Film maker, Sudhir Mishra in conversation with Sayan Bhattacharya.
Almost the entire film fraternity from Bombay has come out in support of Anna Hazare. Yet when we see films (‘My Friend Pinto’) being promoted on the Ramlila ground, one doubts the credibility of this ‘social conscience’… Your thoughts.
See they espouse very few causes. So when they are taking up a cause, let them. And the cause is just. Who will be for corruption? If you live in Mumbai, you just step on the road and see corruption. Filmmaking is a different ballgame and involves a lot of money. However, I am against promoting films on such platforms.
But don’t you think that speaking for a cause with only a superficial understanding sends wrong signals to those millions who are so taken in by Bollywood and even cricket?
Bollywood and cricket are also the obsessions of the media. When channels make bombastic comments like ‘Millions have gathered on the ground’… what do you make of that? You see the problem with India is that the politicians have outsourced its agendas to various vested groups. So you make a political film and these vested groups stall its release and the politicians stand and watch. Moreover, there is hardly any political cinema coming out of Bollywood. There are filmmakers, writers who are intelligent, who make political films but they are not covered by the media. About the Lokpal, I will say that atleast this is better than just sitting in fashion shows! And even in our industry, there are different points of view. Javed Sahab has a view, Mahesh Bhatt has one, Anupam Kher has his views and I have mine. But atleast the industry is making a connection with the people, with real issues. For once they have taken a stand. The movement has generated a cocktail of emotions and that is a good sign.
So what are your personal views on the Lokpal?
I was one of the first people to come out in support of Anna Hazare when he first started this movement. The biggest contribution of this movement is that it has made people courageous while dealing with the authorities. You can look the rulers in the eye. I would say that the Indian population is becoming adult. It is asking questions. But becoming adult means, not only do you question the authority but also question the ones who encouraged you to ask questions. I am against any kind of a police state. But you see the problem with our country is that there is an overall moral decay and in such a situation, people tend to support a police state. There are so many investigating agencies. If they work effectively and the ideals of the Constitution are implemented, there would not have been any problem.
The Lokpal is supposed to be this huge body that will oversee all other organizations but my question is from where do you get these 50,000 to 1,00,000 honest people? What are the checks and balances on the Lokpal? I hope this doesn’t lead to a Presidential form of government. I am all for Parliamentary democracy. In spite of all its limitations, the country has continued to survive because of its federal structure. Different states have different problems… Kerala, West Bengal, Assam… that is why our founding fathers made policing a state subject. I am against any form of super censor. I would like to know what are Team Anna’s views on censorship, on homosexuality, on freedom of expression. Cinema can be utilized to present pornography as well as good cinema. So can you have a blanket ban? Politicians are not a caste. They emerge from among us. Basically my point is, make the Parliament accountable but don’t undermine it. But beyond that, I am all for such movements.
Isn’t this movement lopsided, given that it only targets the polity leaving out the corporates?
That’s what I was saying. There is a moral rot in this country, involving us all. Today you can’t buy a house without black money. Problem with activism is that you get caught yourselves. So once the mind is open, you can ask all sorts of questions. It becomes a habit. It is a dual process. You ask questions and then ask yourself whether you have the right to ask that question. You know this was the greatness of Gandhi. He not only demanded freedom but also asked did we deserve freedom.
Since you bring in Gandhi, what do you make of Anna being touted as today’s Gandhi?
History is judging Gandhi when he is not around. Why should anyone be anyone else? Anna is Anna, JP was JP. I don’t know why we are creating this trap of psychologically giving yourself to someone and then feeling betrayed later on. Anna has his own credibility. He is a valid man. He cannot be Gandhi and why should he be?
