Bollywood Prism

MERE APNE (1971): A Movie about What went Wrong with India

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 12:56:00 +0000

Stills from MERE APNE (1971) starring Meena Kumari, Vinod Khanna, Shatrughan Sinha, Yogita bali & Danny Dengzongpa

Independent India of the fifties was a nation of opportunity and hope. The sixties saw it settling down, and then burdened with two wars and successive droughts. The seventies began with expanding cities unable to provide jobs to a new generation of youngsters. Born in the cities after 1947, this generation was very different from the India that was largely left behind in the villages. It aspired for the moon, but was left high and dry after devoting a childhood and adolescence to formal education. It was their restlessness, more than anything else that marked the India of seventies.

It was also this restlessness, which echoed in MERE APNE (1971), a movie that documented virtually everything that was going wrong with India. In the form of an old widow, it made apparent how the ageing rural India saw the new urban India lacking the finesse as well as the essence of its civilization. In the form of an old widower, who failed to help his sons settle down, it saw the first degree migrants wondering what went wrong in their approach, and in the form of the unemployed youngsters, it brought out the frustration and anger of a young India, which suffered from its problems, but neither knew how to solve it, nor had the means to do so.

But MERE APNE was much more than the policy challenges that were facing India. Its main focus was on relationships. It highlighted how a profit maximizing approach of the market was beginning to kill the social relationships that had always been the hallmark of Indian civilization. It showed how compassion nurtured relationships in India, even beyond the family, and how it could heal even the deepest of wounds filled with hate. In a way, MERE APNE gave us a glimpse about everything that was going wrong with India.

MERE APNE (1971) saw Meena Kumari in the unusual role of an old widow

Before her death, Meena Kumari blessed Bollywood with two great movies very different from each other. The more famous of them is PAKEEZAH (1972), the story of a young and beautiful courtesan, which had been in the making for two decades and is the movie with which the legacy of Meena Kumari is associated. The other was a movie in which Meena Kumari played the role of an old widow. This movie was MERE APNE, released in 1971, with a bunch of youngsters and a director, whose only credit to fame before it was the lyrics that he had written for three movies. His name was Gulzar. The movie, many still feel, did not have a story, and yet, there are others who would be willing to consider it as one of the best ever movies of Bollywood!

The Plot

The movie begins with Arun (Ramesh Deo) coming to visit Anandi (Meena Kumari), an old widow, who lives all alone in her village. Arun, who is a distant relative, convinces her to come with him to the city, where he lives with his working wife, Lata (Sumita Sanyal) and a small child. Once Anandi joins them, she is made to take care of the child, and gradually comes to realize that she has been brought as a domestic help. There, Anandi is surprised to see the rude and indifferent ways of the cities that lack compassion for fellow human beings.

In the neighborhood, there are frequent quarrels among youngsters. There is a group headed by Shyam (Vinod Khanna) and another headed by Chhainu (Shatrughan Sinha), which are at odds and keep targeting each other. There is also a small child, Babbu (Master Chintu) who lives with her paralyzed sister, Tini (Baby Geeta) in a shed and begs around. One day, a boy from Chhainu’s gang, Raghunath (Asrani) is targeted by Shyam and his group, consisting of Bansi (Paintal), Sanju (Danny Denzongpa), Billoo (Dinesh Thakur) and Ranbir (Sudhir Thakar). In retribution, Chhainu’s group abducts Billoo. Shyam and his group, armed with a pistol and home-made bombs, have a show down and release Billoo. Their skirmishes continue.

One day, Anandi takes Babboo along with her to feed him, which angers Lata, who scolds Anandi. Taken aback at such rude treatment, Anandi leaves their house, and finds shelter in the shed where Babboo lives and which is also the place where Shyam and group spend time together. There, she settles down taking care of Babbo and Tini, and develops a close relationship with Shyam and his friends, who call him Nani Ma (Granny). Shyam tells herabout his failed love story with Urmi (Yogita Bali), and how he and Chhainu had a fight after he insulted her. She shares her memories with them, sometimes makes snacks for them and also attends to Shyam’s younger brother, when he is sick. She is fed up of life in city and wants to go back to the village, and Shyam agrees to come along. Around this time, elections are happening, and rival candidates, Biloki Prasad (Asit Kumar Sen) and Anokhe Lal (Mehmood) hire the groups of Shyam and Chhainu respectively for their election work. A fight breaks out between them and Anandi, who tries to pacify them gets killed accidentally by a bullet.

What was going Wrong with India?

This movie is one of the best documentaries on everything that was going wrong with India during the early seventies. Till the early twentieth century, India had been a civilization that lived largely in the villages, where social life used to be at complete variance with what happens in the cities. The four largest metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai were actually the residency towns of the British during the colonial period, and were the places were major public infrastructure was developed, financed by taxes paid by people all over India. Markets require public goods to become functional, and so the economic growth was concentrated in these large cities. After 1919, the year of big demographic divide, the population of India began to boom, while there was little additional land available for cultivation. With rural industry that had sustained Indian prosperity, demolished under the onslaught of industrialization and exploitative colonial policies, the only option left for people was to migrate to cities. This led to an ever increasing stream of migrants, who struggled and gradually made a place for themselves.

MERE APNE (1971) is a movie about the frustration of unemployed youngsters

However, for the generation that was born around or after independence in the cities, it was a completely different scenario. They had a higher level of education than their parents, and were brought up with higher aspirations. Unfortunately, by that time, in early seventies, India was reeling under the economic onslaught of a failing economic system, two wars, successive droughts and inflation. Unlike rural economy, urban economy needs a lot more public infrastructure, which can only be financed with taxes, but instead of tax compliance, what India witnessed was a growth of black money, a colloquial term for tax evasion.

This is the background in which the youngsters of MERE APNE found their aspirations for a job and decent life drowned. Their frustration was often compounded by the disappointment of their parents, and an ever widening generation gap, which made it increasingly difficult for the two generations to understand each other. Their resentment against corruption, nepotism and in particular, the indifference of the state and the society to their plight is excellently expressed in the song, “hal chal theek thak hai..” Faced with a vacuum, they find solace in groups, and the empowerment that it brings. It is the same power that electoral candidates like Bilaki Ram and Anokhe Lal were only too willing to harness and pay for, in the process giving birth to the dominance of criminal elements that have plagued Indian democracy.

MERE APNE does not limit itself to documenting the systemic rot that was setting in a young India. In the form of relentless comments of Anandi, it also shows what this new India was in the process of losing forever. The age old Indian civilization owed both its sustenance and its survival to the enormous social capital that it had accumulated and preserved. It is this social capital that was shown embodied in the compassion of Anandi towards all around her in distress, and which makes the youngsters of both factions to empathize and respect her. Those who have lived in the seventies can identify with them, though one wonders whether such things are possible today, half a century later. It represents the social capital that has been lost, and though economic and financial capital can compensate it today when most of our population is young, it is difficult to say how it will affect us, once the demographic dividend is over and the demographic decay sets in.

Epilogue

Meena Kumari was one of the finest actresses of Bollywood. She was also very lonely in her personal life during her last years. This loneliness and a longing for affection became a part of her character in many of her movies, beginning from DIL APNA AUR PREET PARAYI (1960) and can also be witnessed in SAHEB, BIBI AUR GHULAM (1962), AARTI (1962) and PAKEEZAH (1972), but MERE APNE is the most clear reflection of it. Unlike other movies, in this movie, her character is not alone. The song “koi hota jisko apna..” featured on Vinod Khanna makes it a shared virtue among all the main protagonists of this movie.

Actually, the number of individuals who share this feeling has grown since the seventies, as social relationships give way to profit maximizing contracts. Perhaps, the worst cases are those, where individuals begin to maximize their profits within relationships that were meant instead to maximize welfare by creation of social capital. While all this happens, economists remain blissfully unaware of what is social capital and how it works, and the legal fraternity is still unable to differentiate between a legal contract and a social relationship!

Meena Kumari: One of the Most Accomplished Actresses of Bollywood

BASANT (1942): Madhubala’s Debut Movie was a Simple Story of a Simple India

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 22:01:00 +0000

Stills from BASANT (1942)

“Talkies” or the movies with sound and dialogues began to be made in India in the early thirties. The movies of this period had an experimental character, as it was a field that was highly unexplored till then, and all those engaged in it, were learning and refining their skills. It also meant a lot of enthusiasm for creativity, and gave rise to many great Bollywood personalities.

Comparatively, the period of early forties saw movies in a more settled mode. It is difficult to say whether it was because certain skills had been acquired by then that curtailed the enthusiasm for further experimentation or whether a certain degree of fatigue had sent in the more established film makers, leading to a bit of stagnation. It does not mean that the quality of movies made in forties was going down. It simply means that compared to the aggressive experiments of the thirties as evident from AMAR JYOTI (1936), DEVDAS (1936), ACHHUT KANYA (1936), DUNIYA NA MAANE (1937), STREET SINGER (1938), DHARTI MATA (1938), PUKAR (1939) and AADMI (1939) the movies of the forties were well within the parameters that had become the norm by that time. Of course, there were exceptions like NEECHA NAGAR (1946), but it was only after 1947 that Hindi movies moved to the next phase of their evolution.

BASANT (1942) is a typical movie of the forties, which is remembered today largely as a debut movie of Madhubala. It presents many interesting facets of India of that time, including how the life of an Indian was deeply embedded in the family and was considered far more important than vocation or money. It also enables us to look at the changing values of Indian society during the last hundred years.

Mumtaz Shanti & Ulhas in BASANT (1942)

The Plot

The story of BASANT revolves around Uma (Mumtaz Shanti). She is a poor and homeless young woman, who lives with her younger brother, Babul (Suresh) and works as a domestic help to earn their subsistence. One day, Babul comes across a theatre seeking performers and approaches it for work, but is rejected. On advice from Dilip (Mumtaz Ali), one of the theatre actors, he and Uma decide to meet its proprietor, Janaki Prasad (P. F. Pithawala). There they meet his younger brother, Nirmal (Ulhas) who supports them and on Janaki Parasad’s initial refusal to listen to them, makes them stand and sing outside his residence. Janaki Babu is impressed by their singing, and employs them.

In the theatre, Uma becomes the leading actress, and is strongly envied by the other actress, Meena (Pramila) and her father (Jagannath) who feel threatened by her success. Nirmal is highly averse to Meena’s advances towards him, but develops a strong liking for Uma. They confess their love for each other, and plan to get married. Nirmal does not want Uma to work in theatre, and they decide that once Nirmal gets a job, Uma will stop working. However, Nirmal is unable to find a job, and Meena and her father, out of envy for Uma, suggest to Nirmal that Janaki Babu is himself interested in marrying her. Nirmal can’t wait anymore and opts for an immediate marriage and Uma leaves theatre. Soon they have a daughter, but Nirmal still cannot find work. He is also unwilling to accept any help from his elder brother or let Uma work. As a result, they face severe financial constraints. When their Landlord threatens to evict them from the rented house, Uma is forced to sell her last valuable possession, and after paying rent, hands the rest of the money to Nirmal, who has come across a job opening in Lahore and needs to go there urgently.

Nirmal does not return for a long time, and Uma is left penniless with no money to take care of her daughter. Dilip brings money from Janaki Das and also an invitation to work in theatre. Though Uma refuses it initially, she is finally convinced by Babul and Dilip to do so for the sake of her daughter, and goes to theatre. In the meanwhile, Nirmal returns and is angered to know that Uma has joined theatre. When he goes there, he is again misled by Meena and her father, who suggest a relationship between Uma and Janaki Das. Angered by this, he takes his daughter and leaves for Kolkata where he has got a job. On her return, Uma is stunned by the absence of her daughter, and the fact that Nirmal has taken her away without even talking to her.

Janaki Das and Dilip try to look for Nirmal, but are unable to trace him. Eight years pass. Uma continues to work for theatre and relentlessly, they keep searching for Nirmal and her daughter, by taking the theatre group to different cities, and in the process, reach Kolkata. Meanwhile her daughter, Manju (Madhubala with the name of Baby Mumtaz) has grown up. Nirmal is now well placed, and takes good care of Manju, who also sings for radio. She sings the same song that Uma had sung in front of the house of Janaki Das when she first met Nirmal. Uma hears it on radio and they are able to trace Nirmal. When she goes there, Nirmal convinces her that due to her association with theatre, her return to their lives can be detrimental for the future of Manju, and lets her meet their daughter only once and that too if she would not reveal her true identity to her. Uma, who is heartbroken, agrees and after meeting Manju, leaves with her doll. Dilip, who had come to accompany Uma, tries to convince Nirmal, but Uma, who is somewhat disoriented by all this has an accident on the road and returns. She thinks of committing suicide, before the climax scene sets in.

A Simple Movie in a Different India that Used to Exist Once

BASANT is well made movie by the standards of forties, although it was not one of the top box office hits of 1942, when it was released. This is understandable given the simplicity of its plot and the absence of any major attractions that could make it a top hit. Its cast did not consist of big stars of the time. It was Mumtaz Shanti’s first movie and actually helped in her rise to stardom later, with KISMET (1943). Ulhas never rose to the status of top Bollywood stars, in spite of a long career and recognition as a strong actor. Mumtaz Ali, father of Mehmood, has a limited role in this movie, but leaves a good impression. It is hardly surprising that the movie is remembered today as the debut movie of Madhubala, who as Baby Mumtaz, was the third Mumtaz of the movie after Mumtaz Shanti and Mumtaz Ali. It may not be possible to find another movie wherein three out of six important characters were played by actors that were named Mumtaz!

A striking characteristic of this movie is its simplicity. The whole of the movie is shot indoors, indicating its low budget character, but the well directed scenes do not let you realize this fact easily. Its most interesting aspect is the society of those times and how it compares with today. In 1940s, association with theatre and dancing on stage was not looked upon with favor by the conservative society and the attitude of Nirmal that resents his wife dancing in front of the audience to entertain them seems natural for those times. Of course, such an attitude would be open to ridicule today as highly unreasonable. In only seventy five years, we have seen our society change its values to such an extent that if same is extrapolated over a few centuries, it becomes clear how unstable our social values can be.

The social conservatism of the forties as seen in this movie also reminds us of the importance that was placed on the family. Uma readily gives up theatre to get a family, in spite of Nirmal’s unemployment. This reminds us of several leading ladies of Bollywood, who gave up a successful career in Bollywood for the sake of family in the twentieth century. Some of them did that at the prime of their careers. It is difficult to say how possible that eventuality would be today, in a different society, where marriage itself is not considered stable and permanent anymore.

Baby Mumtaz who was later known as Madhubala, with Mumtaz Shanti in BASANT (1942), her debut movie

The ease with which Uma agrees to give up her daughter is unlikely to be a part of a movie today, where couples are more than likely to end up in courts over child custody disputes. But, such happenings were not uncommon in the movies as well as popular literature of the time. The story of ARADHANA (1969), a milestone movie that launched Rajesh Khanna to stardom also revolves around a mother who gives up her rights and identity for the sake of her child’s future. Of course, these are all fictional stories and characters, but they do tell us something about the social values and aspirations, even if the realities may not always match with them. Parents still care for their children today, but the extent to which they would sacrifice their own existence for them may not be the same anymore.

Epilogue

Madhubala was certainly one of the most beautiful ladies of Hindi Cinema, and her screen presence as a child in this movie is as charming as one would expect from an actor that remains alive in our memory more than half a century after her death.

This review of her debut movie from the ‘Prism of Bollywood’ is a tribute to her lasting legacy.

MADHUBALA : Her beautiful legacy is still alive!

DHARAVI (1992): Indian Aspirations Trivialized and Crushed as Informal Economy

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 30 Oct 2018 23:27:00 +0000

Congested Urban Agglomerations are of two kinds. Those belonging to a rich affluent class, which are considered cities proper, and those inhabited by the underprivileged and often resourceless migrant workers, which are called slums. Such slums have been a part of most cities at some point of time or the other, and have gradually disappeared as incomes rose and populations stabilized. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort has happened in Dharavi, the largest slum in Asia, spread over 500 acres, with a population of around a million people, and a density of over 800,000 persons per square mile.

This slum, which took roots during the days of East India Company, when Bombay was established as one of its three residency towns in India, is also a big economic hub, with a total production of over a billion US dollars. Yet, this economy, consisting mostly of micro and small enterprises, is considered informal since the land they are based on, is not formally allocated for such industrial purposes, and most of them being too small, do not comply with the multitude of entangling regulations that are supposed to be applicable on them. As a result, those running these informal micro-enterprises neither have access to financing, nor are their rights fully recognized by the State. This leaves them at the mercy of exploitative money lenders and criminal mafia, which thrives on it.

DHARAVI (1992) is a movie depicting life in this slum area, which was produced jointly by the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) and Doordarshan (National TV channel of India). With a working couple as the leading protagonists, this movie wades into the life, struggles, aspirations, crime and misfortune that constitute the fate of nearly a million people who inhabit this slum. Set in late eighties, prior to the liberalization of Indian economy, it documents their state of affair in the background of the main plot.

A still from DHARAVI (1992) - A movie produced by NFDC & Doordarshan

Shabana Azmi and Om Puri, the leading actors in this movie are two of the most renowned faces of what was called the parallel Indian cinema in the seventies. By the early nineties, it had lost its vigor, but that does not prevent these two great stalwarts from carrying their responsibility in this movie. The success of DHARAVI lies in being a fiction, a documentary, a tragedy and a tale of hope, all at the same time. Thanks to the excellent performance of its leading as well as supporting cast, it won several awards, including the 1992 National Film Award, and yet, the most prominent figure on its posters was that of Madhuri Dixit, who only had a brief guest appearance as a dream girl in a couple of day dreaming sequences.

Welcome to Bollywood!

The Plot

DHARAVI is a tale of a taxi driver, Rajkaran (Om Puri) who lives in a makeshift one room unit in Dharavi, with his wife, Kumud (Shabana Azmi) and their son, before his mother (Anjana Mumtaz) also joins them from their native village. Kumud works in a textile unit and was earlier married to Shankar (Mushtaq Khan). Along with Kumud, Rajkaran has worked hard for more than a decade to accumulate a saving of Rs. 25000 with which he aspires to set up a factory, in partnership with three others, including Chaurasia (Deepak Qazir) and Chandu (Raghubir Yadav). Kumud’s brother, Chaskar (Virendra Saxena) is a social activist who keeps raising issues against wrong doers as well as criminals and is always facing their ire.

Rajkaran desperately wants to buy a local dyeing makeshift unit hat that is put on sale, to make his dream come true, but one of the partners defaults in contributing his share at the last minute. The local bar man, Pareshan (Chandu Parikh) suggests to Rajkaran that he take help from the local underworld don, Dada Sardar (Satish Khopkar). Though Rajkaran hates doing so, he has no other option and is forced to borrow money from Dada. In the meanwhile, Chaskar is killed by the Dada Sarkar’s men one night.

Unfortunately, Rajkaran’s makeshift factory, which has been established without proper permissions is dismatled by the authorities soon thereafter. This not only destroys all that they have invested, but also leaves Rajkaran in a debt crisis as he is not in a position to return the money borrowed from Dada. Making use of this opportunity, Dada calls for his taxi and uses it for a murder. Irked by this, he confronts Dada, as a result of which his home is ransacked by his goons and his taxi is also taken away by them.

Rajkaran, who is a fan of Madhuri Dixit, tries to take solace in drinks and daydreaming, and becomes highly irritable and difficult for his wife. Meanwhile, Kumud’s first husband has returned to the neighborhood and is suffering from part paralysis. Kumud tries to help him and they again become close. Rajkaran, who now drives a hired taxi, robs a passenger in desperation, and is caught by the police. His mother urges Kumud to do something, and though she hates Dada and his mafia for having killed her brother, yet she is forced to go to him and beg for help. Dada Sarkar gets Rajkaran out, but Kumud, who is now completely frustrated with Rajkaran, leaves him and goes back to her earlier partner. Rajkaran tries to earn money and repay Dada so as to get his taxi back, but the taxi is burnt in a gang war. The devastated Rajkaran must begin his life all over again.

A still from the movie, DHARAVI, a 1992 Bollywood Movie

Exploited Humanity can Mark the Death of Civilization

Perhaps, the most memorable scenes of the movie is one where four men are playing hockey in a small lane, and a young homeless child, who has taken shelter on a hand cart parked nearby is lying on it and watching them. Chaskar (Kumud’s brother) walks into the lane and is suddenly attacked by the four men, stabbed with a knife and killed. The small child, apparently seven or eight years old, watches it and almost without a reaction, turns away and covers his face.

Human Civilization is based on compassion and sensitivity towards the plight of fellow human beings. It is fed by a reassurance that people will not harm or exploit each other and is nurtured by reciprocal altruism. In slums, when human life gets depraved to the extent that crime does not affect people as unusual, it is one of the surest signs of a civilizational decay. Indian civilization is one of the most precious assets of its inhabitants. As erstwhile villages of India get converted into slums, this precious asset is coming under threat today.

The Informal Tag, the Neglect of Economy & Indian Aspirations

Dharavi is not just about slums. More importantly, it depicts the plight of migrant workers, who come to Mumbai seeking livelihood. Unable to find a job, many of them attempt self employment. Unfortunately, the lack of working capital often prevents them from succeeding. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the policymakers have not been able to help or facilitate these underprivileged entrepreneurs in any meaningful manner, even though they leave no stone unturned in ensuring financial access to large industries owned by billionaires who usually invest with borrowed money and invariably recover their investment by pledging their shares even when their company becomes bankrupt.

It is fully known that the so called formal economy, consisting of Government and large industries is incapable of creating jobs even for a small fraction of the workforce in India, over half of which continues to be employed in agriculture or related activities. Since ancient times, micro enterprises including those run within households had been the greatest strength of Indian economy, until they were destroyed from the combined onslaught of unfair policy exploitation and competition from larger industrialized units during the colonial period. The independent Indian state is theoretically sympathetic to their cause, but is unable to put in place policies that can help and facilitate such micro entrepreneurship. On the contrary, the maze of bureaucratic regulations and restrictions often has the effect of converting such micro-entrepreneurship illegal adventures.

Epilogue

DHARAVI is a case study that every policy maker must see and analyze, to understand one of the greatest challenges in managing Indian economy. With a workforce of nearly 800 million and a strong demographic dividend on its side, India has the potential to take unprecedented economic strides. All that needs to be understood is the fact that opportunity cost of unemployed labor is zero. Thus, any and every entrepreneurship in India is always profitable in economic terms, even if the financial statements do not depict that in the bottom line.

DAMINI (1993): The Perennial Dilemma between Moral Duties and Personal Loyalties

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 27 Oct 2018 09:50:00 +0000

DAMINI (1993) Starring Rishi Kapoor, Meenakshi Sheshadri, Sunny Deol & Amrish Puri

It is not very common for a mainstream Bollywood movie to highlight several important social issues in a realistic manner and at the same time retain its box office appeal. DAMINI, a 1993 movie directed by Raj Kumar Santoshi achieved this extra ordinary distinction with a story that involved love, a gruesome crime, a respectable family, a lady unable to suppress her conscience, a husband torn between his wife and family, and a courtroom drama that many can identify with. In the process, it raises an issue that has occupied central stage in Indian literature since several thousand years and the final answer to which continues to remain elusive.

It raises the dilemma that most of us face at some point of time in our life, the choice between our moral duties on one hand and the duties towards our personal loyalties to someone on the other. It is the same question that was faced by Bhishma, Krishna and Karna in the epic story of Mahabharata. But, DAMINI raises other issues too. The plight of poor domestic maids faced with exploitation in households that they desperately cling on in search of livelihood, the dichotomy of standards that differentiate privileged from the unprivileged and the problems faced by those lacking adequate resources in the face of manipulation of criminal trials inside and outside the courtroom. Every one of these issues remains as relevant today as it was a quarter of a century back when this movie was released.

Meenakshi Sheshadri in DAMINI (1993): Arguably her Best Performance

1993 gave us a number of movies that can be considered a milestone for different reasons. These include Govinda and Chunkey Pandey’s AANKHEIN, Sharukh Khan’s BAAZIGAR, and Sanjay Dutt’s KHALNAYAK. One of those hits was DAMINI (1993), a movie that is difficult to forget. In many ways, it was an atypical movie, which threw two unexpected stars, Meenakshi Sheshadri and Sunny Deol, and can be arguably considered the best movie, even though both have illustrious careers and have given bigger box office hits.

The Plot

The movie begins with a young man from a rich family, Shekhar Gupta attending a dance performance that features Damini (Meenakshi Sheshadri) and Aamir Khan (in guest appearance). Shekhar instantly falls in love with Damini. When his parents, Mr. Gupta (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) and Sumitra (Rohini Hattangadi) visit Damini’s house to seek her for their son, Damini’s father, Chandrakant (Anjan Srivastav) boasts untruthfully about her, which she refutes and plainly speaks the truth. Her truthfulness impresses them and soon, Shekhar and Damini are married. In her new household, Damini is greeted by Urmi (Prajakta Kulkarni), the young housemaid and they develop a bond of affection. During the Holy festival, Shekhar’s young brother, Rakesh (Ashwin Kaushal) along with his friends, rapes Urmi, which is witnessed by Damini and Shekhar.

During police investigation, Urmi names Damini as her witness, which begins the struggle between truth and family interests. Under pressure from family, Damini first refuses to state the truth, but then is torn by her conscience and decides to seek justice for Urmi, in spite of all the pressure by her in laws, who are desperate to protect Rakesh at any cost. When she goes against them, she is shunned away. Even her own parents advice her to side by her family and not take this course, but she does not relent. Shekhar also tries his best to persuade her but in vain.

Shekhar’s family hires indrajeet Chaddha (Amrish Puri) as the defence counsel, who is a master at manipulating trials by all legal and illegal means. They try to establish that Damini is mad, and get her admitted in a Mental Asylum where colluding staff get her drugged with medicines. However, she runs away. She is also targeted by Rakesh and her friends, and while running to save herself one night, she comes across Govind (Sunny Deol), a lawyer who had lost hope and stopped practicing. Govind takes up her case and what follows is a courtroom drama that itself raises several issues about the ways in which judicial process is manipulated by counsels in India.

The Perennial Dilemma

If one was to provide the essence of Mahabharata, the great Indian epic written several thousand years ago, in a single sentence, it would be the struggle between duties towards truth, right and morality or dharma on one hand and duties towards one’s personal loyalties and relationships on the other. This is exactly the dilemma that Arjun faced when he refused to take up arms to kill those whom he respected and loved, like Bhishma and Dronacharya. This is also the same dilemma that Karna faced when asked by Duryodhana to fight against Pandavas, and it was also the same dilemma that Krishna solved in dealing with Bhishma with Shikhandi, with Dronacharya with a false rumour reinforced through Yudhistira and with Karna through a cowardly act against the prevailing moral code of the times. In fact, even Bhishma, Dronacharya and several others fighting on both sides faced the same dilemma, and each one resolved it in his own way.

Rishi Kapoor & Meenakshi Sheshadri: Story of a Couple torn between Moral Duties & Family Loyalties

This very dilemma forms the core of DAMINI too, wherein a housewife with a strong conscience is torn between her duties towards the young and innocent housemaid who showered her with love and affection, and becomes the victim of a brutal crime within the household she treated as her home and her husband and their family members who all huddle together to save one of them from the repercussions of criminal prosecution. Whatever may be the theory, Indian morality of the last century and even this one puts an onerous duty towards one’s family. While Indians may not provide the greatest examples of moral duties towards the society or law, the family still occupies the centre stage in Indian moral compass, and one can say with conviction, that most Indians may prefer to side with their families rather than sacrifice their family for a theoretical code of moral duties.

And yet, Damini, who does the exactly opposite in this movie, emerges as the undisputed hero. One wonders as to how many in the audience would have really been sure that what she was doing was the right course of action. It is that perennial question to which there are still no simple answers, nor may ever be. Perhaps, what makes Damini’s act heroic is not that she was doing what was correct, but the fact that she had the courage and perseverance to be guided by her convictions. The ability to follow one’s convictions, irrespective of the consequences is what makes a person great in these times, when the conduct of most people is directed by narrow and materialistic interests.

Epilogue

There are many more questions that this movie should raise, though it didn’t because it involves issues of morality that are almost invariably, across the world, taken as given. This leads to a complete absence of a discussion on what is morality and why something is considered morally right or wrong. As a result, we are often faced with a given moral value that no one is willing to discuss, and which at the same time, few can afford to practice!

GRIHA PRAVESH (1979): A Movie that Highlighted Marital Decay in Urban India

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:17:00 +0000

A Critical movie Directed by Basu Bhattacharya on Marital Decay as a Reason for Breaking Families

Griha Pravesh is a 1979 Hindi movie directed by Basu Bhattacharya, highlighting the plight of contemporary urban nuclear families, which often begin to struggle once the monotony of husband wife relationship and its consequent indifferences take hold. Devoid of the strength of bonds that could hold a couple together in a joint family in a conservative rural society, urban nuclear families face a decay that they must overcome with proactive efforts, and when such efforts are not there, even the great Indian family may fell apart.

The movie, which was third in a series of movies made by the Basu Bhattacharya and his team, was in many ways ahead of its time. The message in it was somewhat similar to the first two, ANUBHAV (1971) and AVISHKAR (1973), and so was the cast, with Sanjeev Kumar pairing Tanuja in the first of them and Sharmila Tagore joining Rajesh Khanna in the second. GIRHA PRAVESH saw a return of Sanjeev Kumar, with Sharmila Tagore in one of her last appearances as the leading lady in a Bollywood movie. The development of this movie by Basu Bhattacharya and Gulzar tells us something that Indian society was not ready to listen back in 1979. Ironically, its message is even more relevant today!

GRIHA PRAVESH (1979) was directed by Basu Bhattacharya, but also involved Gulzar is also seen in this scene from the movie, where he is his original self trying to explain a song, and by it the theme of this movie.

Families are the glue that hold our society together. It is true that it is our modern social institutions of market and state that have helped create the luxuries which we enjoy today in daily life. One of them maximizes our economic welfare, while the other sustains our individual political rights and empowerment. However, neither of them facilitates the core social bonds on which our civilizations were sustained and survived for several thousand years. On the contrary, by substituting the needs of a family with individual empowerment and market driven gratifications, modern urban life can significantly weaken the strength and significance of family bonds.

Back in seventies, the marital decay was still beginning to unfold, which makes this movie and the sophistication and nuances with which it approaches the subject nothing less than fascinating. Unfortunately, its subject was one which was considered taboo in those times, and so none of these movies, though appreciated by critics for their artistic valuation, could achieve the traction that was required to generate an open and broad discussion within its audience.

The Plot

The movie begins with two couples, Amar (Sanjeev Kumar) and Mansi (Sharmila Tagore), and Shashi (Dinesh Thakur) and Geeta (Priya Darshini) who are neighbors. While Shashi and his wife are planning to go to Kashmir for their honeymoon, Amar does not think they need it, as unlike Shashi and Geeta, theirs is not a love marriage. Instead they plan to save money to buy a flat first. Time goes by and they become parents of a son, Babla (Master Bittoo) who is now eight years old. They have saved some money, but it is still a bit short for what they need to buy a flat in Mumbai. Amar works as an Accounting Officer, while Mansi is a typical urban house wife. Their life is stable and uneventful, and they are blissfully unaware of the storm that is about to enter their lives.

A young and beautiful typist, Sapna (Sarika) is recruited in Amar’s office. She is a good worker, but her charming beauty, confident approach and modern attire becomes a distraction for her co-workers with negative consequences on their performance, which makes the Boss shift her to Amar’s cabin. Sapna, who is used to garner attention, is offended by Amar’s indifference to him and takes it as a challenge to dismantle it, but also begins to like him for his non flirtatious attitude and sincere, reliable personality.

Amar is initially irritated by her advances, and scolds her reminding of their age differences, but Sapna maturely and confidently perseveres. Gradually they become friendly, and Amar is also attracted towards her. Before he realizes, they are dating and having an affair. While he is not so sure, Sapna is sure of what she wants. She asks him to leave Mansi, and though he is torn between her family and her new love, he makes up his mind, and tells Mansi about it. Mansi is shattered, but then accepts the reality. However, she wants to meet Sapna, and invites her. In their brief meeting, a lot is silently communicated between the three of them, and that is what makes the movie a work of a great Director.

Like all great directors, Basu Bhattacharya also knew how impotent words can be in communication between individuals who understand each other emotionally. The climax of the movie does not use any words, and yet so much is said and understood in those few minutes, that it must be shown to every directorial aspirant in Bollywood. All three leading actors have done justice to themselves, as is the case with music composed by Kanu Roy, one of the most underrated composers of Bollywood.

Marital Decay: A Topic Pushed Under the Carpet

The trilogy of Anubhav, Avishkar and Girha Pravesh explores the marital world of urban couples, whose marriage has begun to stagnate, and who are gradually becoming so indifferent to their relationship, that it almost begins to disappear. What Basu Bhattacharya has not done is to compare it with a joint family, or a larger family, where the presence of more members create a network of bonds that is able to support and give strength to the husband wife relationship. Another reason, why joint families strengthen the bond of a married couple, is by creating a competition and struggle between different units of the larger family, which in turn unites the couple and reinforces their relationship. Perhaps, the joint family also helps the marital bond by ensuring on one hand that neither party gets the independence to enter into an adventure with a third party, and on the other hand, also strains the quality time the couple can get for themselves, thereby creating a scarcity that helps in maintaining the premium on their relationship.

In urban Indian settings, fortunately and unfortunately, there are few joint families, and the average family size has been consistently going down, in the process approaching single member families. These changes are not peculiar to India and are seen world over, but then they are of added significance to the Indian setting because in India, the family still continues to be more important than the individual, although with changing times, brutal individualism is about to take over, as it has almost everywhere else in the world.

This is what makes marital decay of ageing couples in the urban nuclear families a serious matter. Of course, most of the couples are able to walk together the rest of their life in the absence of viable alternatives. Mostly, it is dedication to their kids that continues to preserve most marriages. Yet, marital decay is a rising problem that every couple faces, yet which does not recognized as an issue. In the seventies, Indians were not ready to talk about it, and though they recognized and identified with the problem, the discomfort of their conservatism pushed it under the carpet. However, four decades later, with the society having shed most of those inhibitions, there is a need to talk about it and help people find their own best solutions to deal with it.

Epilogue

There is a view that more things change, the more they remain the same. The same can be said about development and modernization. We replace one aspect of our life with another and it looks great to begin with, till we begin to realize what we have lost. The traditional marital bond is one such priceless asset that we have in the Indian society. We must learn how to maintain it and prevent it from decaying with time. Over the ages, Indians have been the most successful people in the world in doing that. Today, we may not be in a position to do what our ancestors did, but surely, there would be other ways to preserving the bond that keeps a married couple together for life.

ANOKHA PYAAR (1948): Why were there No Villains in Indian Society?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 20 Oct 2018 16:05:00 +0000

Add caption

A typical plot of a popular movie, irrespective of the language in which it is made, has a hero and a villain. This is perhaps the greatest difference between a popular movie plot and real life. In the world that we live, everyone has his own mills to grind, and with the exception of criminal elements, the exploitation of one by another is incidental to the imperfections of society. What we term destiny, is generally a set of circumstances beyond the control of anyone in particular, and can either be pleasant or unfortunate.
In a way, the movies of the time reflect this maturity of the society. In the 1940s, when India earned its independence on one hand and suffered the unexpected trauma and suffering of partition on the other, the movies were still brimming with positive overtones of a generation that was hopeful, confident, hard working and even innovative, but had not yet lost the compassion and selflessness of a civilization that was called India. ANOKHA PYAAR (1948), a simple movie based on a triangular love story, has all these elements.

Nargis & Nalini Jaywant in the 1948 Hindi Movie, ANOKHA PYAR, a tale of traingular love, also starring Dilip Kumar

ANOKHA PYAAR is a 1948 Hindi movie starring Dilip Kumar, Nargis and Nalini Jaywant. It is essentially a simple story of triangular love with an interesting dynamic of class division thrown in between. Like most movies of the period between 1947 and 1950, while the country was in the process of establishing itself as a new independent nation and the society was adopting to this new notion of freedom from colonial exploitation, the Hindi movie industry, which was still not called Bollywood, was also taking major strides. The social milieu that provides the background is also simple, and yet, it provides several insights about the people of those times, what they aspired for and how they dealt with the day to day challenges.

The Plot

The movie begins with Bindiya (Nalini Jaywant), a poor young girl who makes a living by selling flowers, trying to sell some to Ashok (Dilip Kumar), a young writer, who is sitting in the same garden from where she collects flowers. He snubs her initially, but later relents and they become friendly. A local goon (Habib), who tries to forcibly take away Bindiya’s earning, is confronted by Ashok when she calls for his help. In the confrontation between the two, Ashok is badly hurt and loses his vision. Bindiya takes him to a Doctor, who treats him, and since he has no place to live nor anyone to take care of him, he keeps him in his own house, where her daughter, Geeta (Nargis) nurses him, and love blossoms between the two. The Doctor, who is dedicated to his profession, is himself a heart patient.

Ashok recovers his visions and leaves with gratitude, only to find Bindiya, who has also developed strong feelings towards him, desperately waiting to meet her. Ashok is not interested in Bindiya, whose all efforts to seek his attention end in vain. He writes a novel about his encounter with Geeta, which becomes a big hit. In the meantime, Doctor suffers a heart attack and dies. Before his death, he calls two of Geeta’s aunts, and hands them the responsibility of looking after Geeta and getting her married. They have their own families to look for, but try their best to find a groom for Geeta.

Geeta sells the house and shifts to a smaller place, and her aunts fix her marriage with Ramdas, who is a family friend of Doctor and Geeta and also Ashok’s Publisher (Sankatha). Ashok, who is now well off, comes to meet Geeta but finds that no one is there. He hires the house, where he is lost in love for Geeta, saddened and heart broke. Bindiya tries to take care of him, but he ignores her, leaving her heart broken and despondent. She takes to bed. A chance meeting at a party given by Ashok’s Publisher brings Ashok and Geeta together.

There is initially some misunderstanding between them, which they get over with. It is then, that Geeta comes across Bindiya and realizes how badly she is in love with Ashok. She tries to make way for her by going away from Ashok, but that makes Ashok extremely desperate.

The climax is a struggle between triangular love, compassion, selflessness and sacrifice.

A Tragedy without Villains

The core of movie is a tale of triangular love affair, which is not very different from the innumerable repetitions of this story that Bollywood audiences have witnessed since this movie was made seventy years ago. One of the striking features of this movie, is that apart from that goon who hits Ashok in the beginning of the movie, there is virtually no negative character in it. This absence of a villain in a tragic movie is a conspicuous rarity, and one of the primary reasons that make its worth our attention. However, if we look at the manner in which most tragedies take place in real life, it seems surprising why we have not seen this phenomenon more often in our movies, and why it is so rare in tragic movies, not only in India but perhaps around the world. In real life, most tragedies are not caused by villains. Chain of events or unfortunate happening are generally enough to cause tragedies in real life. It seems that the traditional Indian society accepted this reality better than the individualistic urbanites of this century.

The movie flows with characters that are simple, and in the twenty first century, may not even seem fully credible. However, for the time to which they belong, they are as normal and usual as people really used to be. The Indian society of the forties was far from a perfect one. Yet, its social fabric had a strength that the twenty first century India may not be able to even perceive. The Doctor, who is ready to risk his own life for his work, the old ladies who are trying their best to find a groom for Geeta, and the young write who is ready to defend a poor girl in trouble, are just examples that did exist in those times. Equally interesting is how the hero gets beaten up by the bad man, and yet remains a hero, a phenomenon you will never see in a Bollywood movie today. In 1948, heroism did not require being a physical superman. On the contrary, being honest, passionate, compassionate and loyal was good enough for being a hero in the society!

Another interesting aspect of this movie is the class differentiation. There is an obvious difference in Ashok’s attitude between the two girls who fall for him. He is almost dismissive of Bindiya, the beautiful but poor flower girl, right from the word go and never takes her seriously or even realizes that she is in love with him. On the other hand, he is overawed by Geeta, who belongs to a social class that he aspires to become a part of. In 1948, this was an acceptable reality, and one that has been gradually dismantled over the years. This is not the only movie of that time that shows this phenomenon, other examples are DEEDAR (1951), AANDHIYAN (1952) and AMAR (1954). Class differentiation was one of the weaknesses of the contemporary Indian society of 1940s.

Add caption

Epilogue

The movie has three young stars of the time. Nargis and Nalini Jaywant were two of the most beautiful and accomplished actresses of that time, and their acting and performance can any day fit in any movie of any time. Dilip Kumar is excellent, both as a bubbly writer flirting with his two leading ladies and as a heart broken lover. This movie may have been one of the reasons why Bimal Rai opted for him a few years later in DEVDAS (1955), in another tragic triangular love epic, which earned him the title of the tragedy king. In between, of course, there was another movie, DEEDAR (1953), which was also a triangular love story starring Dilip Kumar with Nargis and Nimmi.

KANOON (1960): Movie that Exposed Vulnerabilities of Judicial Process

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:48:00 +0000

Ashok Kumar-Rajendra Kumar starrer shows what can go wrong in the Court

Conceptually, modern judicial process in criminal matters is supposed to be an objective, impersonal evaluation of an accusation of crime based on evidence brought to the notice of the Court. This excessive reliance on evidence, and in particular the testimony of a witness can often be a source of errors that can destroy a life, even a family. The 1960 movie KANOON (meaning law) highlights this weakness. Unfortunately, what was true in 1960 continues to be true even today, with few lessons learnt, and even fewer implemented.

A Courtroom scene in 'KANOON' (1960) : The Judge in a Murder trail gets accused of Murder during the trial by the ex-Public Prosecutor, who resigns to defend the accused

The Context

Movies, like literature present fictional stories against backgrounds that are often as real as any documentary can be. Thus, a story of a innocent villager can document the ills of the society and the story of a school teacher can highlight the problems with the education system. However, KANOON, a 1960 movie starring Ashok Kumar, Rajendra Kumar and Nanda is centered on the subject of law and judicial process. Kanoon means law. Unlike other movies, where social realities get document rather unintentionally, this is a movie that begins with a scene focused on aberrations of law, and ends with a monologue by a judge accused and discharged of murder, highlighting its limitations. In between, of course, there is a suspense thriller that nicely evolves and keeps you interested until the climax.

The Plot

The movie is centered on judge Badriprasad (Ashok Kumar) and his would be son-in-law, Kailash Khanna (Rajendra Kumar) who is also the public prosecutor, and is set to marry his daughter, Meena (Nanda). The story becomes with a dramatic murder of a person named Ganpat by Kalidas (Jeevan), who has just been released from prison. In the court, Kalidas confesses to having willfully murdered Ganpat, but claims that he cannot be punished for this crime, because this is the same man for the murder for which he has already been convicted with a life sentence, and spent a decade in prison. In an emotional outburst, he questions as to whether a man can be killed twice, and if also asks the court to give him back the time that he spent in the prison, and compensate his wife whose life was also destroyed in the process. Kalidas collapses as dies in the Court itself saving the court from the ignominy of dealing with its errors.

The following scene sees three judges discussing the case of Kalidas and the propriety of death sentence in the light of limitations of human testimony and human errors. Justice Badrinath, who is against death penalty points out that human actions are bound by several constraints including family and other situations, due to which well meaning individuals may also not come forward to testify the truth that can put someone close to them in a difficult situation. During the discussion, another judge, Mr. Jha challenges Judge Badrinath to commit a murder and get away. Justice Badrinath accepts the challenge. This first two scenes sets the tone of the movie.

Badriprasad’s son, Vijay has taken a loan from Dhaniram (Om Prakash) by giving a blank paper with signature as security. As Vijay is unable to return the money, he threatens to claim his property by using that paper. Vijay fears reprisal from his father and approaches his sister, Meena for help. Kailash offers to help her and talk to Dhaniram. He goes to Dhaniram’s place in the night and talks him into returning the paper. Just as he is handed the signed paper by Dhaniram, they see a man looking like Judge Badrinath approaching the place. Since Kailash did not want to be seen there, he goes in another room. The man stabs and kills Dhaniram. Kailash is shocked to see Dhaniram dead in a pool of blood and goes away. A little later, a thief, Kaalia (Nana Palsikar) enters the flat through the window, and stumbles upon the dead body of Dhaniram and also holds the knife leaving his finger prints. While hurriedly escaping, he is caught by patrolling police, and brought to Badrinath’s court as accused on Dhaniram’s murder. Kailash, unable to suppress his conscience, resigns as Public Prosecutor and takes up his case, and later, accuses the judge Badrinath of having committed the murder. On the basis of his testimony, Badrinath is tried in the same court and is about to be sentenced by the jury, when the truth is revealed in the climax. Shashikala is also there in the movie, with a brief but important role.

A Fictional Representation of Real Problems in Criminal Justice

The movie is a nice blend of a fictional story and the real life problems facing the administration of criminal justice. The issue explicitly raised in the second scene is about the appropriateness or otherwise of the death penalty. The arguments on both sides are depicted with last word that comes in the closing scene going against it. However, there are several other, and perhaps, more important issues that clearly arise but are not dwelt explicitly, perhaps in order to avoid annoying the legal fraternity and potential court cases.

The first of such matters is the issue of accountability towards a person that is unreasonably victimized by the error of the court. This is well exemplified by Kalidas and his emotional pleading about the injustice done to him. Even today, there are thousands of undertrials, imprisoned in jails for years. Many of them would finally get acquitted, but would have already suffered a lot. This leads to the underlying problem of delays in disposal and what can be done about it. Another problem highlighted in the movie is that of testimonies, and their reliability. At one stage, the accused, Kaalia who has not committed the crime, confesses to it, so that his only son will be taken care of by Meena, who wants the end the ordeal in her family and her life. It raises an important question of artificially prepares and rehearsed testimonies, and their role in misleading the court. Perhaps, there is a need to extract testimonies of all the key witnesses immediately after the crime and before they can be manipulated by lawyers, to ensure that truth is brought clearly before the Court, and witnesses changing versions or turning hostile must be dealt strictly, to deter against artificial manipulation of truth.

Epilogue

KANOON is one of the better movies made on the subject of law and legal process. It succeeds in highlighting several issues related to the delivery of criminal justice in India, and blends them nicely with an interesting theatrical tale. Entertainment apart, it is one of those movies that can trigger audience into a discussion about how we can improve things. Law is practiced by the legal fraternity, but it is ordinary people who are served by it, and who suffer from its shortcomings. Unfortunately, Indian audiences do not seem to have realized their role in it.

Boond Jo Ban Gayi Moti (1967): Struggle between Aspirational Idealism & Hard Realities of Life

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 23:41:00 +0000

V. Shantaram began directing movies in the silent era, with NETAJI PALKAR (1927) being his first release. The last movie that he directed was JHANJHAAR (1987). In this six decade career, he gave great classics like DUNIYA NA MAANE (1936), Dr. KOTNIS KI AMAR KAHANI (1946), DO AANKHE BARAH HAATH (1957) and GEET GAYA PATTHARON NE (1964), all representing idealism, hope and social messages.

With BOOND JO BAN GAYI MOTI (1967), he balances ideological aspirations with worldly realities. Seen through the Bollywood Prism, it shows how, two decades after independence, India was just beginning to lose hope, a feeling that was to dominate India in the coming decade.

It was V. Shantaram, who gave Jitendra his first break in his classic GEET GAYA PATTHARON NE in 1964. BOOND JO BAN GAYI MOTI, which came three years later saw Jitendra continuing in the Shantaram mould, with a more mature and a more impressive role than his first outing. The movie has the stamp of V Shantaram all right, but there were many remarkable aspects about it. For instance, the movie has a typical Bollywood item song of the sixties, which showed that even the great masters were struggling to survive with the changing taste of India by that time. Another such aspect was Mumtaz in a new avatar that became her style in the subsequent years, especially during her very successful pairing with Rajesh Khanna.

However, it is the somewhat tragic fate of ideological aspirations depicted in the movie, which makes it a characteristic turning point of Bollywood Chronicle.

Plot

The movie revolves around an idealist village school teacher, Satyaprakash (Jitendra) who is extremely attached to his younger brother, Mahesh (Akashdeep) whom he has raised after the death of their parents since he was a small child, and whom he treats more like a son. Unfortunately, Mahesh is not disciplined and wayward. He gets him admitted in the City College and changes his own job to work in the High School so that he is able to finance his studies. In his new school, he wants to experiment with new teaching techniques, but the Headmaster, who wants to get a relative appointed in his place, starts scheming for his ouster.

Shefali (Mumtaz) runs a shop in the village and begins to like Satyaprakash. She often finds an old woman staring at her, and scolds her, only to find one day that she was Dhanno (Lalita Pawar), her mother who abandoned her when she was very young, to run away with a Christian man. Satyaprakash is given a charge sheet, but the Board of School decides to give him a chance and see the results at the end of the year, which turn out to be excellent. As a result, they decide to elevate him as Headmaster, but Satyaprakash refuses and pleads with them to continue with the Headmaster, which brings an end to their animosity. A lawyer (Surendra) whose house is next to where Satyaprakash lives is his very good friend, and his teenage daughter Renuka (Vaishali) frequently comes to his house. In the meanwhile Mahesh loses his way in the city, and is lost in fiends and enjoyment, even though Satyaprakash keeps sending him all the money that he asks for. Shefali’s dying mother wants his daughter to forgive her, but Shefali refuses. Once she is dead, Shefali is filled with remorse, and is consoled by Satyaprakash.

Once when Mahesh comes to visit his brother, he sees Renuka and they become intimate. Renuka becomes pregnant, while Mahesh, who has returned to city, is not planning to come back soon, even after the exams are over. Satyaprakash goes to attend his Convocation, but finds that Mahesh had not written the exam. He is angry, but on being told by Mahesh that he was thinking of suicide, relaxes and asks him to prepare for the next year.

When he returns to the village, he finds that Renuka is missing. Later her dead body is recovered from the lake, and police recovers her missing ear ring from Satyaprakash’s residence, who is subsequently charged with murder. In the Court, Shefali claims that the ear ring found belonged to her and that she was in love with Satyaprakash. Though Satyaprakash is released, people still taunt and accuse him and he is dismissed from the school. When Mahesh returns again, Satyaprakash finds in his belongings, a letter written by Renuka to him, threatening that she will disclose everything if he did not come immediately. Mahesh confesses to killing Renuka, tears the letter, which is the only evidence against him and pleads with his brother to let things go. However, Satyaprakash insists that he confesses his crime, and finally Mahesh does so.

Idealism & Realities of the World

All V. Shantaram are characterized by some social ill or the other. However, unlike most of his earlier movies, in this one, there are several sub-plots going together. Shefali’s mother depicts a tale of a woman who abandoned her young daughter and is now desperate for her forgiveness. However, her conduct becomes a stigma not only for Shefali, but also for the family which gave her shelter, when their son’s engagement is broken. Shefali hates her mother, but forgives her after her death.

Then there is the school, where Satyaprakash’s attempts to make learning meaningful are resisted, while the Headmaster is baying for his blood. The discussion on the system of education and its shortcomings still remain as relevant for the Indian education system, even after sixty years. If only Indian policymakers and the education bureaucrats could see what V. Shantaram was able to see more than half a century back, many of our national challenges today may have already been addressed!

The main story revolves around the aspiration of the main protagonist to bring the best out of his younger brother. All his efforts get in return, is a teenage crime of lust, for which he nearly had to pay with his own life. At the end, Mahesh confesses, emphasizing that in the end, he did follow his advice. It is a sad end to a story of idealistic aspirations. For the first time perhaps, a V. Shantaram movie seems to be clueless about what went wrong. Was it the new generation after independence. Was it the teen age vulnerabilities, or was there something wrong with the approach of Satyaprakash. What does come out clearly is the huge gulf between the idealistic aspirational world of Satyapraksh and the real world around him with selfish, ruthless, scheming people, unforgiving and practical to the core, who do not give a damn about his values.

Like all great movies, this movie is also centered on human nature and relationships. The role of Surendra, Renuka’s father as an everlasting friend, is refreshingly realistic. The attempt to add glamour artificially as a box office spice is also evident. The love story of the school teacher with the village shopkeeper and her cabaret item number mark the beginning of a new era in Bollywood. But then, there are at least two songs that are typical V. Shantaram that one can identify with him straight away.

Epilogue

Boond Jo Ban Gayi Moti is certainly not the best movie made by V. Shantaram, but it is still good enough, even by his high standards. Certain parts of the movie just stand out as a reflection of his genius. The title song is typical V. Shantaram, but the best part is reserved for the end. The last few minutes have many messages of love, of life and of idealism. It also contains a glimpse of Uttrakhand folk music which was later adopted by Raj Kapoor in RAM TERI GANGA MAILI (1985) and became a rage overnight.

What one takes away though are the challenges of education, and the everlasting battle between aspirational idealism and reality.

Ganga Ki Saugandh (1978): A Microcosm Representing Indian Society in a Nutshell

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:56:00 +0000

Bollywood movies are not true stories, but they are not false either, for fiction or human imagination always takes its roots from what exists and is often observed, unless of course it is in the realm of incredible fairy tales or science fiction. The microsm of Ganga Ki Saugandh, a 1978 Amitabh Rekha starrer, based on the story of how an innocent villager turns into a dreaded dacoit to seek his revenge is a good example of how fiction derives itself from existing truths.

Let us review this movie from the Bollywood Prism.

1978 was the year when the craze of Amitabh Bachchan reached its peak among his fans with Muqaddar Ka Sikandar and Don, the two biggest hits of this year. Compared to them, Ganga Ki Saugandh, was a smaller hit that got overshadowed and has been relegated to the pages of Bollywood history. One of the reasons why it garnered a lot of news back then was Amitabh’s pairing with Rekha, and an incident in Jaipur during the shooting of this movie, wherein Amitabh lost his cool rather uncharacteristically and beat a person in the crowd at the shooting site, who was continuing with his lewd remarks at Rekha in spite of repeated warnings. It was one of those rare occasions when the Angry Young Man on Screen openly lost his temper in real life, an incident that also been reported in Yasser Usman's Rekha - The Untold Story.

Plot

The movie begins with the rape of a girl (Farida Jalal) by the dictatorial landlord, Thakur Jaswant Singh (Amjad Khan). As the body of the girl, a daughter of one of Thakur’s employees (Nana Palsikar), is thrown into Ganga by Thakur's men, the story connects with the holy Indian river. The plot largely revolves around Jeeva (Amitabh Bachchan), a simple village dweller, who lives with his widowed mother, Ramvati (Achla Sachdev), and is fond of Dhaniya (Rekha), the daughter of Kalu Chamar (Pran), depicted as one of the wiser men of the village. Then there are those working with Thakur, Lala (Jeevan) who is a money lender and Pandit Kashinath (Satyendra Kapoor) who is the temple priest. In addition, there is Jayshree (Bindu), Jaswant’s sister who likes Jeeva, Rehmat Khan (Anwar Hussain) who is a trader sympathetic with Kalu, and Raani Ma (Sulochana Latkar) who is the mother of Jaswant and tries her best to stop him. The courtesan (Anju Mahendru) and Mathuradas (Jagdeep) complete the microcosm of the movie.

Jeeva comes in conflict with Thakur Jaswant, when he beats his mother Ramvati, who has gone to work in his house to earn some money to pay the interest of a loan she has taken from Lala, while keeping her Mangal Sutra as security. Thakur tries to molest Dhaniya, which aggrevates his conflict with Jeeva, who is then targeted by Pandit Kashinath on false charges of having killed his cow and exiled out of village. Thakur is in habit of wasting money on sensual pleasures, and tries to recover it by levying additional lagan (tax) against which villagers revolt, and are made to leave the village under the leadership of Kalu. They settle in a new land and develop is as their abode.

On the other hand, the exiled and badly hurt Jeeva is carried by his mother till they reach a small temple of Ganga, where fearing for Jeeva’s life, she prays that her life may be exchanged for his. Ramvati dies while Jeeva survives and turns to dacoity after taking a vow in Ganga of taking his mother’s revenge. Shortly he accumulates a force enough to challenge Thakur. When he attempts to help out Kalu and the villagers, they refuse to take the help from him, since he is now a criminal. In fact their dialogue, with a Statue of Mahatma Gandhi in the background shows how perennial this conflict between means and ends has been. It reminds one of the Krishna's tactics in Mahabharat and how this ironic dilemma still seems unresolved. The climax sees Jeeva getting his revenge.

Contemporary India

The fictitious character of Jeeva strikes chord with audiences because he lives in a milieu that is rather familiar to Indians. Traditionally, Indian villages were self governed and though they did pay their taxes to the King, for most purposes they were free to live in the way they liked. The strong social traditions that were followed by everyone in Indian society, with families treated by society as a unit, was how India largely governed itself in ancient times. After the advent of foreign rulers who captured power during the last millennium, these new rulers appointed their loyal cronies as landlords to collect taxes and be their administrators.

This institution of Zamindar became a really callous one with the advent of the East India Company, which planted them everywhere and treated them as the real owners of the land, with the objective of maximizing company's tax collections. A simultaneous institution of money-lender also gained roots, which has hitherto not existed since charging interest on money was considered a sin in ancient India. (In fact, William Durant, in the first volum of his 11 volume History of Civilization, has opined that Indian's abhorrence to charge of interest may have prevented capital accumulation and industrialization in India.) The new village moneylender further thrived on the miseries of the exploited villagers, who were losing their livelihood under the unfair regulations and restrictions of Company that reversed India’s massive trade surplus with Europe into a massive trade deficit and virtually destroyed the Indian economy.

The story of Jeeva, in 1978, is actually a legacy of what Indian villages had been facing for more than a hundred years by then. Most unfortunately, this exploitation only slowed down but did not cease even after 1947. As the population zoomed, and the economy stagnated, this exploitation became unbearable and there were several cases where those exploited took to arms and rebelled. Unfortunately, law only looks at the crime, and the mitigating circumstances that precipitate it are hardly given the weight that they deserve, as also happened with Jeeva, who inspite of being an innocent victim, ended up as a criminal in the eyes of law.

Some of the images of Thakur, Pandit and Lala have almost acquired stereotypic proportions. However, Raani Ma and her husband (Thakur Jaswant's father), are shown as different and sympathetic to villagers, thereby suggesting how the powerful in Indian villages used to be more compassionate earlier, but gradually lost compassion, turning extremely selfish and indulging in exploitation that brought them in conflict with the masses. On one hand, caste differences are clearly brought out by dialogues between Pandit and Kalu. At the same time, the acceptance of Kalu’s leadership by villagers shows the changing face of Indian society.

Epilogue

Ganga Ki Saugandh is not considered a great classic. Yet, the story of Jeeva has its reverberance across the Indian lives of the times. During the last forty years, many things have changed, including the mode of exploitation and the power balance. Things have also become far more complex. A lot of action has now shifted to the urban areas, where the new India and the young India largely lives, or aspires to live and prosper!