Kannada filmmaker P. Seshadri strongly objects to the word ‘ban’. “It’s an understanding between the distributors, producers and exhibitors,” he says. The national award-winner’s allusion is to the unofficial embargo in Karnataka on dubbed movies and TV serials from other languages, a practice that’s been in place for over 50 years now and has the support of the state’s authors, artistes and filmmakers. “It’s like someone has parked his car in front of your gate. You will object to it even though the road may not belong to you.”
Recently, however, the proscription is in the eye of the storm. Vasant Shetty, a techie and columnist who’s been spearheading an online campaign, calls it the “Talibanisation of Kannada cinema”. He says it’s undemocratic and has no legal sanctity as it has been put in place by private trade bodies like the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC).
It all started in 1960 under the stewardship of legendary actor Dr Rajkumar and writer A.N. Krishnamoorthy, the intention being to give a boost to the then ailing Kannada film industry. Telugu film Maya Bazaar was reportedly the last dubbed film released in Karnataka. The protectionist measure helped the industry move up from making 8-10 films a year to 30-40 in the 1970s. “It led to the golden period of Kannada cinema, when we made good films based on literary works,” says Seshadri. Now, it produces 130-150 films a year—with a success rate of 5-10 per cent.
Embargo supporters like luminaries Girish Karnad, U.R. Ananthamurthy and filmmaker Girish Kasaravalli say it’s a complicated and layered issue. And it’s not as though films in other languages or subtitled programmes aren’t being allowed. What is disallowed is only dubbing of content. “A Bangalorean knows 3-4 languages. Why can’t he watch films in the original, be enriched linguistically?” asks Seshadri. His issue is also with the lack of “aesthetics” in dubbing. “It would be out of sync to see an Aamir or srk mouth lines in Kannada. It murders creativity,” he says. Indeed, Kannada voice-overs for Discovery and cartoon shows on Chintu is a regular practice.
Basically, the idea is to protect the local. “It’s like how Hollywood killed Latin American cinema,” says Kasaravalli. (If it takes Rs 10 crore to make a film, then it’s just Rs 1-2 crore for dubbing rights, which in turn makes local content unviable and affects indigenous industry and jobs.) “Most TV channels are owned by outsiders. Star has a stake in Suvarna, ETV in Colours. They want dubbed shows to flood our channels to cut local programming costs,” says Seshadri.
Other states are putting their foot down too. Andhra Pradesh imposes a 20 per cent entertainment tax on dubbed content (and proposes to raise it to 50 per cent). In Calcutta, Tollywood has protested against the release of the dubbed version of the Hindi film Gunday, citing the same line (local cinema has recently been seeing a revival here).
For those against the embargo, it boils down to a matter of choice. “No vested interest should dictate terms to voiceless citizens in the name of guarding language and culture,” writes Shetty. Kasaravalli says dubbing means the state “will be flooded with C-grade films for which dubbing rights come for peanuts.... What will we achieve by getting access to these vulgar films?” The debate rolls on.
This refers to the article on the dubbing row in the Kannada movie industry (Keep the Subtitles, Mar 3). The grouse of Kannada TV and movie industry against dubbed movies from other languages is right, because Kannada films are screened primarily within the state; this is where the market is. Yet, today there are parts of Bangalore where one can’t catch a Kannada movie! One has to go out of the city, or to some other city district. An end to dubbing will correct the situation.
H.N. Ramakrishna, Bangalore
I’m against dubbing, and think it should stop. If the same material, say a Hindi serial, is made in a regional language instead of flat dubbing, it would generate employment. Dubbing is why the local industry is in bad shape in so many states.
Harish C.P., on e-mail
While I do agree that Sandalwood needs protection from the onslaught of other mediocre movie industries, it is also prudent to keep a lid on remakes. Indian cinema has always been adept at plagiarism, led by captain Bollywood; a stop on remakes might encourage some original films.
B. Shivarudraiah, Chitradurga
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
OUTLOOK >> Embargo supporters like luminaries Girish Karnad, U.R. Ananthamurthy and filmmaker Girish Kasaravalli say it’s a complicated and layered issue.
The Marxist armchair Frauds like Karnad and UR Ananthamurthy who demand freedom of expression when it involves some book defaming hindu faith or gods have no qualms to deny freedom to see dubbed movies because it suits their self (business?) interest.
These frauds are traitors and anti constitutional fascist feudals and must be exposed.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT