IT is such a topsy-turvy world that at times you don’t know whether you are standing on your feet or on your head. Nothing illustrates our loss of sanity and credibility to uphold the rule of law as much as the way two of our state governments and the media have handled the Veerappan affair. If times were normal, a man who had committed 136 murders would have had 136 death sentences passed on him and hanged at least once — that would have been enough to serve the purpose of justice. As for killing hundreds of elephants and hacking down thousands of sandalwood trees, he would have got many sentences of rigorous imprisonment for life. But as I said before, times are out of joint and we are citizens of a mahaan Bharatvarsha where we show more compassion to criminals than we do to law-abiding citizens. We keep feeding ourselves on the myth that we have a discerning electorate which, when it goes to the polls, gives top priority to national interests. That is utter nonsense. Time and again voters have returned thugs to

Vidhan Sabhas and the Lok Sabha and put caste loyalties above their loyalty to the country. We also have our Phoolan Devi, charged with the killing of 22 men at one go in Behmai village, granted pardon and now she is an ‘Honourable’ Member of Parliament. So it is on the cards that Thiruselvan Veerappan may emerge a hero of Tamil Nadu and be elected to the Lok Sabha, be made leader of the DMK or a minister in the central government. He might make a capable Home Minister, as he knows a lot more about crime than anyone else in the country. What a scenario!

The Central Government must not remain an idle spectator of the tension building up between the neighbouring states. As it is, the police has shown its impotence in failing to nab this notorious murderer, robber and thief. Instead of joining forces to catch him and putting him on trial, the two state governments are shamelessly negotiating terms on which he is to be granted amnesty. A strong Central Government would have directed the two CMs on how to tackle the situation before it got out of hand. We do not have that kind of government at the Centre anymore. Vajpayee, on whom I had pinned my hopes, looks tired and jaded — barely recognisable as the man who took over the reins of government more than a year ago. What has happened to his fiery oratory which kept his audiences spellbound for hours? On Independence Day instead of speaking extempore, he read out an uninspiring text of the achievements of his government and faltered more than once while doing so. Who else do we look up to to get us out of the quagmire in which we have been stuck for decades?

Amitabh Bachchan has been a crorepati many times over since the last 30 years. We have not seen a bigger money-spinner or a more versatile actor on our screen : good guy, bad guy, bhangra dancer, he can pull off every kind of role with aplomb. For the short time he was a Member of Parliament, he made a good parliamentarian. He did his homework, prepared his speeches and spoke with authority on his subject. He is a tall, handsome man with a rich voice. I can’t think of any other person who could have made a thundering success of as asinine a show as Kaun Banega Crorepati. Everyone wants to become one without having to sweat for it. He has put other top favourite programmes like Antakshari and Sa Re Ga Ma in second and third places by the simple formula of asking moronic questions.

Under the camouflage of being a test of general knowledge, it is essentially a gambling device with Amitabh playing the roles of a croupier at a casino and a Bingo-master at a session of Bingo.

My one grievance against Amitabh and most other leading actors in Indian films is that they remain unaware of the difference between acting on a stage and acting for the screen. Exaggeration, which is permissible on the stage, is not acceptable on the screen. You may act on the stage, but on the screen you must behave and speak as you do in real life. Amitabh has stayed a stage actor all his life as have his contemporaries like Dilip Kumar, Ashok Kumar, the Kapoor brothers, Dev Anand, Shatrughan Sinha and others. It is this stage-acting rather than acting natural that makes most Indian films unacceptable to cinematographically advanced countries and sophisticated Indians. There are, however, a few glorious exceptions who have stubbornly refused to be stereotyped by Indian directors and producers and have left their stamp on the Indian film scene. The name that first comes to my mind is of Saeed Jaffrey. He is a very versatile actor and an excellent mimic. Though he has often accepted roles in second-rate films to keep himself and his family in comfort, he has refused to be directed and acts in a manner he thinks is best suited to his part. The same can be said of Naseeruddin Shah.He is a no-nonsense actor who moulds himself to fit every role he plays: from Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib to a cranky Parsi. Shabana Azmi too lends a tone of authenticity to her acting, be it the role of a maid servant, a peasant’s wife, the girl next door or a blue-stocking lesbian. Then there is Amitabh’s wife Jaya Bachchan. She has neither done as many films as her husband nor does she have his flamboyant style, but in her gentle way is more convincing on the screen than him. Even if the four Ihave named as my favourites, have not made crores, they have chosen to remain true to themselves rather than take short cuts to stardom and riches.

Banta feared he suffered from an inferiority complex. He went to see a psychiatrist. After a few sittings, the psychiatrist announced: "Banta you are not suffering from any complex. You are inferior."

(Contributed by A.S. Deepak, Chandigarh)