|
|
|
|
|
Trivedi’s exit
A new hope for Congress |
|
|
Defence spending up
Fukushima and after
All the President's Men
Indian films are designed and produced to entertain the 1.3 billion people of India, they are ill-suited for the West. The issues that our cinema raises and provokes are usually not universal and therefore do not resonate well — internationally.
Oscar drama in a Bollywood setting
|
Trivedi’s exit
A
piquant situation has arisen with the Trinamool Congress forcing Union Railway Minister Dinesh Trivedi to resign even as the Lok Sabha prepares to debate the budget presented by him last week. Though Mr Trivedi was inducted into the Union Cabinet as a nominee of the Trinamool Congress, he was bound by the oath of secrecy not to disclose to any one, including Trinamool leader Mamata Banerjee, what the provisions of the budget were to be. There is indeed no reason to believe that Mr Trivedi violated that principle. Once it was presented, the Railway budget became a property of the Union Government. By forcing his resignation, Ms Mamata Banerjee is evidently seeking to ensure that the spirit of the budget reflects her own populist preferences. The real bone of contention is the increase in passenger fares, the first in a decade which, Mr Trivedi explained, was necessitated by the precarious position of Railway finances. It is pertinent to remember that when Ms Mamata Banerjee was Railway Minister prior to Mr Trivedi, the Railways saw the worst operating ratio of 98 per cent: only two rupees were left in every hundred earned after operating expenses and appropriations for pensions and asset wear and tear. It is for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to ponder if national interest is being duly served by jettisoning a minister whose departure he deeply regrets as he indicated in his reply to the President’s address. While the constituents of the UPA may have a say in the appointment of ministers from their respective parties, is it proper for the Prime Minister to be dictated to about who should be dropped from the Cabinet, especially when the minister’s removal is provoked by the presentation of a budget which is part of the Cabinet’s collective responsibility? In the past, Mr Dayanidhi Maran was dropped from the Cabinet on a dictat from the DMK and the Prime Minister had been forced to acquiesce in it. Does that augur well for the prestige and majesty of the Prime Minister’s office? It is vital that Mr Trivedi’s replacement must exercise judiciously his judgment of what is right for the Railways. The behemoth is in danger of slipping into a dangerous downward spiral, as Air India did, if timely steps are not taken to revive its finances. |
|
A new hope for Congress
Since infighting was a major reason for the Punjab Congress defeat in the elections, the party’s national leadership has chosen a non-controversial, low-profile and well-informed MLA to lead its team of legislators in the assembly. The party is divided in factions, the two major ones being led by Capt Amarinder Singh and Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, and each works largely for the benefit of its members and their friends and relatives. Wherever there are differences on key issues, decisions are left to the party leadership in Delhi. It is time the organisational structure was revamped and intra-party democracy encouraged. In his new role Abohar MLA Sunil Jakhar has a tough task ahead. He has to raise the morale of the party legislators and goad them to play the role of a united, responsible Opposition in the assembly. Unlike most top leaders in the Congress, the Shiromani Akali Dal and the BJP, Jakhar does not talk loose and focusses on issues. His performance in the assembly has been outstanding as he often did his home work and raised relevant issues without indulging in theatrics to draw media attention. As the leader of the party’s legislative wing, Bhattal was seen as being soft on the Akali leadership. In his previous term Capt Amarinder Singh remained largely inactive due to his ill-advised expulsion from the House. Punjab needs an alert, sober Opposition, which does not waste the Vidhan Sabha’s time on politicking but points out the government’s failings in a responsible manner. It might have been hard for the Akali Dal-BJP combine to win the elections, but running the government will be harder, given the freebies it has promised and a near empty treasury it had left before facing the electorate. The number of House sittings has declined over the years as MLAs busy themselves with other priorities. Given the ruling alliance’s extravagant ways and tendency to divert Central and state funds, the Congress has an onerous duty to act as a watchful guardian of the state’s resources and interests. |
|
|
Defence spending up
India’s defence budget for 2012-13 at Rs 1.93 lakh crore (about $40 billion), although high in monetary terms, is in keeping with plans to modernise the country’s armed forces. A major portion (Rs 1.08 lakh crore), however, is for revenue expenditure. The critical component of the defence budget is the capital budget which has been pegged at Rs 79,579 crore. About 70 per cent of this capital expenditure is projected to be spent on servicing existing contracts. Some of the big ticket items India is expected to sign contracts for in the near future are the purchase of 126 multi-role combat aircraft at $20 billion, 145 ultra-light Howitzers, 75 Pilatus PC-7 Basic Trainers at $600 million, C-17 Globemaster heavy lift transport aircraft and several warships and submarines. In all, India is projected to spend about $50 billion on defence procurement over the next decade in keeping with its major defence modernization programme. Even so, India’s defence expenditure is far behind that of China which for the first time has crossed the three digit mark at $ 106 billion. The hike of about $10 billion over the previous fiscal figure of $ 95.6 billion appears to be notional considering the size of the Chinese armed forces, which is the world’s largest, and the vast geographical spread of the country. But the true figure of China’s defence budget is possibly higher and is under-reported because of lack of transparency by that country’s communist regime. For India, which has a longstanding border dispute with China, however, the latter’s defence budget remains of considerable significance. India’s armed forces are mostly equipped with imported weapon systems, which does not present a comfortable picture. In contrast to China, which ranks among the top 10 exporters of defence equipment, India’s defence exports are insignificant. India needs to seriously focus on strengthening its military industrial complex and build competencies in core and critical areas which are either very expensive to buy or difficult to obtain from other countries. Defence involves big monies and it would be far better if India spent it on building and strengthening its indigenous capabilities. |
|
|
However beautiful the strategy, you should occassionally look at the results. — Winston Churchill |
Fukushima and after
Another anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan that involved a complex of six atomic reactors needs reflection and appropriate action. The reactors were seriously damaged by an earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter scale that was followed, almost immediately, by a tsunami with a wave height of 14 metres. At that time reactors 1, 2, and 3 were functioning, whereas reactors 4, 5 and 6 were under maintenance. In accordance with the standard operating procedures the working reactors began automatically switching off after the earthquake. But the tsunami that followed damaged their auxiliary power systems leading to power outages and the cooling systems’ malfunctioning. The water used for cooling these reactors evaporated, leading to their heating up and the fuel rods melting, rapid production of hydrogen and the outer containment dome cracking. An earthquake and tsunami occurring together was always a theoretical possibility, but had obviously not been anticipated. The immediate effects of the nuclear disaster quickly manifested themselves. Radiation clouds from the stricken reactors reached the west coast of the United States. Plutonium leached into the soil, which would affect future agriculture and the pasture around the reactors. Radioactive wastes were also discharged into the ocean, and its effects on marine life will manifest with the efflux of time. One year later, the malefic effects of this nuclear accident are still unfolding, and its long-term effects lie in the realm of speculation. Vast quantities of debris remain to be removed from the disaster area because communities fear radiation damage wherever they have been sought to be transferred. Most of the affected people have little chance of returning to their former homes. Agricultural production is suspected to have been contaminated by radiation. Consequently, the Japanese population has become disenchanted with their nuclear industry, which had been functioning in close alliance with the government, politicians and high bureaucrats. Many nuclear power plants are now idling or have closed down under public pressure. The incumbent Japanese Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, had quickly promised a detailed review of Japan's reliance on nuclear energy. Safety was to be given high priority. Natural energy resources and energy savings would be the new directions for pursuit by Japan's future energy policy. But Kan had earlier supported a national energy policy based on nuclear power, and only shifted from this belief after Fukushima. Following his ouster thereafter, Premier Yoshihiko Noda has come to power. He favours the opening of idling power plants and following a more nuanced national energy policy. However, a profound sense of betrayal has altered the socio-political foundations of Japan's disciplined and conformist society, which heralds profound future changes in its economic and political system. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has made a profound impact on the global atomic energy programme. A nuclear renaissance was unfolding with nuclear power making a comeback due to the need for environmentally clean energy gaining increasing recognition and oil prices beginning to move erratically. What are Fukushima's implications for the Indian nuclear energy programme? Despite considerable hype, nuclear power still accounts for only around 4750 MWe, with another 2000 MWe under construction, which is less than 3 per cent of its total power generation. Future estimates of generating 35,000 MWs by 2022 (Meera Shankar, former Ambassador to the United States) and similar predictions are quite fanciful. Many reasons are operating like the high costs of importing atomic reactors, difficulty in acquiring long-term credits with a global recession obtaining, and the problem of establishing nuclear reactors despite virulent local opposition mobilised by Green lobbies. These problems have multiplied after the Fukushima nuclear disaster with nuclear energy raising primordial fears of accidents leading to radiation-induced deaths and illnesses. Several countries have halted their civilian atomic energy programmes. Germany hopes to phase out its programme by 2022 and Switzerland by 2034. Japan, France, China and the United States are reviewing their commitment to nuclear energy. Within India violent agitations have occurred against locating nuclear reactors in Jaitapur (Maharashtra) where a complex of six nuclear power plants is planned, Haripur in West Bengal and Bhavnagar in Gujarat where similar complexes are also planned. In Kalpakkam, there is resistance to undertaking trial runs of a Russian power reactor that has been constructed. It is nobody's case that nuclear energy should be abandoned. Or, that it should not take its due place in a holistic energy security strategy. But to put it above all other sources is unwise. So, what should be done by India at this stage? First, the impartiality of the Atomic Energy Regulation Board (AERB) has to be ensured by establishing a truly independent body to inspect and report on the safety and security of atomic power plants. The existing Board, functioning under the Department of Atomic Energy, lacks credibility; it should be placed under some other Ministry or Department of the Government of India to carry conviction. After the Fukushima disaster it was found that the regulatory body for atomic power reactors was remiss, because it was functioning under the administrative control of the holding Tokyo Electric Power Company. Second, an independent certification of the safety and security design features of new nuclear power plants should be provided for. India has traditionally been seeking to emphasise the developmental duties of the International Atomic Energy Agency; hence this modality could be pressed at the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul later this month. Third, a review of the existing nuclear power plants had been undertaken by the Atomic Energy Commission after the Fukushima disaster, which revealed inadequacies, now apparently rectified. The results of this review could be shared with the general public to instil confidence that their safety features have been strengthened to prevent any mishaps. Public prejudice against nuclear energy now has a global remit. It cannot be either ignored or wished away. Urgent steps are necessary, therefore, to regain public confidence in the nuclear power plants that are being operated by the Atomic Energy Commission in
India. |
|||||
All the President's Men
THERE was whistling silence that ruled the environs. We were sunk in our seats. With mouth gaped and pupils dilated, all the attendees were curiously looking at the main entrance. Our eyeballs stuck like stone-balls. As the clock struck 10, the regimented men in uniform blew the bugle, signalling the majestic arrival everyone was waiting. Lo and behold, there emerged the chief guest, draped in humility and elegance, wearing a beaming smile and escorted by top political executives. With them entered a gush of fresh breeze, laden with fragrance emanating from the roses "tossing their heads in sprightly dance". Even Wordsworth's Daffodils shed their petals in shame. The dignitaries ascended the podium and sang in unison the national anthem. Weaving magic, the chief guest sprayed a silken smile in the auditorium to charm the audience. It was none other than Pratibha Patil, the President of India, who is hailed as an icon of fluttering womanhood. Outlining the contours of the seminar, she exhorted the participants to revolutionise rainfed and dryland farming to usher in a second Green Revolution. No terrain could be left unploughed if we were to feed the unfed, inspired the First Citizen. Her vision of agricultural renaissance was echoed by the Prime Minister also. His Cabinet colleagues, governors, chief ministers of major agricultural states, agriculture scientists and senior bureaucrats had descended in full strength to prioritise the strategies to tap the untapped area. For a while, I felt all of us who had assembled in Rashtrapati Bhawan last month were, in fact, the President's men to push her agenda forward. By wresting a rare initiative, she proved that she was not mere figurative, but she was rather a trend-setter like “The Woman in White” as epitomised by Wilkie Collins. By virtually re-enacting Governor Willie Stark, referred to as the real “Boss” in Robert Warren’s novel, “All the King’s Men”, she rolled her cherished dream to eradicate starvation. Akin to Jack Burden who was Willie Stark’s personal aide and the narrator of the novel, it was now the turn of Pratibha Patil’s own Secretary, Christy Fernandez, to inject thematic buoyancy in the proceedings and plough her dream into reality. It was exciting to watch all the front-page political leaders within the eyeball distance. While Dr Manmohan Singh did not move his neck even once, Pranab Mukherji kept scribbling on paper, apparently updating his keynote address. Interestingly, all the panellists kept harping on the same tune aired by the earlier speakers. It was perhaps only Bhupinder Singh Hooda who, while chairing a session, ensured that no speaker meandered from the main theme. This year has yielded real bumper for me, having harvested two achievements. The first was receiving the “Krishi Karman Award” from the Prime Minister and the second was face-to-face interaction with the President on painting the arid geographical contours into green. Echoing with Thomas Hardy’s recipe contained in “The Return of the Native”, it was certainly my return to agricultural bosom and modest nativity of rain-deficient Bawal, which eventually propelled me to achieve a rare double in less than a year. While returning, I kept wondering that the sumptuous hospitality was, in fact, a stimulant to sensitize us to arrange at least two square meals a day to all Indians. Thank you, madam, for revealing the recipe.?n |
|||||
Indian films are designed and produced to entertain the 1.3 billion people of India, they are ill-suited for the West. The issues that our cinema raises and provokes are usually not universal and therefore do not resonate well — internationally. The Oscars are for English Language Cinema. “Do we make our films in English?” “No.” True there is one award for non-English language films. That award is for “Excellence in World Cinema”. “Do we make “World Cinema?”, “Hardly.” Satyajit Ray did and was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Academy. Iran does. This year’s winner – “A Separation” had earlier won the Golden Bear at Berlin. We all know about the success of “Crouching Tiger” all over the world. True, we have made experimental films in India but too few and too irregularly to seriously contend with the world’s entire offering for the Foreign Language Statuette. I think we need to step back and rephrase the burning question – “Do we want to win the Foreign Language Oscar?”. Let’s presume (possibly incorrectly) that the answer is - “Yes, we do want to win the Foreign Language Oscar”. Let’s see what it will take to do so. There was a time when Indian Cinema did have an international audience. Raj Kapoor was watched extensively in the USSR, Iran and China mainly because it was a time when western cinema was not available. Today, apart from very select exceptions like Mira Nair’s ‘Salaam Bombay’ and ‘Monsoon Wedding’, Shekhar Kapur’s ‘Bandit Queen’ and Deepa Mehta’s ‘Fire’, Indian films do not get seen in the West. The romance with Bollywood doesn’t translate to theatre tickets. I believe this happens mainly because of the way our cinema has developed in recent years. We were focusing on bringing western technical expertise and artistic class into very melodramatic Indian moulds. This fails with world audiences as they have lots of it from the US. Then, there are the stories we try to tell. More often than not our films are a fantastic collection of impressive sequences and great dialogues but very little in the story department. The content, designed to tantalise the 1.3 billion people of India is ill-designed for the West. The issues that our cinema raises and provokes are usually not universal and therefore do not resonate well - internationally. I am not suggesting that we change the way we make our films. That would be disastrous. However whenever we do try to make world cinema we must try hard to deal with issues that are global, and there are definitely issues that do resonate globally. Displacement, separation, food, gender bias, there are many such issues. However, while staying within global issues, we must ensure that the style must still be our own. I cannot see Indian cinema being devoid of it’s musical form and without melodrama, and still succeed. Once we consciously make films that will be appreciated by the West we must address the issue of how we get them across. Our own distributors are masters at reaching the diaspora and the US studios are active in India largely to garner the Indian rupee, either through dubbing Western films or through making “made for India” films. Perhaps its time for a quid pro quo. If Fox, Columbia, Warner Brothers and Universal get into helping Indian film makers design their cinema for world audiences and subsequently help in their distribution in the US, more Americans and Academy members will see our films and hopefully like a few. Another route is the NRI route where Indians are making English language films that deal with India. If their quality and appeal goes up we may yet see the Statuette. In the meanwhile we can bask in our not unsubstantial glory and exult in the fact that no Hollywood film has ever won the Filmfare award. Now that Steven Spielberg is funded by Indian money, who knows, he may have that ‘equally burning” question in his mind. (The writer has produced films like Bandit Queen, Maqbool, Fire, Saathiya and others.)
|
|
Oscar drama in a Bollywood setting
Even Pakistan got it this year, even though in the documentary films segment. Of the 46 entries sent from India since 1957, for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film category, only two have been nominated so far - ‘Mother India’ (1957) and ‘Lagaan’ (2001). If we include Mira Nair’s ‘Salaam Bombay’, which was not a Bollywood production, though it was made in Hindi, the number of nominations would go up to three. Bollywood is one of the biggest film producers in the world which churns out almost double the number of films than Hollywood. In India alone about 4 billion movie tickets are sold annually, while Hollywood movies are watched by 3 billion people, worldwide. Yet, the list of Indian films chosen by FFI ( Film Federation of India) to be sent as India’s official entry to the Oscars has films of such commonality in their theme and treatment as ‘Sagaar’, ‘Uphaar’ ‘Devdas’, the garishly made high decibel tear jerker and ‘Payal Ki Jhankar.’ Then, for several years there was no official entry to the Oscar, for lack of a quality film that could represent India. And, on few occasions, the entries got embroiled in controversy, at times leading to litigation. In 1997 Shekhar Kapoor’s much talked about film ‘Bandit Queen’ was the official entry to the Oscar, and hopes ran high that the film would get nominated. It had all the ingredients for making it to the Oscar. Then came the bad news. The screening of the film was banned in India by the Delhi High Court. The controversy was fed by a breach of privacy suit filed by Phoolan Devi, whose life the film portrays. This was not the first time that a foreign language film encountered political opposition in the country of its origin, though. ‘Farewell My Concubine’ was banned in China but, because a number of its creators were born in Hong Kong, it was ultimately submitted by that country. In 2007, a real-life soap opera took place in pursuit of the Oscar dream. Allegations of bias and corruption were hurled when the Mumbai High Court found that the FFI’s pick to represent India at the Oscars was “prima facie biased.” The court room drama began when filmmaker Bhavna Talwar and WSG Pictures, whose film ‘Dharm’ was passed over as India’s Oscar entry in favour of Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s ‘Eklavya: The Royal Guard,’ filed a petition alleging favouritism. The petitioners alleged that the selection committee director, Sudhir Mishra and members Jagdish Sharma and Ranjit Bahadur were close to Chopra, and Bahadur was the editor of a promo for ‘Eklavya.’ Talwar publicly declared that by choosing ‘Eklavya’ as India’s submission for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award “the FFI embarrassed not just the film industry but also the whole country.” The drama reached its climax when the Academy expressed concern over the “confusing situation” of India’s official entry for the Oscar and expressed surprise that Indian courts were adjudicating “aesthetic decisions like selecting films.” Court drama part, the procedural complexities also mar India’s chances, at times. To get to the Oscars a lot of promotional events, such as, showing the film in the US (including at least six showings for the jury members) is necessary to get support for the nomination. The awards also require a lot of planned lobbying, which begins months in advance, it also involves investment. Often, good film makers, who make films on a shoe-string budget do not have the required resources to pull it all along. And, since the nomination would not result in monetary rewards, nobody loans money for the purpose. Producer of 2011 Indian official entry to Oscar ‘Adaminte Makan Abu,’ a Malayalam film, Salim Ahmed, who is a small time videographer, could not raise funds to promote his film. Though, Amir Khan’s two productions were sent as India’s official entry, ‘Taare Zameen Par’( 2008) and ‘Peepli Live’ (2010), despite all the resources at his disposal, the films did not get nomination, forget about winning the enviable statuette. Our medal tally at the Olympics has given us succour to absorb any shock. Then, there is this consolation, whereas about 50 awards in the Oscar race recognise all kinds of talent from Hollywood films and TV, there is just one for the rest of the world - the Best Foreign Language Film. The competition is not fair! They walked the red carpet Bollywood films did not get it, a few Indians did — Bhanu Athaiya was the first one to win Oscar for Best Costume Design (with John Mollo) for Richard Attenborough’s ‘Gandhi’ (1982). Satyajit Ray received an honorary Academy Award in 1991. Russell Pookutty won Best Sound Mixing (with Ian Tapp and Richard Pryke) for Danny Boyle’s ‘Slumdog Millionaire’(2008). AR Rahman won Best Score and Best Original Song (music) for ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ (2008) and Gulzar won Best Song (lyrics) for the same film. |
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
W
The idea of this statistical rambling is not to bore you. I am attempting to answer the burning, yet futile question – why don’t our films win Oscars. My point is “Why should they?”
