Title: Water: A short
study of progressive behaviour
Author: Arvind Singh
Publication: The Organiser
Date: March 5. 2000
"We got full support
from the people of the town," says Shabana Azmi. "At most times there were
no more than a dozen people protesting against the film," she said to the
Hindu (Dated Feb.9). "And when they managed to mobile support, their numbers
never crossed 100," She asserted. But notice this, "65% of Varanasi hurt
by Water", broadcast an opinion poll conducted by MDRA a leading market
research organisation and published in "Outlook" dated Feb 21. To a question,
"Do you think that the story and script of the film hurt the sentiments
of the people of Varanasi?," 65% respondents say 'Yes' and 23% say 'No'.
"Who do you think is responsible for this?" was the next question put to
them, and 67% held Deepa Mehta responsible. The poll sample comprised 300
people in the age group of 15 to 30. More than half of the people of Varanasi
held Deepa Mehta responsible for this mess. There is a huge difference
between two versions of protest offered to us, one by Azmi and one by the
media, and remember both are not sympathetic to Hindu sentiments. It must
also be mentioned here that the Outlook poll was conducted among the age
group of 15 to 30, that is, young people who are much more influence by
westernisation and hence should have supported Mehta. This indicates that
the people of this country are very firmly routed in the Hindu culture,
in spite of the programme of pseudo-intellectual
But remember what Azmi
told to the Hindu- "At most there were no more than a dozen people protesting
against the film". All those who have watched TV reports diligently emanating
from Varanasi would certainly debunk Azmi's claim.
Time and again, it has
been proved that the statements by our freedom expressionists pertaining
to the freedom of expression controversy are marked by lies, and half-truths
and chiefly they are grim patients of selective memory. For proof, just
recall the statement of Shabana Azmi. If you are not convince take another
instance. "We heard that you were not allowed to shoot Earth 1997 in Lahore,
and that the Pakistan government refused permission to shoot," a question
was posed to Mehta in one T. V. programme telecast on Feb. 6 on Star Plus.
"No. Not at all," she screams, "In fact I and my photographer went to Lahore
and we discovered that most of the houses in the city were equipped with
dish-antennae, so it was not possible for us to create the scene of 1947.
Hence we decided not to shoot in Lahore." But the lie was nailed after
two days, when PTI circulated an interview of Nandita Das. The interview
mentioned, "Recalling that the Pakistani authorities did not allow Mehta
to shoot Earth 1947 in Lahore, Das, who played the lead role in the film,
said, 'We had to shoot the film in Delhi and we felt really proud of our
country and our culture of tolerance at the time.'
Now who is right, mehta
or Das? Read Mehta's above statement again. It is very astute and crafty
and carries a very subtle meaning. Whereas she was not allowed to shoot
Water in India, in case of Earth 1947, she was emphatic to assert that
she herself decided not to shoot in Pakistan, and the Pakistani authorities
were not in the picture. The Pakistani authorities are blameless. But India
is not equal to Pakistan, we did not allow her to shoot. The opinion that
Pakistan refused her permission is completely false, she maintains. She
lies to such an extent to defend Pakistan!
"Before venturing into
any film I do research," and she said she did a lot for Water. She said
in the same T. V. programme that she had studied widow problems in India
and especially in Kashi. After that the anchor confronted her with evidence
that in the 1930's there were three widhwa ashrams in Kashi and none of
them had been reported for carrying on prostitution. And he also asked
her to reveal what she has read on the issue she first evaded the question,
but finally quoted one book - Widows in India. Note the sudden decline
in degree of her "research" it ultimately boiled down from "a lot" to one
book. So much for authenticity and historical records.
Our freedom expressionists
have a typical habit of expressing themselves on the basis of events according
to the ethnic and political identity of the participants in any event.
The noted journalist T.J.S. George wrote an article on 1st January, in
the New Indian Express, Bangalore, quoting a book that was published in
the sixteenth century. Only one quotation from that article was perceived
derogatory to the Prophet Mohammed. Angry Muslims took to the street and
protested against the article. This is what the newspaper wrote on 3rd
January about the agitation, "While the group was withdrawing peacefully,
some unruly elements in the mob set fire to a lorry carrying newsprint.
The van was gutted in the fire and the mob pelted stones at the office
and other buildings. They also pulled down the Express sign board.
"In the melee, several
vehicles parked in front of the Parsi temple on the Cunninhgam road were
damaged. The violence left 28 policemen injured.. The PTI building and
other adjacent buildings were also damaged."
No editorialist ventured
to denounce the rioters, no investigative feature was written to denounce
the Muslims, no full page special report was carried to analyse that quote,
no T.V. talk to poor T.J.S George, no exclusive interview of the victims,
no Girish Karnad came forward to criticise.
Recall the attack of
the Shiv Sena on the Marathi eveninger Mahanagar in Mumbai a few years
back. The whole "Editor's Guild" came down to Mumbai to protest. They organised
a whole day's dharna in front of the Shiv Sena headquarters. But this time
they did not plan to go to Bangalore to protest against the vandalism.
No Kuldip Nayar organised a silent protest march, no Khushwant Singh even
took notice of the event.
Shool, a movie based
on criminalisation of politics, was released all over India, but faced
protests in Bihar. The agitators pointed out that the movie showed Yadavs
in a bad light because the villain in the movie was one politician named
Bachchu Yadav. Did you hear our freedom expressionists raising their voice
to defend the freedom of expression? Read anything about this in our national
dailies?
When Mulayam Singh Yadav
was chief minister of U.P., his men did not allow the circulation of one
newspaper, vendors were attacked. But no condemnation of the act. Our freedom
expressionists know where to maintain reticence and where to shout. It
is their liberty to shout or keep mum. If you ask them to act according
to your will it is trampling on their freedom of expression. They decide
what issues and events should feature in our public discourse. We have
incessantly heard about controversy surrounding Fire, but not of Mee Nathuram
Godase Boltoy, they justify banning of the Satanic Verses, justify banning
of the Sufis of Bijapur, they disrepute the author of Worshipping False
Gods, but eulogise Why I Am Not A Hindu.
Returning to our Water
controversy the problem with our creative persons is that they don the
role of preacher and pass judgement without social accountability. Mehta
says that she wants to reform society. And to be specific she wants to
reform Hindu society. Finances are pouring in from Canada to India to make
movies with the sole motive of reforming Hindu society. The Muslim society
is an illustration of a perfect society. There is no problem of divorcees
and estranged wives in Muslim society. Similarly, in India we have not
an iota of deficiency in the Christian community. But problems are aplenty
in Hindu society. So make movies to eliminate these problems! But while
creating "art", don't care for records, don't bother for historical evidence,
and don't care for people's sentiments. After all, you are doing it for
their betterment, although these gullible people don't understand this.
Only you can understand it.
The behaviour of our
freedom expressionists during all these events is very dubious and more
such events will reveal more about their character. Indeed, the English
language has a beautiful word to describe their behaviour, and that is
hypocrisy.
