The next memory has to do with my film Saaransh. The portrayal of the villain Gajanan Chitre by Nilu Phule was considered by many to have been dangerously close to Thackeray. I did reference him. The attributes, the body type, the glasses were borrowed. This was the time of his fierce run in with the Communist Party. The producer Raj Kumar Barjatya thought it might upset him, he might feel that we have demonised him. That some mischief makers may deliberately harm the film. So he was invited for a screening at the Prabha Devi office. He came with security guards, clad in white. After having watched the film, surprisingly, he was all praise for its theme, the Marathi ethos and the central character of the old man and his value system. He clearly got what the film was about—old age, loss, death. Nowhere could I see him as an antagonist then.
This was followed by the unfortunate run-in over Mohsin Khan. Mohsin had married Reena Roy, and starred in the film Saathi, which was pulled off in Dadar after a successful run of 15 weeks. He had left Pakistan to pursue a career in Bollywood and this sounded the death knell for it. I went with him to plead his case with Thackeray. We went to the mayor's bungalow in Shivaji Park. That was the time when Shiv Sena had wrested the municipal power in the 80s. It was a heartbreaking scene where his coterie attempted to browbeat and belittle Mohsin. I still retain that painful memory. A man from the neighbouring country, who was apolitical, whose mind had not been hijacked by the communal forces had been given a raw deal here. It left a bitter taste in my mind and heart. Later Shiv Sena stoned his car, the windows were smashed. He was petrified. We went to meet Thackeray again. He was away in Thane, we waited for him till very late but were not given an audience. That's when I saw the doublespeak of a politician emerge. Mohsin had to abort his career and fly back to Pakistan with his daughter.
Some years later came the seemingly organised carnage, the nightmare in the wake of Babri Masjid demolition. We rallied behind Sunil Dutt for the plurality of Mumbai. He was fiercely opposed to him. He emerged as the other, came to symbolise the ideology of intolerance and politics of hatred. He played the full blown, categorical Hindutva card. Those were dark, terrible times.
But a sweet memory related to the film Tamanna followed. It was a film on female infanticide where a Muslim eunuch brings up a Hindu girl. This was in 19 95, when they were in power, the Hindutva roots had bloomed and we felt they might find the film provocative. That he might think that we had demonised the Hindu father. We wanted a tax exemption for which we had to route the film though them. He saw the film and wanted to meet the real eunuch on whose life the film had been made. He wanted to give him some financial support. I was pleasantly surprised.
At the time of Zakhm, the then censor board chief Asha Parekh fearing the wrath wanted to show the film to him. She wanted to play safe. That was when Mani Ratnam had also shown Bombay to him for approval. But in the case of Zakhm the problems didn't emerge at the local party level. It was the home ministry under Lal Krishna Advani that had issues, and was proving to be the stumbling block and forced us to change the saffron party flags shown in the film to grey. It had no problems or interference in Maharashtra. It had a free run.
I realise an individual can be quite distinct from the image created and projected in his political speeches, public postures and in the media. And that holds true of all political personalities the world over. A dichotomy between the private life and public life inevitably emerges. To me he has been all about bitter residues of some memories chequered with some utterly humane utterances.
As told to Namrata Joshi. This piece only appears on the web
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.
Read with great interest the narration by Mr. Bhatt. What is puzzling and equally disturbing that even people with name, fame and intellect (at least this is what was the perception in case of Mr. Bhatt) in the society succumb to the pressures from unconstituitional authorities. The take home message was might is right and despite all the unlawful activities the person (i.e. Mr. Thackrey) has somehow a honorable side to his legacy which is beyond my comprehension. In all instances in the story, Mr. Thackrey was the decision maker without any accountability to any legal authority and law was a helpless mute spectator. Bottomline "my way or the high way".....great way for making progress. In summary, if this is the plight of famous people, the plight of common man is beyond comprehension who go through this kind of ritual everyday. Mr. Bhatt, it would have been a better service to the reader if you did not narrate this...at least we would have lived in the world where ignorance is bliss.
Bollywood to me represents room temp IQ.
This is why Mahesh Bhatt, can be considered an Intellectual over there.
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