Now Bal Thackeray Goes after Amitabh Bachchan
[If the entire Shiv Sena is ranged against BAchchan at this point it's the surest sign of his integrity! LOL! The difference is that Rajni is involved in a historic dispute between two states on the waters of a river. Rajni has not been supporting the fascist likes of Bal Thackeray! Someone on this forum likes to say that Thackeray is not against all Muslims, only "anti-national" ones. Leaving aside the 'paranoid' mindset that peddles such labels or buys into them, ignoring the insidious politics behind such tags, what hope could a Muslim have in the Sena dispensation if Amitabh Bachchan's loyalties are being questioned?! This entire episode begun by the MNS and now being fanned more by the Shiv Sena, is a total disgrace to the city of Bombay and to the politics of Maharashtrians who are far more concerned about their jobs at the mill than how much Bachchan has done for Bombay! Incidentally Bachchan has been a major contributor to the Bollywood economy by providing so much revenue all those years, including even on 'flops'! No one in the industry is really willing to utter a sentence of support for him. Even on this forum we see folks who are fans of Shoebite (!), who support Bachchan only when he acts in Abhishek films and indeed look forward to his movies only when Abhishek has major releases that year but who have never ever, not once uttered a word of support for Bachchan, no matter who has hounded him how unfairly from the Congress to the Sena. When such folks call themselves Bachchan 'fans' I have more than a little contempt]
Learn from Rajnikanth, Sena tells Bachchan
Actor Amitabh Bachchan is fast becoming the favourite punching bag for politicians in Maharashtra. After Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray slammed Bachchan during his recent anti-North Indian tirade, it is the turn of his uncle and Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray to do the same.
An article, published in Saturday’s edition of Sena’s mouthpiece Saamna, which is edited by Thackeray, accuses Bachchan of not doing enough for Maharashtra.
The attack on Bachchan signals a volte-face by Thackeray, as he had declared his support for the superstar and ridiculed Raj for his comments only a few weeks ago.
The article cites the example of Tamil superstar Rajnikanth, who participated in the protest by Tamil Nadu against Karnataka over the Hoggenakal issue, even though he hails from Karnataka.
The article states that Rajnikanth is fighting on behalf of his karmabhoomi and even went on a hunger strike to express his solidarity for the Tamil community.
The article goes on to suggest scathingly that Bachchan should take a leaf out of Rajnikanth’s book. Raj Thackeray had also accused Bachchan of not doing anything for Maharashtra, and only serving his native Uttar Pradesh.
When queried about the article, a visibly irritated Bachchan asked mediapersons, “Do you think I have not done anything for Maharashtra? If people are not aware of my work for Maharashtra, I don’t have anything to say.”
Comment by Eire on 5 April 2008:
I have always spoken out how unfair and wrong it is that Amitabh(and his entire family) is so intensely targetted by politicians and the media who only want publicity for their agendas. Amitabh has done a lot for India. It’s unfortunate that he has been so hounded. Amitabh has accorded and handled himself very well through all of this rubbish.
Comment by yashi on 5 April 2008:
I agree. And it is even more sad that saner voices in this country are not raising their voices against the regional politics card that is so shamelessly being played by the politicians. If this carries on, God knows where and what it will lead this country to.
Looks like the politicians are not satisfied just playing caste and religion based politics and now wish to exploit regionalism to the core too.
As far as Mr. Bachchan is concerned, do not know how much Amar Singh has helped him at a personal level but it is his association with him and his party that has made him a soft target and exposed him to such bizzare mud slinging. Of course everyone has the freedom to choose who they cultivate as their friends and associate themselves with but Amar Singh and his associates have such dubious reputations and low credibility that unfortunately it is having a negative impact on Big B and how he is percieved today.
Comment by rks on 5 April 2008:
Yashi:
Agree with last statement. To some degree Amitabh’s association with Amar Singh gives people ample opening to attack him.
The problem is that he wants to show a non-poltical side inspite of his Amar Singh’s association and Jaya Bachchan being member of Parliament on SP ticket. On top of this he is famous and icon. I think if he joins SP or another party then there is a party shield which helps and also the attacks would be political instead of personal.
Comment by gaurav on 5 April 2008:
Bachchan is one of the very few personalities who have the credibility (and may I say an “aura”) across the whole of India. He wont want to do it, but he has the authority to talk to the people of India, and expose the antics of the regional chauvinists for what they really are. Figures like bachchan can be a strong voice of national unity if they can take the initiative.
Also bollywood must really learn to speak out for its own. Bachchan himself is somewhat guilty of not doing this (in fanaa controversy for instance). But his case is somewhat understandable, since he has undergone a lot many controversies and may want to rest easy at this stage if his life.
Comment by rks on 5 April 2008:
Gaurav:
If intersted in aura, here is some chat discussion-Link
Comment by rks on 5 April 2008:
Satyam:
1. I would not give religious angle to this topic. Let it remain between Thackerays and Amitabh.
2. Whatever ones political affiliations, it is our(personal) choice, we should not discuss it. If the other person puts it as an argument then it could be contested.
Comment by gaurav on 5 April 2008:
rks: I read it, and 99% went over my head
Am not competent enough to argue with these folks, but I disagree that Bachchan’s aura is no longer there. That’s why I mentioned it here.
Comment by Myna on 5 April 2008:
Just bcoz one person is fan of a particular actor, it does not necessarily mean that person should support or agree with that actor in all instances. To expect such seems to me as lame. That person also might be least interested in the personal life or political affiliations of the actor. There is a difference between blind trust/worship and being a sensible fan. Also coming out in open and shouting from roof tops to show support does not necessarily make one a greater fan either. In any case, its a personal choice.
Comment by Aarohi on 5 April 2008:
IMO the reason for this attack is the impending truce between SP and Congress and a potential thawing of Bachchan-Gandhi relationship. Of course, SS does not want to lose its ground to MNS.
On a related note: Sarkar Raaj release will be problematic. There was an item in TOI that Bal Thakre is apparently unhappy with the fact that RGV showed the rushes of the film to Raj. Some controversy might end up helping the film, but with Mumbai being such an important territory from BO point of view (even more so in Sarkar Raaj’ case) disruptions will affect the collections.
Comment by aby2000 on 6 April 2008:
Isn’t it ironic that AB was at a public function for
the maharashtra police force when the media grilled him about not doing anything for Maharastra!!!
Comment by aby2000 on 6 April 2008:
Aarohi: I wouldn’t take what the TOI says seriously….has there been any positive news on Sarkar Raj from the media? The movie will release on June 6th no matter what the media cooks up!
Comment by satyam on 6 April 2008:
Yup agreed with Aby2000, the movie is not likely to have any issues in terms of release or post-release.
Comment by satyam on 6 April 2008:
Rks: My comments on Bal Thackeray are also in the light on an ongoing ‘debate’ I’ve had with some members here and to me it’s not just a Bachchan deal but another extreme manifestation of a political outfit that has really been targeting different communities from its very inception beginning with Tamilians and going on to Muslims. This most recent manifestation involves North Indians and bizarrely Bachchan!
Comment by satyam on 6 April 2008:
I have always completely disagreed with the notion that Amar Singh is responsible for Bachchan’s problems. When one gets involved with a political party a certain degree of hounding is always par for the course depending on who’s in power and so forth. However it is also true that Amar Singh is the kind of ‘local’ urban politician who disgusts the sensibilities of many urban types in India. The very same people who have contempt for a Laloo Prasad Yadav or a Mayawati or whoever. Because there’s a strong class angle here and these people find it unfathomable how someone like Bachchan, who’s the epitome of class in so many ways, could associate with such people. Of course the folks who look down on bachchan usually have far less problems with the likes of a Modi! The bourgeois mindset always prefers the relatively refined fascist to anyone else! One often hears words like ‘illiterate’ thrown around to define the Mulayams or the Laloos of India. One sees all these biases manifested in Hindi films where places like UP and Bihar are depicted as ‘heart of darkness’ places. Of course the irony is that a Laloo Prasad Yadav is a rather well read guy and loves playing the country bumpkin! His work as Railway Minister became the focus of a Harvard study!
So a lot of the ire directed at Bachchan reflects the biases of those represented in the media and so on. But also Amar Singh for many is a way of attacking Bachchan ‘by other means’ (one often sees this on this very forum) much as making RGV into the worst kind of laughing stock (this also happens on this very forum) is also a similar move. Everyone around Bachchan is often systematically deconstructed. One must recognize these moves as properly anti-Bachchan!
Comment by rks on 6 April 2008:
Satyam: I don’t fully agree with above post. Amar Singh by class definition belongs to Thakur community which comes in forward class. I think people detest him as he gives a perception of hypocrite.
As for Laloo and harvard. Read this outlook article
“The IIM study did make Laloo the man of the moment. So much so, visiting students from the Harvard Business School, Wharton and MIT were queuing up to study the miracle he had wrought. Or so it was projected. Now it seems that the visit by the students of the Harvard Business School in December 2006 was not to study any railway turnaround; they had merely called on the rail minister as part of their Camp India programme. Outlook contacted Seth Cohen, one of those students who had attended Camp India. He had this to say: “The visit was informal,” he said, “arranged by our Indian hosts. It was not connected to any academic project.” Ditto the MIT students toasted and hosted by Laloo.They came to India during their spring break in April 2007; the railways was another diversion during their eight-day break.”
ps: here is the original article
ps1: But whatever Laloo is doing at railways, he is doing a better job than his predecessor and his succesor is doing a better job in Bihar!
Comment by NyKavi on 6 April 2008:
Amitabh will be wronged only when SS/MNS or whoever hurts him in some manner..eg financially or (most unlikely) physically. Yes there was an incident of some guys on a scooter throwing a bottle at his bungalow, but it is still nowhere in comparison to issues which do require someone to talk out loud and lend support. All this political drama brought out by MNS is just that..drama. If they actually manage to stall an upcoming release of his, thats when one can cry hoarse about him being wronged. The fact is that neither of those outfits will have the balls to do something that dramatic and adversely risk losing votes in the next elections. Everyone knows that he has a very highly credible standing amongst the masses of Maharashtra.
Off course a lot of this is just a political chessgame. Cong sits tight while the MNS rampages, cause they can gleefully watch the sainik votebank being split into two. They also dont mind MNS gaining a bit more power so that it stops any chances of UP parties like SP or BSP making inroads into Maharashtra through the settled north indian votebank. BigB due to his association with SP becomes a convenient target. Once his family became political by close association with SP, they lost out on the luxury of being exempt from such mud-slinging. Politics mudies the water, its sad, but an inescapable truth.
Comment by NyKavi on 6 April 2008:
And let me also add that the BigB is a big boy capable of taking care of his own affairs. He is an ex-MP, ex-close friend of the reigning political family (relations which I guess can thaw out in minutes when there is a reconciliation),having the #2 SP politician as his closest friend,having a wife whos is an MP,a darling of the masses,etc etc. I can bet that he will have a standing army of SP goons ready to retaliate a standing army of MNS goons on any given day. MNS wud be fools to actually try anything that hurts him. All they can do is blabber in their party mouthpieces.
Comment by Qalandar on 6 April 2008:
Good comments satyam.
This episode shows yet again the breath-taking hypocrisy of Bal Thackeray — while this sort of thing is par for the course for politicians, the Shiv Sena example is especially brazen: just a few weeks ago they were ridiculing the MNS for its antics! Now clearly their internal forecasts must have led them to believe that Raj Thackeray is making some headway with the faithful and thus this bit in Saamna.
NYkavi: agree amitabh is no lightweight; but I must resist your citing the fact that he is an EX-best friend of the Gandhis as evidence of his power! I mean, that just highlights that Sonia Gandhi NOW hates him (as all India knows), and highlights his vulnerability rather than his strength. Bachchan is strong for the last reason you mention, of course: his status as darling of the people and pan-Indian icon means even the Congress won’t openly try and take him down (though of course they have sneakily tried to do so, with tax issues, unfavorable media coverage for him and his family, etc.), and if they do, then the Bachchans will fight back (as Amitabh and the even more feisty Jaya Bachchan showed a few years ago in U.P. with the whole raja/”rankh” fracas etc.)…
Comment by Qalandar on 6 April 2008:
Re: “All they can do is blabber in their party mouthpieces.”
With respect to Amitabh Bachchan, that is probably true (though things can change; remember the Shiv Sainiks protesting outside Dilip Kumar’s house — Kumar had probably thought that his personal friendship with Bal Thackeray would save him, but fascism has its own logic). With respect to the aam aadmi, of course, that is very far from true — as evidenced by the massive exodus of North Indians from Nasik and elsewhere in Maharashtra (10,000 from Nasik in the first week of the MNS agitation, according to media reports), the latest in the long list of crimes committed by organizations headed by Thackerays. I find it a sick joke that these thugs get to pose as “nationalists”.
Comment by NyKavi on 6 April 2008:
And the ironical flipside to all this “Sons of the soil” movement is that the Maratha fascists are losing out to the “entrepreneurial” fascist next door. Now that Modi is hell bent on erasing the fascist tag off his lapel, he is busily reaping the rewards of his massive infrastructural development programme of the last few years. There has been a huge influx of small scale industries to Gujurat since these events started in Mahrashtra. Modi promises them the best industrial infrastructure of India, and has all industrialists eating out of his hands. There are plans for a massive Amd Intl airport, and also for a couple of worldclass seaports. He is determined to get them completed before the end of this term, and if that really happens, look for Gujurat to take a very sustainable lead over Maharashtra.
Comment by NyKavi on 6 April 2008:
I have also heard that MNS is quietly outpacing D in hafta-vasooli, especially from bwood-builder-lawyer-doctor types in Mumbai. Things are changing rapidly in the otherwise unified worker groups of bwood. This whole maratha-non-maratha thing highlighted by events such as Tanushree’s plight have rankled several professional producers. Some have talked of looking for alternate cities to host studios, where there are several nascent film studios in development. If MNS persists with its agenda, look for Mumbai to start losing out on several such industry groups moving out.
Comment by ăbzee on 6 April 2008:
Qalandar- It is no co-incidence that Mayawati and her BSP is desperately trying to bring down Amitabh. There is a definite MNS-BSP-INC nexus here in play. Shiv Sena is currently very, very confused and Bal Thackeray is making statements and retracting all too soon. He’s like a headless chicken. Just 24 hours ago, he’s retracted all that he’d written in the editorial(http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200804052067.htm). The SS doesn’t really know where to stand. I do believe that Amitabh could’ve saved himself from this filial-political fracas of the SS/MNS if Jaya hadn’t made that statement a few months ago about knowing only 2 Thackerays(Bal and Uddhav). Amitabh’s apolitical silence on it was the best route to go. By acknowledging the Sena supremo and his son, he unfortunately cannot get back. This whole thing is getting murkier by the day. Check my mail to you.
Comment by ăbzee on 6 April 2008:
I meant-
“By acknowledging the Sena supremo and his son, he unfortunately cannot get back at them.”
Comment by Qalandar on 6 April 2008:
abzee: and this sort of thing might be a further twist in the tale: http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/04/01/cong-supports-bachchan-in-barabanki-case/
Comment by rks on 7 April 2008:
‘Amitabh doesn’t belong to any particular region’-Bal Thackeray
MUMBAI: The Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray, in an article which appeared in the party mouthpiece Saamna on Monday, has stated not to drag Amitabh Bachchan into the son of the soil controversy as he did not belong to any particular region.
Thackeray has written that Amitabh would fight for the state where he worked and where he had been living for the past 40 years.
Recently, an editorial in Saamna asked Amitabh to show more loyalty to the place where he was working than where he was born, mentioning that though he was born in Uttar Pradesh, he had achieved stardom in Mumbai.
He was also asked to follow the example of Tamil actor Rajnikanth, who joined the recent Tamil film industry’s protest against Karnataka over the Hogenakkal drinking water project, though he hailed from that state and from Maharastra.
“Amitabh Bachchan is our family friend. I have neither said anything against him nor written against him in the editorial. The hue and cry, which has been created by the media regarding the news in Saamna , is condemnable. Our relations with him are not so weak that it can be broken by electronic media news,” Thackeray said in a statement.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, however, came under attack. In his article, Thackeray writes that Mayawati is troubling Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan for no reason.
Earlier, the actress-turned-MP of Samajwadi Party, Jaya Bachchan had accused Mayawati of pursuing action against her husband for cheap publicity.
It may be recalled that the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) of Barabanki District Shirish Dubey, had on March 31 issued a notice to Bachchan, accusing him of undervaluing the stamp duty on a plot of land that he had bought in the area.
Comment by ăbzee on 7 April 2008:
Hmm! So Bal Thackeray is now going after Mayawati. And the Congress is supporting the Bachchans. But the Congress is against SP. And the SP against BSP as is SS. But SP and SS don’t see eye-to-eye. This is all very very confusing indeed.
I can’t keep a tab on who’s on which side. I believe that like silver and golden jubilees in films, absolute majority in Indian politics will soon become a thing of the past as well.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
For a change, I agree with abz here. In a complex democracy like ours, sometimes silence is the strongest and best response. Look at the mess rajni has put the tamil film industry into with the comments, tho he said nothing wrong.
On amitabh, I believe he has done much less than he could have for india. Now, I am not sure whether that was bcoz he tried and failed or just didn’t try enough. Part of it is the gandhi issue for sure. But bachchan could have done better like rajni in terms of remaining largely apolitical. Unfortunately our political system isn’t mature enough.
Btw, just to defend the sena here. How is this different from folks in uk raising a stink about uk citizens of indian origin supporting india and not uk. What is the right thing here? Its easy to talk about freedom of speech, but if I was a indian origin uk citizen supporting india in a india_uk war, is that ok. I don’t think so. As much as I disagree strongly on sena resorting to violent means, I think this is a debate worth fighting. Bcoz in india diff states are like diff countries.
Comment by rks on 7 April 2008:
Beld: That is a very touchy issue. I see this issue in LA (or California in large) when US plays Mexico in soccer games and there are US citizen of Mexican origin who sports Mexican colors and support Mexico.
I would like to disagree on state subject. Even though the States in India are different the laws are almost similar except few. But if you take example of US all the states have very different rules even federal Government doesn’t interfere if it not related to basic constuition or inter state commerce. I don’t see the States in US behaving like countries.
Comment by jayshah on 7 April 2008:
‘How is this different from folks in uk raising a stink about uk citizens of indian origin supporting india and not uk. What is the right thing here? Its easy to talk about freedom of speech, but if I was a indian origin uk citizen supporting india in a india_uk war, is that ok. I don’t think so.’
LOL, your right, I get this for supporting the Indian cricket team > England from few friends! I don’t believe there is any issue on supporting India if you are living or even born in UK like myself. I don’t believe its right or wrong to pick whomever, personally I’d be on the side that I feel is right on any given matter as opposed to making the decision based on nationalty or affiliation.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
Rks you are correct but I would compare indian states to the eu more than us. Every state has different language, food, culture etc.
I am not saying its correct but its complicated
Comment by jayshah on 7 April 2008:
‘I would compare indian states to the eu more than us’
This reminds me of one my favorite moments in Chak De! India. The scene where Kabir Khan is asking each hockey player to introduce themselves and where they are from. They all give their states and Kabir gets annoyed. Finally one of em says, India, and he has a gleeful smile on his face.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
Lol jay.
Back to the issue at hand, its finally the impotency of the central govt which causes this whole chauvinistic nonsense. If they showed will, these would just remind chauvinistic rants. Instead they get created into election issues
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
“And the ironical flipside to all this “Sons of the soil” movement is that the Maratha fascists are losing out to the “entrepreneurial” fascist next door.”
Great point here NYkavi!
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Rks: I don’t think that the people in India’s major urban centers who tend to have condescension for most of Northern politics are particularly impressed by Amar Singh’s ‘Thakur’ pedigree. Remember there’s a bit of a split here where class clashes against caste. So while caste is still quite important even in major urban areas, and even among people who like to think of themselves as ‘progressive’ in other ways, it is often laced with colonial notions of class. So a caste signifier like ‘Thakur’ does not necessarily carry the same prestige in say Bombay even among people who are conscious in matters of caste if the entire category or network of caste in say UP is deemed regressive or at least lacking the other twin signifier of class. To put it another way within a certain upscale crowd caste often becomes class by another name. Sometimes the boundaries of the former might be crossed in the name of the later, sometimes not. Of course I just mentioned the ‘colonial’ here but colonialism in general has very much informed notions of caste. Someone like Nicholas Dirks reveals the extent to which it might not be possible to retrieve a pre-British caste ’system’ (even if one can often knows what it was like based on other sources and so on) in comtemporary India. To go even further (as Dirks certainly does) ‘caste’ as we know it in contemporary India simply cannot be understood without also understanding the British intervention. Because as with many other histories the colonial intervention greatly alters the histories in question. It is much like the Hindutva movement which also cannot be properly analyzed without taking account of the British moment.
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
“‘How is this different from folks in uk raising a stink about uk citizens of indian origin supporting india and not uk. What is the right thing here? Its easy to talk about freedom of speech, but if I was a indian origin uk citizen supporting india in a india_uk war, is that ok. I don’t think so”
Two issues here:
1)The Sena in Maharashtra insisting on Maharashtra first is not at all like the UK insisting on everyone prioritizing the UK over say India. No one would ask a Hollywood star where he or she had done anything for the state of California versus say their home state of NY. For example De Niro has always been more involved in the NY scene than anything else from restaurants to the Tribeca Film festival. No one in California has a problem!
Having greater allegiance to a region within a nation-state is very different from having an allegiance to a different nation-state.
Simply a great deal of complexity does not make India “like the EU”.
2)There is the old joke about the staunchest Israelis in the world being found in the US! Similarly the Irish in the US often have strong emotional ties to Ireland and are not coy about saying this.
The point here is that even in nation-states there is always something a little hypocritical about objecting to Indians who seem to have a connection with India or Mexicans who do with their country and so forth. Because the nation-state in question clearly minds less or at least tolerates certain divided loyalties more than others! Often the insistence on everyone becoming British or French or what have you is achieved by pretending, by way of a quasi-liberal move, that the benefits of partaking in that nation-state can easily be had if one would simply be ‘loyal’! The nation-state invokes its ‘nationalistic’ categories when it wants to erase certain kinds of ethnic or religious (etc) particularism. But not all! The French government asks Muslim girls who wear head scarves to school to become ‘French’ (in effect effacing any responsibility on its own part to become a more pluralistic society and placing it entirely on the other side to actually contribute towards creating a more homogenous one!) but it does not ask German or Bulgarian immigrants to do anything to become more ‘French’. Because at this point of time German political or religious difference or Bulgarian political or religious difference is not considered problematic.
So the nation-state often invents such debates (or is always definitionally complicit in such) to police its populations. Specially to police ‘immigrants’ (and to be fair these categories were also used against European immigrants in for example the US at different points). The immigrant is always heir to a divided experience. And depending on the history in question on either side of the divide the group in question can often maintain this duality for a generation or many generations. This is the natural experience of the immigrant. The condition of inheriting two cultures but not necessarily being completely at home in either.
Of course it isn’t just about ‘immigration’. There are communities in every nation-state that are outsiders in various ways because the categories of the nation-state make them such. These might be ethnic minorities or religious ones or political ones or linguistic ones or what have you. The same dynamic often exists in these instances as well where the group in question owes a certain allegiance to the nation-state but also an equal one to another religious or ethnic (etc) category not otherwise recognized by the nation-state or at least stigmatized by it. Being Arab in post-9/11 America is a little problematic, being Jewish in Europe was for ages more than a little problematic (by the way it’s not just about nation-states but other kinds of political formations as well even if the nation-state comes around with a unique set of challenges), being Muslim in post-partition India (everyone should see Garam Hawa) was also similarly problematic, so on and so forth.
Ultimately the politics must be recognized in each instance. The politics of exclusion must also be deconstructed in its own terms as much as any other.
I always find the Thackeray brand of ethnic chauvinism a little amusing. Bal Thackeray changed the traditional spelling of ‘Thakre’ to ‘Thackeray’ because he loved the British novelist of the same name! Is this how one practices Marathi nationalism?! Leaving this aside his brand of Marathi exceptionalism definitely has a ‘Maharahstra first, then India’ feel to it’. This is where he’s vulnerable but his opponents rarely have the gumption to argue this point forcefully. Bachchan has done this in some of his statements recently but he ought to deliver a more hard hitting response using historical analogies as well.
Comment by Aarohi on 7 April 2008:
Beld: On amitabh, I believe he has done much less than he could have for india.
Beld bhai: what do you expect Amitabh to do for India?
Comment by jayshah on 7 April 2008:
End poverty, crime, corruption! Donate all his money to the Jayshah fund
Comment by Ravi on 7 April 2008:
Maybe *Edited* Jharkand Starlets.
Comment by Ravi on 7 April 2008:
Hi Beld, hope you are cool today bro, that was just for fun.
Comment by NyKavi on 7 April 2008:
Lol, It doesnt matter howmuchever Amitabh does, there will always be complaints. When he became an MP for those brief 2yrs before he resigned, he worked hard towards changing the face of Allahabad. Got roads built, medical emergency services, etc which were non-existent before his tenure. But the people didnt appreciate any of that, they felt that he shouldve done more. He was certainly not like Govinda or Dharam who have became MPs for the heck of it, and who dont even bother visiting their constituencies for months on end.
In the end, Amitabh was so disgusted with politics and the thankless returns that he decided to quit. I think that anything Amitabh ought to have done for India shouldve only taken place during those 2 yrs he was an MP, as an official representative of the Govt of India. We dont expect much of our own political leaders, but we expect a lot more from a filmstar! Expecting him to do anymore is unrealistic and uncalled for.
Comment by Ravi on 7 April 2008:
Nicely said Nykavi as always. Hope you are doing fine bro.
Comment by NyKavi on 7 April 2008:
Also, on the question of him remaining apolitical, he was never in a position to be thatway. His association with a political entity presaged his own birth. The Gandhi-Bachchan families had extremely close ties, and Amitabh was certainly not a stranger to all things political. It was more due to obligations to his close family (ie Gandhi Family) in those days following Indira’s assasination, and his commitment to Rajiv that he entered politics. I have no clue as to what happened between them after Rajiv’s death, and what caused the rift between them, maybe someone can shed more light on that.
His second stint with SP began out of circumstances. Amar Singh bailed him out when he was written off by one and all in the late 90s. He wouldve been out on the street, had it not been due to the help. Maybe there was something that happened at that juncture vis-a-vis the Gandhis, which lead to the irreparable rift.
Comment by NyKavi on 7 April 2008:
Doing fine Ravibhai..how are you?
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
Ravi, I missed the comment. Looks like rks edited before I could read. Lol
So nyk, I don’t necessarily agree. What exactly did amitabh do. He could have remained apolitical and achieved much more. With greater power comes greater responsibility. Amitabh remains one of the biggest icons of our times. But I am hard pressed to name one socio economic impact of amitabh on india. Its more of an opportunity lost to me. Btw I believe the same of rajni. He is just wasting his fame.
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Aarohi: Agreed. In an age where one isn’t sure what 90% of the elected officials have done for India one wonders what Bachchan is supposed to do. Of course it is certainly true that he does far more than most people are aware of and unlike some others who do peanuts and have it publicized in the media 99% of what Bachchan really does is not reported in the media, mostly because the media isn’t aware of these things. I am fairly certain based on certain things that I know but can’t divulge here that bachchan’s commitment to various ‘issues’ and ’causes’, his willingness to spend often enormous amounts for the very same, his magnanimity in terms of helping various people in the industry is pretty much unparalleled.
Ironically the media reports on the crumbs that some of the other stars throw out for one cause or the other and this kind of info is then lapped up!
Comment by rks on 7 April 2008:
I don’t have expectation from a celebrity to do public work(why should they do? Who am I, to ask?). For me if they are good human being (taking care of people around them) is more than enough. If they do some public work then it is value addition.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
Respectfully disagree satyam
To me media is an integral part. Bachchan has to use the media esp for social causes bcoz its not about what he individually does but what he inspires in a society. For eg to me his most significant achievement I can think of is the anti polio campaign. You can’t fight the media here. Use it to your advantage and more for the advantage of society. Believe me if amitabh starts any kind of social movt the response would be maximum.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
Rks you are perfectly right but I disagree. I firmly believe that famous people should put their fame to use for a social cause esp in a country like india. Btw the argument is not about amitabh being a nice guy but I think he could have contributed more to society.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
I can’t remember the exact mukesh ambani quote but essentially he talks about his vision of maximising the power of indian villages. I love the vision he puts forward, however cutthroat a business man he may be
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Well Rajni has been politically involved in some ways. He’s certainly had political ambitions. He was going up against Jayalalitha quite a bit not so long ago. His Baba was designed as a political manifesto, even if laughably muddled and even if it flopped.
Also I don’t believe that anyone is ‘apolitical’. Because to be disengaged from politics is what often passes as the ‘apolitical’. But this is itself a properly political decision to the extent that it ultimately ’supports’ the status quo. But let’s go a little further here. Those who are disengaged in this way are precisely those who do not have to pay much of a price for their disengagement. In other words being ‘apolitical’ in this way is a kind of luxury.
Finally there is always political risk involved when one is engaged. Whatever Bachchan is facing today is precisely because he’s a potent icon and therefore the political choices he makes are threatening to many political ‘actors’. So whether it’s his Samadjvadi alliance that’s clearly not acceptable to the Congress in UP or the BSP or his seeming ‘disengagement’ from Maharashtra politics (which is read and rightly so as minimally not endorsing the Shiv Sena) the stakes are clear to the ‘opposition’. What happens the rest of the time is politics by another name.
In a more frivolous, but very analogous sense, the same politics operates in the media where everything that the Bachchans do becomes somehow far more questionable on all sorts of grounds. Of course Abhishek is generally the chief recipient of such media ‘favors’ but the real target is often Bachchan, the continuation of whose legacy in such an immediate sense but be somehow ‘denied’. In any case no other stars are ever held accountable on the same grounds. And I am not even getting into the hatchet journalism in the media or on online sites that is then dutifully disseminated. So all of this is again politics by other means. Labels like ‘Amitabh Bachchan’ or the ‘Bachchans’ or ‘Abhishek’ or ‘Abhi-Ash’ must represent something in a political sense for there to be a great deal of resistance to these. And certainly the opponents of ‘Bachchan’ from the Congress to the Sena to those who post comments routinely on NG absolutely understand this. Whether they’re setting the agenda whereby such politics might be waged or are simply the minions of other interests in this sense is a bit irrelevant. One can see the political narrative(s) seeping through. And as in any politics a lot happens under the radar or in a kind of coded language.
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Beld: I do agree that Bachchan should try and utilize the media towards pragmatic ends if nothing else. The effects of the media certainly cannot be ignored.
And while I was making the earlier point a bit polemically I also do believe that with a more powerful name that can influence millions the ethical responsibilities are also perhaps greater. Again I don’t think Bachchan has been necessarily lacking but hasn’t exactly fashioned all his concerns into a coherent narrative. Not that he couldn’t do more. I would love for him to speak out forcefully on many public issues. Much as I would have loved many in the industry to have spoken out when different Sena elements (Bal or Raj or whoever) were targeting him.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
If amitabh is being insulted by media and political parties for doing nothing, it shows the biggest weakness in his armor imo … Savviness. For such a dignified guy, he sometimes comes across a country bumkin.
Rajni is apolitical in the sense, he has played his cards very well till now where both jaya and karuna tolerate him. His biggest mistake I believe will be getting into politics which I believe will happen after karuna’s tenure.
Ya rajni has invested in some water linking scheme or such crap. But even he hasn’t started any social movement. Both these icons are guilty of giving a fish rather than teaching people to fish
Comment by Qalandar on 7 April 2008:
I certainly agree that with great power/fame/privilege comes great responsibility. On that note I would add that far too many make this a way for them to escape their own responsibility, on the theory that X is famous/powerful, and I am not, hence not much is required of me. Much is required of all of us, to the best of our ability — it cannot be that Rajni or Amitabh is under all sorts of obligations, and I have none except to provide for me and my family. Not suggesting anyone in this thread has made that point, I’m simply responding to what I see as a general complacency in society, whereby it is always a question of “someone else’s” responsibility.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
Q, kennedy words eh!
Btw rks one concern. Ravi keeps calling me hot. Main shaadi shuda aadmi hoon yaar:-)
Comment by Qalandar on 7 April 2008:
Beld: I believe Rajni already has made a foray into politics: I believe he campaigned for the DMK one election, then soured off of them and made the (widely perceived as pro-AIADMK) Baba (not sure if he campaigned for them), and now has withdrawn into a more apolitical stance as between the two. Maybe I’m getting the parties mixed up but I’m sure he campaigned for one of the two…
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
He supported dmk once but I don’t believe he campaigned tho dmk used his posters freely. This was when sasikala was running amok
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
I absolutely agree Qalandar on the point you’ve just made about one always saddling the ‘powerful other’ with ethical callings while being blind to one’s own. I’m glad you made this point.
On the Rajni stuff he was indeed licking heads with Jayalalitha a few years ago and might well have campaigned for the DMK at that point.
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
“If amitabh is being insulted by media and political parties for doing nothing, it shows the biggest weakness in his armor imo … Savviness. For such a dignified guy, he sometimes comes across a country bumkin.”
Beld, this is the exact opposite of the point I was trying to make. Bachchan represents something as an icon and in terms of his political choices for there to be opposition to these. So the opposition in this case is battling ’something’, not ‘nothing’!
Incidentally he has never come across even remotely as a country bumpkin to my mind though he’s certainly not had the political acumen that one might have desired in him. But I’d like to think that this speaks to his sincerity in many ways. If you think about it what does he really gain from the Samajvadi association. He isn’t running for office. He holds no official post in the party. He in effect suffers the pain of politics without ever being a recipient of the benefits of politics! He wouldn’t be continuing this association if he wasn’t committed to it.
Incidentally Bachchan recently opened a girl’s school in a really backward part of UP. I would count this as evidence of a more real commitment to the issues than much of what other celebrities do. This is hardly a glamorous cause like supporting Tibet!
Comment by rks on 7 April 2008:
Rajini asked his supporters to vote against AIADMK in 1996 elections. He didn’t ask for vote for DMK directly.
link
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Here’s one example of Rajni’s political campaigning:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Rajnikant_in_a_dilemma/articleshow/msid-623805,curpg-1.cms
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Here’s another example of Rajni being cited as a huge factor in Jayalalitha’s humiliating defeat in 1996:
http://www.newindpress.com/cinema/sivaji/News.asp?Topic=-497&Title=&ID=IE920070615063209&nDate=6/15/2007&Sub=&
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Rks: In TN when you ask people to vote against the DMK or AIDMK you’re automatically helping the other side! But as the two links will demonstrate Rajni has done more than this on both sides.
In any case the debate here is over Rajni’s actual involvement in the process and he’s been quite involved.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
I still believe he lacks the savviness and hence he gets into trouble. Btw the sincerity point you made is an other way of saying he is kind of a bumkin at times. Well meaning but clueless to the realities of the world.
Regd the school its again the fish argument. I would rather he inspires poor people to put kids in school than just open a school. Not demeaning the latter in any way, mind you. But again its the opportunity lost
Comment by rks on 7 April 2008:
Politics of art vs art of politics-Link
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
Can you believe your ears rks. Here’s satyam and me having a civilized debate. Look for another job dude!
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
I disagree Beld. Opening up a school is precisely providing opportunities where none existed earlier. Bachchan opened up that school in a somewhat remote place (in terms of access to schools). That he opened one for girls was even better. This is exactly the kind of ‘concrete’ stuff that’s important because it happens at a micro level.
And it’s his sincerity that gets him this sort of achievement. If it were just about being media savvy and engaging in pronouncements every politician in India would have a lot more to his or her credit than is actually the case! It is this sort of tangible achievement that is needed more often than not. And incidentally in the new India economic dynamics it’s precisely this sort of ‘development’ at a very local and/or rural level that often falls below the media radar. For example you now have women in rural UP who are running businesses on their cell phones, there are farmers in the Punjab who are following the Chicago futures every morning on their computer screens. But this isn’t glamorous stuff and so it doesn’t get reported in major outlets very often. This to my mind is even the more interesting part of India’s economic change because it’s altering equations at a very grassroots level.
But again all of this connects with the argument that I’m trying to make for Bachchan. When he shows up in a ‘backward’ area and opens up a school with Ash’s name attached to it and with the promise of making future trips to that region people are precisely inspired to start sending children to this kind of school.
Again the media doesn’t often talk about the socially aware endorsements Bachchan makes. His single most important campaign in this sense was the polio one where vaccinations in many rural areas went up by 400% because people heard Bachchan urge them to do this. He’s involved in tons of campaigns but the media and the audiences just like to see the Pepsi endorsements or what have you!
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
“Can you believe your ears rks. Here’s satyam and me having a civilized debate. Look for another job dude!”
No Rks, your job is quite safe. Let me say something as serious and involved about SRK and the knives will come out. Just as there has been another chorus descending on me this morning since I made the comment on JA being unopposed for so many weeks. But I’ve braved the SRK fans, I think I can brave the Hrithik ones as well!
Comment by NyKavi on 7 April 2008:
Quite often, socio-economic impacts cant be made in a country like India without stepping over several toes. That is the biggest impediment for celebrities in getting involved. IMO, the max they can do is be involved in apolitical health-education issues such as polio eradication, commitment towards providing primary education, etc. Outside of that domain, almost every other issue in India becomes politically significant for one group or another.
So all they can do is stick to charity and non-controversial issues. Unfortunately, along with that charitable commitment, one also needs logistical and infrastructural support. Why have Gates-Buffet gone on to create their own charitable foundations? They simply cannot trust their good name being used by others in propogating their social causes. If Amitabh today decided to even think of donating a sizeable chunk of his fortune to any cause, he couldnt do so without having complete control and time commitment to such an edeavour. And this is not just Amitabh, but also any big industrialist in India such as Ambanies, Tata, Birla, etc. After all, a high cost has to be borne by charitable foundations towards scams run high in countries like India. In the absence of complete control and time commitment by the donor, it would be absolutely wasteful to even step into such efforts.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
I noticed that you said pepsi and not coke …lol
We disagree tho. To me if someone used the media and used a school opening to make other actors or corporates to open more schools, that’s a more significant achievement for india. Albeit amitabh may be the better and more sincere man.
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
And before we criticize Bachchan too much for not knowing the ‘art of politics’ (this is certainly a fair point) let’s also talk about others who don’t just get a fair shake in the media by being more savvy but by also corrupting the media in so many ways. I have made points on this many times before.
Also getting back to Qalandar’s point about our own responsibility and complicity in all of this let’s not always question a Bachchan or a Rajni. We see junk pieces appearing in the film media every day. How many of us actually question these? Most of the time people react to them in completely partisan ways? how many times do we thoughtfully question the ideological assumptions, the often downright propaganda, and so forth?
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Beld: Anil Ambani has worked with Bachchan in terms of many projects in UP. He has in fact made some very significant investments in a state which but for the Bachchan connection is neither the most promising state from an economic forecasting standpoint nor even one that Anil Ambani has any connection to otherwise.
Comment by beld o beld on 7 April 2008:
Good lateral thinking nyk. Will respond tomorrow. Too sleepy now. Satyam, how did film journalism and propaganda come into this debate dude. Lol
Comment by NyKavi on 7 April 2008:
My own family has had rough experiences in trying to run elementary schools in certain tribal areas in central India. What pains me the most is that good causes are the first to befall to roaming vultures in the hinterlands. There is a reason those tribal adivasis and backward castes are so deep in the hole. Their chances towards attainment of education or medical services are hampered at every step of the way by scamsters and skimmers feasting off any sliver of funds that come their way. One needs to have a standing army of goons that can retaliate and neutralize the vultures, to be able to create any kind of sustainable and long lasting change.
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
Nykavi: Again some strong points here..
Comment by NyKavi on 7 April 2008:
Ty Beld and satyam..
Let me tell you from personal experience, it is one of the toughest jobs to even think of starting a small teeny-meeny elementary school with even 5000sqft space in these remote areas. Forget about the lack of infrastructure and the sheer logistical headaches to get the project going and getting it completed. One can do that, have a nice opening ceremony, call the local zilla-district admins for a nice photo-op,etc..
The headache only starts after that..when you have to ensure that there are efficient administrators in place running the show in your absence. It is a pity to say that the chances of finding anyone with even an aorta of integrity remain next to none.
Saale itne makaar log hote hain, itni chori-chakaari hoti hai, ek thaali-lota-katora-chamach tak nahi chodte hain. They loot everything out of the place. Kis-kis ke peeche bhagte phirenge? Even the most sincere appearing people who dont steal a thing for a year would make away with the biggest of loots from right under your eyes.
Unless it is your most trusted relative running it day and night, there is no way one can run such an enterprise. And if the donors themselves started running the show, who would be running their primary businesses that generate the financial wherewithal for funding such institutions? Let me say that any enthusiasm that an individual may have of doing something worthy for society gets completely completely drained away with such experiences.
Comment by jayshah on 7 April 2008:
NyKavi, one of the worst feelings in the world is when you do something good and it backfires so disgustingly. And even the trusted relative cannot always be trusted! I’ve heard countless stories of money being sent over and that money being abused and wasted. And certainly know where your coming from and it makes one’s head boil at times!
Comment by Julie on 7 April 2008:
“Beld: Anil Ambani has worked with Bachchan in terms of many projects in UP. He has in fact made some very significant investments in a state which but for the Bachchan connection is neither the most promising state from an economic forecasting standpoint”
Anil Ambani is a pure business man. His investments in the State of Uttar Pradesh stem from a spirit of a potential commercial gain rather than purely his association with a star who hails from the State of UP or the city of Allahabad (but actually does not reside there). As the owner of the largest Private Sector Generation, and Distribution firm of India Anil Ambani wants to see the widespread emanciaption of the Power Sector under the flagship of REL, he is using the land that he has obtained at a very cheap price from SP for the setting up of a mega gas-based project at Dadri of Uttar Pradesh which will use the KG basin gas to generate power for fast growing areas around Delhi.
Power is the biggest forte of the Anil Ambani Group and yes he is setting up projects in different parts of the country, UP being one to give a filip to the B/S of REL.
Comment by satyam on 7 April 2008:
No one is suggesting that Ambani is investing in UP purely because of Bachchan. That would be a bit ridiculous wouldn’t it?! But the bachchan connection makes him gravitate towards a state which he wouldn’t necessarily have prioritized otherwise. Not just this, he’s also been involved with the Samjvadi in his own way. he is among Bachchan’s closest circle and is there at even the most exclusive Bachchan events. Not to mention that he’s making trips with bachchan to Tirupathi when no one else often is! So these connections make a difference. And if he’s getting land from the Samjavadi well guess who the connecting link is?!
By the way I actually dispute the notion that a businessman simply makes business decisions in the purely ‘accounting’
sense of the term. Great business leaders are always a little visionary (as indeed Anil knows from his father) and are always willing to take risks or at least make decisions which do not entirely fall within the realm of calculable logic. In other words the great visionary business minds are always a little irrational!
But to get back to the original point of course no one makes these gigantic decisions just on the say so of someone! It’s all a question of what options you have and which ones you prioritize. The Anil Ambani-Bachchan-Samajvadi axis is very much an important one in UP and each link here is critical.
Comment by Julie on 7 April 2008:
“By the way I actually dispute the notion that a businessman simply makes business decisions in the purely ‘accounting’
sense of the term. Great business leaders are always a little visionary (as indeed Anil knows from his father”
Not when the guy is a Finance major from Wharton Business School. Then the Accounting sense will definitely prevail and also when he has a big brother whose empire has grown in a monstrous manner (being amongst the five richedt people in the world) and being the younger he has a lot to catch up with and prove. And the fact that someone has mediated/broked the deal - between two parties just makes it again a commercial phenomeon rather than a contribution towards the larger good of humanity which is the basic essence of the discussion that some have raised. The electricity projects essentially entail that UP is being used for generation capacity and the beneficiary is going to be a different SEB.
Comment by NyKavi on 7 April 2008:
There is no doubt that Anil Ambani stands to gain from the investments in UP. As for why UP, the answer is simple. It has the largest population of any state in India, industrial towns, power (as in electricity..lol) hungry population centers, etc and the facts pointed by Julie. I dont think there is anything visionary in his investments, its just that he got land at very cheap rates due to his SP connections. Any other industrialist would immediately jump at the opportunity if it presented itself. Fortunately for Anil, the line for said opportunities started with him out front of everyone else, due to his close proximity to SP. I also doubt that Anil got to Mulayam thru Amitabh. Rather I feel that Amitabh got to Mulayam thru Anil.
Comment by rks on 7 April 2008:
Beld: “Can you believe your ears rks. Here’s satyam and me having a civilized debate. Look for another job dude!”