|
Unfortunately, a disinformation about one’s closeness to Dev
Anand gained ground after a somewhat casual interview one
conducted with him on Doordarshan recently. The interview was
his first ever for the national broadcaster. There is no denying
one’s hand in persuading the actor-producer-director to give
an exclusive. And he decided to oblige. The main reason for this
was not really friendship but the impending release of his new
film, Love at Times Square. And a relationship
that had remained under wraps for long went into a spin. All
those little bits and fragmented pieces that existed in the
minds of a few enlightened souls in the nation’s capital
spread like the proverbial jungle fire. There is no denying one’s
association with Dev Anand and many other illustrious Hindi film
stars, including some glamourous actresses. But should one carry
these beautiful moments on one’s collars, and make capital out
of it? It is not a very uncommon practice.
But if familiarity
has its pitfalls, the absence of it could be dangerous. There,
however, seems no stopping any scribe trying to put pieces
together and churning out a biography. Alpana Chowdhury, as some
others in the past, has tried to fit together fragmented pieces
of Meena Kumari’s life. Now nothing tangible is really
available, even in the form of personal memorabilia, about the
actresses’ life. What exists is stray magazine clippings about
her troubled childhood and torturous life as a grown-up. There
are few survivors who could provide some truth, some useful
information. But both Dharmendra and Gulzar have been
tight-lipped about their relationship with her. Any quality
material from them could provide some semblance of insight into
her final days. What is worst, these books aren’t even based
on any research. They are made to order books, contracted today
and delivered tomorrow.
There is no
denying that the world of Hindi cinema, and those who constitute
it, is an open capital market, in a variety of ways. And more
disinformation than information is public knowledge. There is a
need for books. The more the merrier, one would say. But there
is need for more responsible behaviour. The Indian book industry
is notorious for its clumsy approach. It hardly believes in
maintaining any editorial standards. This can also be said about
the Indian units of foreign, not necessarily multinational,
publishing houses with enviable reputations in home countries.
One has on hand the Standard Chartered Bank sponsored Encyclopaedia
of Hindi Cinema published jointly in India by Encyclopaedia
Britannica and Popular Prakashan with Gulzar, Govind Nihalani
(both abysmal choices) and Saibal Chatterjee constituting the
editorial board. It is already in news for all the wrong
reasons. Besides, both Gulzar and Govind may be fine craftsmen,
what are their credentials for such a project? Isn’t this an
area for other kind of specialists?
It is a
wonderfully produced, expensive coffee-table book. Most
contributors are specialists: film critics and film historians.
But the book reportedly abounds in bloomers. That is probably
because most writers resort to the same sources. So a blunder
committed in one historical account is bound to creep into
another, unwittingly. According to a newspaper report a film
buff (and one should lap up any information provided by this
obsolete, freak tribe almost blindly) from Chennai spotted 70
inaccuracies in just four of the 36 chapters. And if this report
is to be believed the maiden numbers sung by Lata Mangeshkar,
Mukesh and Asha Bhonsle, for instance, have been wrongly
attributed. Therein lies the malady. In one’s growing up years
one was forced to accept everything contained in Encyclopaedia
Britannica as the gospel truth. Friends like Khushwant Singh
continue to swear by it. But then, like in many other matters,
Britannia seems to be losing its grip over credibility.
|