Filmmaker Govind Nihalani never met Thackeray but recalls how the Shiv Sena had initially disapproved of his 1987 TV film Tamas. “It was perceived as anti-Hindu, as though I had suggested that the riots had been engineered by the Hindus. They supported several PILs against it,” says Nihalani. However, unlike Mehta, things eventually turned out amicably for him. Thackeray saw Tamas and liked it, specially Om Puri’s searing performance. The PILs then ceased to matter.
There’s a long laundry list of such incidents in Bollywood. Thackeray’s unwritten authority and clout have run deep in the industry. No wonder they whisper his name and Godfather in the same hushed breath yet refuse to be openly quoted on him. Even when he is no more. Understandable, considering some of the most influential names in the film industry have been at the receiving end of the Sena offensive. Deepa Mehta’s Fire was stalled for denigrating Hinduism—because its lesbian heroines happened to be called Radha and Seeta. Dilip Kumar was berated for refusing to return Pakistan’s highest civilian award, Nishan-e-Imtiaz and A.K.Hangal was labelled a traitor for attending Pakistan Day celebrations at the Mumbai Consulate. SRK’s My Name Is Khan was threatened with a ban. All for the superstar’s criticism of the teams not bidding for Pakistani cricketers in the 2010 Indian Premier League.
“They have been the extra-constitutional authority in the state,” says Mehta. So, many have had to knock on Thackeray’s door voluntarily. Mani Ratnam had to incorporate cuts suggested by Thackeray to get a clean chit for Bombay. Ram Gopal Verma had to organize a preview of Sarkar for him, that fortunately, met with his whole-hearted approval and endorsement.
“People in the industry are respectful and cautious of not being on their wrong side,” says Nihalani. “It has always been a good thing to be in the good books of Balasaheb,” says veteran journalist Rauf Ahmed. It all boils down to survival strategies and market compulsions. “They have been exerting coercion and Bollywood hasn’t had the spine to stand up to them. Everyone chooses to be reverential because of their tremendous nuisance value,” says an insider. Last decade the clout has been on a relative decline and has, in fact, got transferred to Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. So Karan Johar had to apologise to Raj for the use of Bombay instead of Mumbai in Wake Up Sid.
For Mahesh Bhatt he was an aggregate of disparate memories. So, on the one hand there was the Thackeray who “approved” Bhatt’s Saaransh despite their fears that the portrayal of the villain Gajanan Chitre might raise his heckles. It didn’t. On the other hand was the unfortunate incident when the Shiv Sena literally drove Pakistani cricketer Mohsin Khan back to his country when he sought to set base as an actor in Bollywood. Bhatt who was with Mohsin when he went to meet Thackeray remembers it as a "heartbreaking scene", "a painful memory". "His coterie attempted to browbeat, belittle Mohsin," he recollects.
But behind this legacy of fear was also a man beholden to cinema. Thackeray is said to have been very fond of films and one his sons, the late Bindamadhav Thackeray produced the 1996 film Agnisakshi. So did daughter-in-law Smita Thackeray. Within the industry Nana Patekar has been an active members of the Shiv Sena and the party has supported the Bollywood workers’ union called Bhartiya Chitrapat Sena. Besides, Pritish Nandy and Lata Mangeshkar were nominated to the Rajya Sabha on Shiv Sena ticket.
Thackeray actively sought glamour and friendship with stars. Many personalities he locked horns with also came to be his admirers and buddies. Sanjay Dutt owes his freedom to him. Thackeray got him bail in the TADA case so after his release from the Arthur Road Jail Sanjay first went to Siddhivinayak and then straight to meet Thackeray. He stood by the family throughout the funeral last Sunday. Amitabh Bachchan found help from him when critically ill and also when facing the public wrath on getting implicated in the Bofors case. He even intervened in petty squabbles like music composer Nadeem’s alleged affair with Mala Sinha’s daughter Pratibha.
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.
The God father.
Expect more such God fathers, as the law and order in the country breaks down.
Godfathers and Mafias are born when the Judicial system fails.
The problem in India is that we have far too, too many laws and each law is so dense that they end up contradicting some basic laws and ethics.
Good example is the Sec 498-A domestic violence law and there are many more you may agree.
Our entire legal framework has largely failed...
Either we need to have a iron clad rule of law system like USA (with no exceptions, zero tolerance for influence, reccomendation and feudal ideas) or we need a dictatorial rule like China.
Or else, we will slowly become a glorified big version of erstwhile Southern Italy..
Maybe some parts of india are already that..
Sadly that place is known for good climate. Much of India is not so , esp in summer months.
2 D Ramki,
One can equally argue that the creation of draconian laws ( in your case anti-male ) is a dead giveaway of the failure of the judicial system. The 'normal' laws dont work, and powerful groups require these laws.
Incidentally divorce laws are hardly 1% of anti-male attitude of society. For eg., there are thousands more males in jail due to false accusation of rape. Unfortnately, these males have no access to forming powerful groups for themselves.
Godfathers and mafia dons are not the disease. They are a symptom of the breakdown of law and order.
I hope I don't make people feel wounded, inappropriately. I heard Mr. Thackeray speak to a pretty very respected t. v. news personality, who has been made to perceive that he was being attacked in Mumbai. It seems, Mr. Thackeray was expressing his concern for a person, like my grandmother felt for people. And, this gentleman, associated with news, was aware he himself was Marathi, and he was pretty angry. He couldn't say that he was attacked because of this gentleman, because, I don't think he thought so. I think Mr. Thackeray was speaking about his nephew. He was making the anchor appreciate, and I appreciated very greatly, and humbly, that he was trying to make every effort to reconcile with his nephew. People who can feel like this, it is pretty tragic, that others feel they are making other people imagine that they should kill. No one feels, when they see their maternal grandmothers talk to others, that they are feeling anything but goodwill. I did feel, and do feel the same way, about a person who is supposed to be an Avatar, in Bengal. The Avatar saw himself as a handmaiden to the Goddess Kali.
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