Shiv Sena Vs Amitabh: Pot calling the kettle black

Good read

Bal Thackeray’s insinuation that the Hindi film world in general has not contributed its mite to the welfare of the community which has made it what it is, rings true to some extent. But people like him could have led by example. But did he?

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=131925

Well, SUPERSTAR Shivaji Rao Gaekwad (born December 12, 1949), also known as Rajnikanth, taking up the cudgels on behalf of Tamilnadu in the recent protest organised by the Tamil film world in connection with the Hogenakkal integrated water supply scheme has pleased the Shiv Sena immensely. It has pleased the Shiv Sena because the superstar is a born Maharashtrian, although the Sena has not implied that this fact has made it proud. It has pleased the Shiv Sena that the superstar’s participation has provided it with another stick to beat Amitabh Bachchan with. The Shiv Sena has said that Bachchan has done nothing for Maharashtra while Rajnikanth is agitating for and on behalf of Tamilnadu in respect of the Hogenakkal integrated water supply scheme. 

Bachchan retorted that none had the right to question his contribution to Maharashtra. The statement can be interpreted in two ways. This may amount to saying, ‘Yes, I have done nothing for Maharashtra; so what? Who are you to question me anyway?’ Well, Bachchan is right. What qualifies Bal Thackeray to question Bachchan on the subject? Even if Balasaheb questions him, Bachchan is under no obligation to answer him. To contribute or not to contribute to the community one lives in is the prerogative of the individual concerned. If the individual in question decides not to contribute, he cannot be condemned either as long as he does not sponge off the community he lives in.

Bachchan’s retort may also amount to saying, ‘I have contributed my mite to Maharashtra / Mumbai and I know it; but I don’t have to explain it to you’.   One does not know which of the two possible answers Bachchan had in mind when he retorted. Based on his contribution to Maharashtra / Mumbai, Bachchan, the individual, cannot be judged. 

If this is the obverse side, the other side is something which the Shiv Sena boss may not relish. Rajnikanth, a born Maharashtrian, domiciled in Bangalore for sometime, migrated to Chennai, seeking a future in films. The local Tamils did not discriminate against him on the grounds of language (Marathi) or domicile (Bangalore). Even today, his Tamil gives him away. One can easily detect that Tamil is not his mother tongue. His Tamil sounded funnier during the early part of his film life in Chennai.   

All the same, the local Tamils viewed him purely as an actor and once he proved his mettle, accepted him as a superstar. Other things did not matter to them and hence were discounted. Although there were several actors from the state ruling the roost at the time, the local Tamils gave him his due. He outperformed and still outperforms all the actors from Tamilnadu at the box office and is amongst the highest-paid actors in the country today. According to NDTV.Com , he was paid a whopping Rs 25 crores for his latest blockbuster, ‘Sivaji’.  The question is whether Bal Thackeray and his followers would have been as magnanimous as the superstar’s fans had they been placed under similar circumstances. At best, they may have envied the new arrival and plotted his ouster on extraneous considerations like language, caste, etc. 

To be fair, Rajnikanth has been fair to all those who have helped him. He has forgotten none of his friends. Have you ever heard of an actor-producer who has compensated the distributors for the losses his own film inflicted on the said distributors? Why have not Bal Thackeray or his followers honoured Rajnikanth so far? Even the Maharashtra government honoured him with the Raj Kapoor award in 2007 which Balasaheb may not respect because it is named after a north-Indian actor. They could have at least signed him up for a Marathi film and Rajni would have offered to act free of cost.   

Even ‘Asiaweek’ named Rajni one of the most influential persons in South Asia. NDTV selected him as the best movie entertainer in India for the year 2007. Rajni shared his income from the film “Arunachalam” with eight other people from the film industry as profit shares. Rajni’s beneficiaries are selected on merit and not on grounds of language, religion, caste, etc. While Bal Thackeray rightly admits that Rajnikanth is a true representative of Maharashtrian culture, can he confidently say the same thing about himself or his son or his nephew or his followers? 

It is a fact that Hindi film stars or playback singers are not known for philanthropic activities. None in the village where Kishore Kumar was born knew or knows Kishore Kumar. But this is something that cannot be instilled overnight. Somebody should set a precedent. In corporate circles, it is said, not without reason that every Tata employee prays first for the welfare of the company before praying for his / her own welfare. Why? In the Tata group of companies it is not uncommon to find sons / daughters of even car drivers and sub-staff becoming doctors, engineers, etc, courtesy the group’s philanthropic bent of mind. 

The Brilas may have constructed temples (like Lata Mangeshkar) and established institutions of higher learning. But that does not directly contribute to the welfare of the people. This is one area where the Hindi film world can pick up something from the Tamil film world. The promoters of some film studios in Chennai have funded the higher education budget of the sons and daughters of some of the studio’s employees! The legendary MGR extended help even before one sought help! 

May we hope that Balasaheb will inculcate the ethos of sharing and caring in his son, nephew and followers? He will have qualified to judge Bachchan in such a case!

- S. Shivakumar