls looked adorable and beautiful adorned with traditional Maharashtrian pearl nose pins and big balis in their ears. The boys wore the big balis and malas around their necks. Their faces glowing with enthusiasm, it was a sight to behold. The younger generation carrying the pride of culture in them. 

As the Maanvandna started with their heads held high and the slogan- “Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ki Jay!” resonating in the surrounding, four to five members danced to the rhythm of dhols holding the Kesari Dhwaj (saffron flag), high in their hands. The performance continued with changing rhythms and beats. The energy and positive vibes coming from the happy faces of the performers charged up the environment.

The girls who otherwise looked so tender and fragile were handling the huge dhols tied to their waist with rhythmic movements without an ounce of tiredness and energetic smiles. The perspiration on the foreheads added to their beauty. The discipline with which they were following the instructions without missing a beat showcased their hard work and preparation.

While congratulating my niece after the performance, I got to meet a few of them. They were all between the age of 18-25 years. It felt good to see these youngsters channelising their energies in the direction of cultural roots. Rather than spending hours on social media glued to their mobile screens, following this art form not only gives them an opportunity to engage themselves but also imbibes good values in them. The respect for girl members and giving them equal opportunity to perform also adds up to the much needed social values.

I came to know that the donation this Pathak was receiving was to be used for charity, which is indeed a noble gesture. Preaching to youngsters is always boring but activities entice them. When their energy is diverted towards a positive cause, society also moves in a positive direction- because youth power is the essential ingredient of the future development of society, nation and humankind. A bright, energetic youth with respect for positive tradition and culture is a strong pillar for concrete future.

The post Pola Festival Gave Me The Chance To Witness The Grandeur Of Worship And Discipline appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

Produced by: Aanand L. Rai, Vikas Bahl, Madhu Mantena and Vikramaditya Motwane

Directed by: Anurag Kashyap

Written by: Kanika Dhillon

Music: Amit Trivedi

Starring: Abhishek Bachchan, Taapsee Pannu, Vicky Kaushal, Ashnoor Kaur, Arun Bali, Neetu Kohli, Saurabh Sachdeva, Vikram Kochhar, Sukhmani Sadana, Poonam Shah, Priyanka Shah, and others.

“Manmarziyaan” is the least violent Anurag Kashyap film till date. In this film, there are no action scenes, not a single fighting scene. But this film dealt with another type of violence – emotional and verbal violence, encountered by young people in real life. This film also depicts the magical power of forgiveness.

In the colourful backdrop of Amritsar, Rumi (Taaspee Pannu) and Vicky (Vicky Kaushal) are involved in Fayaar (carnal love) and probably deep love (real love). The family pressures Rumi to settle down with a ‘suitable’ husband, but Rumi wants Vicky to bring his parents and ask her hand in marriage. But their plan doesn’t work. So Rumi gets married to Robbi (Abhishek Bachchan), who is a banker and has recently returned from England.

Vicky has financial constraints and he is not ready to take up responsibilities that come with getting married. The film is a perfect example of the experimental nature of the director, whose description helps you get a deeper insight into a character’s psychology. In its 150-odd minutes, the film’s story does not seem to move forward but leaks through sides instead. In the middle of the film, you might lose track of the events. Things happen out of nowhere, the way they do in Bollywood movies sometimes but never in real life. This is a rare film but is made with uncertainty and characters seem to be second-guessing themselves.

The film tries to describe the life of a free-spirited young girl and her complicated love story. Kashyap, working with screenwriter Kanika Dhillon, composer Amit Trivedi and photographer Sylvester Fonseca, seems to have lost himself in the food and graffiti of Amritsar and possibly the slang language of the youth. To work inflow is good, but it seems overstuffed sometimes especially the dancing twins that appear in the music sequences that feel fake even if they are intended to describe Rumi’s dual nature. The nature documentary about the season of simian sex during the first night of the couple was a smart gag in the otherwise dull movie.

It is through Robbie, a contestant for the best boy in Hindi film history, that the film has an emotional breakthrough. Even when Rumi starts to warm up to him (it takes a drunken scene, which is a step away from usual Bachchan), Robbie slowly starts getting a hold of his feelings. “I am happy in this relationship,” he argues. “Why are we discussing this?” – “Because the discussion is good,” he replies. This perhaps is this year’s most sensible dialogue from a Hindi movie.

All this leads to the remarkable final scene. There is no potentially deadly punch, nor a disintegrated body or a bullet-ridden corpse which is unlikely for an Anurag Kashyap movie. There is only an extended walk and talk where some issues are resolved and others are wisely left alone. It is beautifully written and the acting is great. But a slo-mo shot in one of the music sequences seems like a betrayal to the mood the film is trying to set.

“Mukkabaaz” which was released earlier this year, was a tough film with a soft centre. In this drama about an aspiring boxer by Kashyap, the unanticipated tenderness of the central romance steals the show. While there is no doubt about the depth of Robbie’s feelings for Rumi, the audience was unable to feel the connection.

Hindi cinema has struggled to portray the romance of the social media generation, a brilliant example is an old director who made “Befikre”(2016).  He terribly fails to connect with the youth and their idea of romance. But “Manmarzian” feels close to the messy reality of youth romance. The central pair hooks up on tinder and removes the app from each other’s phone later. As one of the songs in the film urges: “Zamana hai badla/ mohabbat bhi badli/ ghise pite version nu/ maaro update” ( times have changed/ love’s changed too/ antiquated versions/ need to be updated).

The post Review: Anurag Kashyap’s “Manmarziyaan” Showcases The Messy Reality Of Young Love appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

Swara Bhaskar always finds herself in the line of a social media storm. She has developed a group of haters online for her fierce and bold stance on social issues.

Swara has been one of the very few people from Bollywood who had taken a strong stance on issues such as Kathua rape. She had earlier drawn flak for her masturbation scene in “Veera Di Wedding”.

When I made the big move to a new city, all I wanted was a swanky music system, music being my passion! No matter how much I hunted for it, couldn't find anything of my choice. In fact, I only got confused! #AjnabiShaharKiGoogly #ChonkpurCheetahs @amazonIN https://t.co/dQcI3z3zww

— Swara Bhasker (@ReallySwara) April 19, 2018

A while ago, Swara had tweeted out an endorsement post for Amazon India. Some people ganged up together to turn it into a massive outrage holding up Amazon to remove Swara as a brand ambassador, threatening to boycott Amazon.

Some went to the extent of tweeting #BoycottAmazon asking them to remove the actor who hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus.

Amazon ne Swara Bhaskar ko nikaal diya, delete kar diya.

Har Har Mahadev. pic.twitter.com/3NCmc61GRc

— 𝙎𝙝𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙢 (@shtoons) April 20, 2018

#BoycottAmazon Cancelled my order for VIVO A9 after knowing amazon relations with @ReallySwara @amazon

— Pankaj Pandey (@iampandey2668) April 22, 2018

The question here is, should brands boycott celebrities who hurt sentiments of Hindus? Does it only apply to Hindus, not other religions? No Hindus got hurt after the protest for Kathua rape accused, which was propelled by the accused to bring communal colour to gain support and prevent themselves from being prosecuted.

I am Hindustan. I am Ashamed. #JusticeForOurChild #JusticeForAasifa
8 years old. Gangraped. Murdered.
In ‘Devi’-sthaan temple. #Kathua and lest we forget #unnao Shame on us! #BreakTheSilence #EndTheComplicity #ActNow pic.twitter.com/O8rABOrZq9

— Swara Bhasker (@ReallySwara) April 13, 2018

We all protested against Nirbhaya rape incident without raising any finger. We knew that they were criminals, and that they had to be prosecuted as per law. We never saw any community group supporting the accused. How is it different in the Kathua rape incident then?

I cancelled my order on amazon right now just after knowing that amazon has business relations with @ReallySwara #BoycottAmazon pic.twitter.com/HVtv6GIUzv

— Rajan Singh (@_iRajput) April 19, 2018

Hey @amazonIN we're walking the talk here. Dissociate yourself from @ReallySwara NOW lest it becomes PR disaster for you. @JeffBezos why is marketing team at @amazonIN hell bent upon destroying Amazon in India?#UninstallAmazon #BoycottAmazonhttps://t.co/qbhcDTzovW pic.twitter.com/1Gs06lwyQD

— Insanely Sane (@Sanity_3) April 19, 2018

This shows that people hate Swara so much that they are willing to boycott a brand, irrespective of how much that brand makes their life better.

This is not the first time that a woman with a strong opinion had to face backlash. Harindh Kaur, known for her strong stance on women empowerment issues, had faced hatred before. She had to deactivate her account when a close friend of hers took advantage of his position to exploit teenage girls, which she said she was unaware of.

This is not about Swara or Harnidh. It’s the inability of a group of people who can’t tolerate a strong, independent woman with an opinion.

If these ‘guardians of Hinduism’ can threaten a brand to boycott a celebrity, they could also be consultants to brands on deciding who they should choose for endorsements.

The post People Hate Swara Bhasker So Much That They Boycott Anything She Endorses appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

The epitome of eternal spirit getting submerged with a human body is the tale of Lord Krishna. Today, we all know and praise Krishna as a divine spirit of Vishnu, the supreme lord, who came on earth in a human form to create and narrate the teachings of life.

Krishna took birth around 5000 years back in the Mathura city of Uttar Pradesh, India. He was a high spirited being from the childhood, and everyone loved him. Yes, everyone. Such was the charm of Krishna that the people who even had a feeling of rage and hatred towards him after a conversation with him, would become his devotee.

We all have heard millions of stories about how naughty Krishna was in his childhood. His act of stealing butter has inspired many artists, story makers, writers, and poets to express this utter playfulness in enticing vocabulary. But, the most epic and miraculous of all the events from Krishna’s life was his love affair with Radha.

Krishna was adorable and had the capability to encapsulate the attention of others in an instant. Even though Radha was ten years older than him, she felt an instant connection between heart and soul right from their first encounter. The relationship between Radha and Krishna was of such sanctity and fidelity that even today the name of two divine beings are inseparable.

Millions of Radha-Krishna paintings are sold in India every year. Vrindavan, the place where Krishna spent his childhood and where the pious love between him and Radha was ignited, still witnesses millions of devotees every month. Such is the eminence of Radha and Krishna.

Radha and Krishna – The Connection

A lot of religious scriptures in Hinduism have mentioned Radha here and there multiple times. To add to this, religious experts believe that Krishna, himself was the supreme God, while Radha was his devout energy.

When Krishna was about to leave Vrindavan to fulfil his duties, Radha asked, “Why can’t you marry me?” Krishna looked at her and said, “For the union of marriage, you need two souls. Since you and I are one and the same, how could I marry myself?”

This phrase gives us a clear sight of the intensity of the relationship between Radha and Krishna. It is also believed that God Vishnu reincarnated in the form of both Radha and Krishna; i.e. one soul segmented in two forms to represent the union of ‘aatma’ (spirit) and ‘Parmatma’ (the creator).

Different artists have beautifully expressed the relationship or the connection that blossomed and sustained between Radha and Krishna across the centuries. You can get an exquisite Radha-Krishna painting from any reputed online or offline gallery and see the blessed meaning of love and eternity in front of your eyes.

Even though both Radha and Krishna never got married to each other and got separated at a very young age, their love and devotion for each other was never-ending. I mean how often do we hear about such a graceful and mesmerising tale of love? Today, Krishna’s name is never taken before Radha as the two are inseparable.

The Abstract Theory

The story and the events that occurred during Krishna’s life is an encoded form of God’s way of living life. It is the ultimate mantra of how we should act and react. For instance, Krishna was equally benevolent and exuberant to help his enemies as his friends; he took victory and defeat in the same manner and always kept a charming smile.

Radha, on the other hand, is more of an idea than a character. In the present time, Radha is praised as much as Krishna, even though she is not considered a goddess like Rukmani, who was believed to be an avatar of Devi Lakshmi. Radha-Krishna paintings also display the encircling Gopis, around the spiritual pair. This was termed as “Raas Leela”. Let’s first understand this term in depth. Leela and actions are two very different words.

Leela is said to be done when a being offers or does something without involving their ego. For instance, whatever Krishna did during each stage of his life was without ego and self-pride. His love for Radha, his friendship with the Pandavas, his playfulness as a son and his dutifulness as a king – all of these roles he played without any ego. That is why they are known as Leelas. On the other hand, everything and anything humans do is done with ego, and that’s why it is called the action.

The union of Radha and Krishna display a very emotional and spiritually high formation of two different parts of a single soul; it is the cosmic blend of consciousness, where everything becomes real to a singularity known as God or Krishna himself. The fame Radha earned was not because she was a critical character in Krishna’s story, but because she showed the path of pure devotion that could help a soul attain the ultimate bliss. She was pious, devoted, and a manifestation of Krishna himself.

The post Radha Krishna: The Highest Point of Consciousness appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

The Schedule fifth and sixth of the Indian constitution recognises the rights of tribal communities over the forest land, and mandates the Centre and state governments to consult the community before allotting the land for ‘development projects’. Forests Rights Act stems out of this constitutional provision that has never been implemented in true spirit. As a result, over 100 million tribal populations in the country have paid the cost of development and are now the most marginalised section of the country.

Renowned filmmaker and human rights activist Ajay TG spoke to Youth Ki Awaaz about his upcoming short film, Koi Chand Bhi Nahi, that highlights vulnerabilities of Chhattisgarh’s tribal communities and impact of ‘exclusive development’. The movie is scheduled to be screened during the ongoing Public Service Broadcasting Trust’s (PSBT) annual documentary film festival at New Delhi’s India International Centre.

Here are the excerpts of the conversation:

Q1. Tell us something about the movie and how was the entire experience?

TG: I am an activist and have been working for tribal rights. Koi Chand Bhi Nahi (There is no moon) is an attempt to provide much-needed space to the voices and concerns of tribal groups in Chhattisgarh. The movie is a story of thousands of people who have been marginalised and exploited by both public and private sector institutions and authorities. The public sector is tasked with the responsibility of ensuring inclusive development and progress of the country. Problems arise when public sector interacts with the private sector. The movie aims to explore the dynamics of this public and private sector relationship and how it affects people who are already at the lowest rung of the society.

Q2. What inspired you to take up a topic that is lesser or seldom talked about? What are the challenges in making a film on a subject that is critical of people at power?

TG: In 2012, when I went to Kaspur, Gedra, and other villages I realised how state authorities have displaced so many people. Their lands were taken, electricity connections were disconnected, schools were shut down, and health services were stalled. People complained that their lands were taken and they weren’t even compensated. Many families were left without the roof and weren’t even given chance to collect their belongings and make other arrangements. After listening to many such stories, I decided to conceptualise a short film that brings out these realities.

Coming to challenges, there are several challenges involved when you are working on a topic that is critical of many powerful forces of the society. In 2008, I was sent to jail for my movie titled Anjaam, which showed how in the name of development rights of the tribal community are subverted. I was slapped with sedition charges after that. I was wrongly arrested in 2008 under the draconian Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act even went to jail. The case is still continuing.

Also, there’s fear of public officials among the people. The tribal people are so scared of them that getting them to speak and share their stories is another challenge. For this movie, it was very difficult to get people on camera to speak. People refused to even come out of their houses and talk to us. I had to visit so many times just to convince them and later had to take help of local social workers and activists.

Q3. The movie deals with the cost of development on vulnerable sections of the society. Do you think our ‘idea of development’ is inclusive, especially in the context of tribal people’s rights? If not, why?

TG: When we talk about development in the context of so-called ‘national interest’, some people have to pay the cost of this development. Who are these people who pay this cost and how are they defined and recognised? These are the indigenous tribal population of Bastar, Odhisa, Jharkhand and several other tribal belts

. For the prosperity of a few people, they are displaced, killed, and exploited. Villages have been cleaned overnight for many development projects such as coal mines. And, when they resist the authorities target them.
For instance, why this entire narrative of ‘Naxalism in Bastar’ popped up in 2005. Chhattisgarh never had Naxalism problem before that. But, because major mining projects were to be commissioned from 2006 onwards, huge lands had to be cleared, and when there was resistance it was painted as ‘national threat’. Since then the state has grossly violated rights of these people. The troops killed children. Were these children Naxals? In fact, even after the intervention of judiciary, journalists, and human rights watchdogs, the state continues to oppress these people. We cannot justify these atrocities under any definition of development.

Q4. What kind of constitutional and human rights violation happen in tribal belts and what is the status of institutional provisions to address their grievances?

TG: The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 is not implemented. Had it been applied, the government wouldn’t have been able to give tribal lands to corporate with such ease. Secondly, the FRA is also not implemented. And, in a few areas where it is existent, authorities are brazenly violating it to pass of the lands to private companies without adequately compensating the people.

Apart from constitutional infringements, there are stark human rights violations as well. People have to take permission to leave or enter the villages. They even need permissions to go to their lands for cultivation. Women need to prove their motherhood if they leave the farmlands to feed their newborn. The situation is such that none of the democratic institutions like the judiciary, media, police, and even elected legislatures are also not on their sides. All these institutions have failed them. We never hear elected MLAs voicing these issues in parliament. Even the media hasn’t included these issues in the national narrative, and those who do try report these instances they are censored and pressurised. People know that none of these institutions will stand with them.

Q5. The movie shows the changing paradigms in development models. Based on your research for the movie, what kind of development model do you think would take care of the community demands?

TG: We started with really good development model under Jawaharlal Nehru. The Nehruvian approach towards development was all inclusive. But, somewhere down the line we diverted from those ideals. We cosied up with big corporations and the entire definition of development changed. Suddenly, everything was about profit. Inequality is so gross that 1% of Indians hold 99% of country’s wealth. We need to change our outlook towards development and go back to socialist and Nehruvian ideals of inclusive development. The real development is when every citizen gets food, shelter, and social and economic justice. There’s nothing wrong with development and everyone’s wants progress. But, development needs to involve the people, especially who are at the receiving end of the development.

Catch “Koi Chand Bhi Nahi” on September 16, at the India International Centre, on Max Müller Marg, New Delhi.

The post Tribals Pay For Our Development With Their Lives, Lands Says Director Of Koi Chand Bhi Nahi appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

The main essence of an excellent romantic-comedy is chemistry and understanding between two actors. Apart from that everything else is just going to be the filling. But in a very good rom-com, the fillers are also interesting. If you love to watch romantic comedies, a good cast with a good heart from “Mitro” will be an entertaining treat for you.

The film is set in the Gujarati milieu. Jay (Jackky Bhagnani) is a middle-class, happy and carefree guy who does not take responsibilities seriously. Jay’s attitude does not go down well with his father (Neeraj Sood), who has lots of expectations from his son. Therefore, to bring stability to his life, his father decides to get him married. Avni (Kritika Kamra), is an ambitious, MBA graduate, who wants to start her own business. Jay and Avni’s journeys are revealed in the film as they unexpectedly find their true calling as the movie unfolds.

Script Analysis

The film is also a reunion of “Filmistan” duo Nitin Kakkar (Director) and Sharib Hashmi (Actor). The only difference is that Sharib has also worked on the story this time. This adaption of Telugu film Pali Choopulu (2016), written and directed by Tharun Bhascker Dhaassyam, is spread across many levels of storytelling. But the story seems to lose focus and gets entangled in itself.

There are hilarious bits in the film which makes it a fun watch. Sharib Hashmi’s writing is a clear winner, and his dialogue delivery leaves the audience in splits many times. However, a crisp story would have been better than a sloppy comedy. Altogether, funny scenes save the day. This a comedy that you can laugh at with your family. It is a very basic and straightforward film. The story is not new, but it has been told interestingly using flashbacks sometimes.

The scenes are playful, but maybe it’s just a technique to accelerate the storytelling. Director Nitin Kakkar has done a commendable job by talking about the generation gap and Indian marriage system without compromising on the entertainment value. He has indeed made a film which is an entertaining crowd pleaser.

“Mitron” goes a level above the typical Bollywood comedies which is evident in the handling of its ‘female hero’. Avni, is fearless and pragmatic yet, simple and rooted. It is fresh to see a female character calling the shots in a group of people where the ‘hero’ is also involved. Sharib Hashmi’s dialogues are witty and humorous.

The post Review: “Mitron” Is A Simple Story Told In A Fun-Filled Manner appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

आज से तकरीबन साल भर पहले 5 सितम्बर 2017 को बैंगलोर की एक काबिल पत्रकार गौरी लंकेश की उनके घर के बाहर गोली मारकर हत्या कर दी गयी थी। गौरी ‘गौरी लंकेश पत्रिके’ नामक कन्नड़ पत्रिका की संपादक थीं। अंग्रेज़ियत के इस दौर में जहां तमाम बुद्धिजीवी एवं पत्रकार अपनी फर्राटेदार अंग्रेज़ी वार्तालापों से एक कुशल हिन्दी भाषी को नीचा दिखाने में सक्षम हों वहां क्षेत्रीय भाषा में पत्रिका निकालना अपने आप में एक बड़ी बात है।

गौरी की हत्या हुई, विशेष जांच समितियां गठित हुईं, सड़कों पर हाथ में मोमबत्तियां थामे लोग निकले, आक्रोश मार्च और ना जाने क्या-क्या हुआ मगर नतीजा, कुछ नहीं। कुछ एक गिरफ्तारियां ज़रूर हुईं मगर जिस माहौल में गौरी नाम की स्वछंद आवाज़ को मौत के घाट उतारा गया था कमोबेश आज भी वैसा ही माहौल है।

आज भी सरकारी दबाव में कलमें भारी हैं और पत्रकारों के सामने पन्नों की जगह नोट बिछे पड़े हैं। ज़ाहिर है आज़ाद ख्यालों को कैद करने की जो कवायद तेज़ हुई थी वो अब भी जारी है। तो क्या बदला इस एक साल में? क्या फायदा सड़क पर उन सैंकड़ों मोमबत्तियों के टिमटिमाने से? 

कुछ ही दिनों पहले दिल्ली के कॉन्स्टिट्यूशन क्लब में उमर खालिद पर चली गोली इस बात का सुबूत है कि हम अभी भी उसी ज़हरीली मानसिकता वाले समाज का हिस्सा हैं जहां मंदिर-मस्जिद हमारी दैनिक ज़रूरतों से ज़्यादा महत्व रखती है। इस्लामोफोबिया इस कदर हावी है कि आंखें बंदकर उमर खालिद का नाम लो तो दिमाग में अफगानी टोपी पहने, हाथ में राइफल लिए एक दाढ़ी वाले की छवि ही आती है।

सच तो ये है कि बतौर समाज हमने गौरी लंकेश की शहादत को ज़ाया होने दिया। मोमबत्तियां जलाने से ना तब कुछ बदला था ना अब कुछ बदला है। निर्भया के लिए हज़ारों मोमबत्तियां खाक होने के बावजूद आज भी हमारी बहनें रात को अकेली घर से नहीं निकलती हैं। आज भी शॉर्ट्स पहनी लड़कियां सड़कों पर वैसे ही घूरी जाती हैं जैसे पहले। अभी भी मकान किराये पर देने से पहले हमारी जाति पूछी जाती है। जवाब में ब्राह्मण सुनाई देने पर मकान मालिक की टेबल पर नाश्ते की प्लेटें सज जाती हैं और दलित सुनाई देने पर अचानक से मकान का किराया आसमान छूने लगता है।

हर एक बात के लिए सरकार को कोसना बड़ा अच्छा सा लगता है, अंदर से क्रांतिकारी जैसी भावना भी आती है, मगर सच्चाई यही है कि सरकार ने हमारे समाज के स्याह पक्ष को उजागर भर किया है और हमें दिखाया है कि बाहर से भले ही हम सुसज्जित परिधानों में विचरण करते हों मगर भीतर से हम सब नंगे हैं। पितृसत्ता हमारी नस-नस में मौजूद है और जातिवाद हमारे सेंस ऑफ ह्यूमर में।

इतनी सिनिसिज़्म के बावजूद भरोसा है उन लोगों पर जो काम कर रहे हैं, मेरी उम्र के युवाओं का जो विश्व की सबसे बड़ी वर्क फोर्स होने का दावा करती हैं। बदलाव की बयार धीरे-धीरे ही सही मगर बह ज़रूर रही है। उम्मीद है कि गौरी और निर्भया ने जिस बेहतर समाज के लिए अपनी शहादत दी थी वो एक दिन ज़रूर सार्थक होगी और फैज़ ने जिस सुबह-ए-आज़ादी का ख्वाब देखा था वो मुकम्मल होगा।

The post गौरी लंकेश की मौत के साल भर बाद भी कुछ बदला है? appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

प्रिय नंदिता दास,

सबसे पहले हम सबको मंटो से रुपहले पर्दे पर रूबरू कराने के लिए आपका तह-ए-दिल से शुक्रिया। ज़्यादातर फिल्में ऐसी होती हैं, जो हमारे लायक नहीं होतीं पर कुछ ऐसी भी फिल्में होती हैं, जिनके हम काबिल नहीं होते हैं, ऐसी फिल्मों के लिए हमें काबिल बनना पड़ता है।

सआदत हसन मंटो के कुछ मशहूर अफसाने मैंने पहले भी कई दफे पढ़े थे और उन अफसानों के गालिबन, सारे किरदार आज भी मेरे ज़ेहन में मौजूद हैं लेकिन आज पहली बार लगा ये किरदार मेरे जे़हन और किताबों के पन्नों से बाहर निकलकर बड़े पर्दे पर जीवंत महसूस हो रहे हैं।

हमें उस तरह की फिल्में देखनी की आदत है जिनमें कारें आसमान में 10 -20 दफे गोते खाए। मतलब जिसका वास्तविकता से कोई संबंध नहीं हो। एक फॉल्स रियलिटी में रहने वाले एक बड़े तबके के सामने आप एक आईना लेकर खड़ी हो गईं। हमने वो आईना जिसमें हमारी बदसूरती, खामियां, कमियां सारे दोष दिखाई दें, वो एक अरसे पहले घर के बाहर फेंक दिया था।

एक ऐसी ज़िन्दगी पसंद लोगों के सामने आप मंटों का जीवन और उसके समानांतर उनके अफसानों को एक बेहतरीन फिल्म में समेट कर लाती हैं लेकिन इन सत्तर सालों में हम कितने काबिले बर्दाश्त हुए हैं, मंटो या अन्य किसी तरक्की पसंद अफसानानिगारों, शायरों के अफसानों, नज़्मों के अल्फाज़ सहजता से स्वीकारने को? मंटो को तो तरक्की पसंद अल्फाज़ से भी एतराज़ था, हर शख्स को तरक्की पसंद होनी चाहिए यहीं उनका यकीन था।

आपकी फिल्म हमें सात दशक पहले के मुल्क में तकसीम होने के दौर में ले जाती है। बंटवारे के वो खौफनाक मंज़र, जहां इंसान का वजूद एक मज़हब तक महदूद कर दिया जाता है। जब सिर्फ इंसान होना नाकाफी सा महसूस होता हो और मज़हब का उन्माद दिलों से निकलकर जे़हन में चढ़ जाता है।

आज सात दशकों बाद भी हम खुद को उसी हालात के इर्द-गिर्द महसूस करते हैं, जहां कुछ लोग मुख्तलिफ मज़हबों के दरमियान एक लंबी दूरी पैदा करना चाहते हैं, जो अंगारे बंटवारे के दौरान करोड़ों इंसानों की त्रासदी का कारण थे वो आज भी शोले बनकर आग भड़का रहे हैं, जिसकी आंच तले आम आवाम झुलस रहा है। आज भी कितनी सरलता से हमारे ही हमवतनों को पाकिस्तान का रास्ता दिखाया जाता है, जिनके पुरखों की खाक इस मिट्टी में दफन है, उनसे वफादारी का हिसाब बराबर मांगा जाता है।

आज एक अमन पसंद इंसान का अंजाम भी टोबा टेक सिंह की तरह हो रहा है, जहां वो मज़हब के बीच अपनी मुकम्मल वजूद की तलाश में पागल होकर ये बड़बड़ा रहा है, “ओपड़ी गुड़गुड़ दी एन्क्स दी बेध्याना विमन्ग दी वाल आफ दी टोबा टेकसिंह”। जहां पर वो ज़िन्दगी की कशमकश से हारकर अपने अंतिम मुकाम पर पहुंचकर, लड़खड़ाकर औंधे मुंह गिरता है, वहां आज भी दोनों तरफ मज़हबी कांटेदार तारे मौजूद हैं और उनके दरमियां है टोबा टेक सिंह।

नंदिता, आपके निर्देशन में ननवाजु़द्दीन सिद्दीकी पर्दे पर तल्ख तेवर और बेबाक अंदाज़-ए-बयां जिस बखूबी से निभा रहे थे, ऐसे में नवाजु़द्दीन सिद्दीकी और मंटो में फर्क कर पाना बेहद मुश्किल था। मंटो ने ताउम्र जो देखा वो लिखा, बिना किसी बनावट के, यही तल्खियां उनके अफसानों में भी बयां होती आई हैं। उनका खुद का जीवन संघर्ष और कोर्ट केस के चक्कर से जूझते हुए बेबाक, बेधड़क, बेखौफ अफसानों और उनके किरदार बुनना ये वही कर सकता था जिसका नाम सआदत हसन मंटो था।

आज के दौर में ऐसी बेखौफ, बेबाकी की दरकार तो हर शख्स से है पर क्या वो इंसान सभी खौफ से आज़ाद होकर अपने ख्यालात रख सकता है? इसी मोड़ पर ये फिल्म हमें छोड़ जाती है कई सवालों और फैज़ की नज़्म “बोल की लब आज़ाद हैं तेरे” के साथ। कई सावलों के जवाब दे जाती है, फैज़ की नज़्म “बोल की लब आज़ाद हैं तेरे”।

आपका कदरदान
अभिषेक अज़ीमाबादी

The post “फॉल्स रियलिटी वाली फिल्मों के बीच एक आईना है मंटो” appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.

‘Manto’, the film, is a narrative of melancholy: the melancholy of a creator, the melancholy of a creation the melancholy of experiences, and lastly the melancholy of Manto. You have read it right, after mentioning the melancholy of different entities here, I mentioned Manto again. That’s actually what the film ‘Manto’, made by Nandita Das, is all about.

When I left my city Kolkata and shifted to Bangalore to study, I was very irritated and down for some days – the happiness of shifting to the new place had vanished, while the sadness of leaving my city had begun to kill me.

Here, Nandita Das did a wonderful job of connecting the city he lives in, with Manto. The relationship between the city of Bombay and writer Manto was so strong that they became a single entity. Bombay was his love, the city which built him, and the city where his father, mother, and son were buried. Bombay, at last, was Manto himself and that’s the magic that Nandita depicted.

What does a city mean to a writer? What does a city mean to a creator? For a creative person, a city means a lot more than it means to a regular person.

Director Nandita Das and Nawazuddin Siddiqui, who played the lead role, felt the importance of a city to the creator.

The small lanes to the posh night parties, the small rooms of sex workers to the film studios, Manto’s life was always beautiful amid the extremes of the city Bombay.

I am not a movie reviewer, neither am I trying to review this movie. But it is a movie which has stories worth sharing. Manto is not only a character in this film but it is about time. In this movie, Manto is all about the experience of one of the darkest times in India. Manto is a phenomenon, Manto is the ego of a creator, Manto is the melancholy of failures, and Manto is a person born in a wrong time period.

The time mentioned here was the time of independence, followed by the division of India and Pakistan. The situation made Manto leave Bombay and shift to Lahore, Pakistan.

But Pakistan was not Manto’s; neither was Manto made for Pakistan. Manto was a man of free thought, Manto was a  man of expressions, his words were for the society and his creation was for the people. The hatred, the bloodbath, the deaths, the rapes and the beginning of the end of a civilization were the things he wanted to write about because Manto witnessed those. However, the state stopped him to write claiming his short story “Thanda Gosht” as obscene.

He was stuck between alcohol and himself. He was stuck between time and thoughts. He was stuck between his power and the control of the authority over his power. It is this melancholy of a creator that Nandita Das depicted carefully and deeply in this film.

The director, Nandita Das, has been as vocal as the protagonist of this movie and that’s why she has not stopped herself from telling the story. If Manto was a person of contradiction, then it is the same for the time when he was born and Nandita Das has not missed a chance to portray this fact in this movie.

The film is also very important for the time it is made in. India is now going through a time when the freedom of expression is being questioned by the authority and Manto is the answer to those questions. Creation stays, creation struggles, but creation never dies.

In this film, Nawaz has done the best justice that could have been done to ‘Manto’. His expression, his voice throwing, his attitude, and his eyes have talked about what we wanted to listen. Rasika Dugal who acted in the role of Manto’s wife was wonderful. All the actors in this film have done the best and as required.

The background score and the cinematography will always be remembered. At last, Manto is a masterpiece of a story and storytelling. If you do not watch it, you will miss out on one of the best contemporary movies ever made in India.

The post Watch Manto, Or You’ll Miss Out On One Of India’s Best Contemporary Films appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.