SRK wishes Thackrey on his birthday

July 27, 2010

Shahrukh Khan, the Bollywood’s supertstar and the owner of Red Chillies Entertainment has wished Uddhay Thackrey on his 50th Birthday today.

Red Chillies Entertainment, wished the Executive President of Shiv Sena, Uddhay Thackrey, compliments on his birthday through a half page advertisement in Saamna, a newspaper owned by Shiv Sena.

This act by Shahrukh Khan is considered to be a move to pacify the angry Sena.

The relation between Shiv Sena and Shahrukh Khan went sour, when Shahrukh Khan showed his support for the Pakistani cricketers during the bidding of IPL 3.

Art under fire

The MNIK brouhaha seems to have died down. But will this be the last we hear of assault on artistic expression? Where, then, is pluralism in our democracy and the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech?

There was a time when the term slash and burn brought to mind a form of shifting cultivation practised from ancient times. In the past two decades, with the ascendance of majoritarian politics in India, the term has exemplified a trajectory of political opportunism characterised by a virulent aesthetic of violence in public space — especially in the cultural terrain.

Most recently we saw Shiv Sainiks foam at the mouth in an attempt to stop the release of Shah Rukh Khan's film “My name is Khan” for his ‘anti-national' statement ruing the omission of Pak cricketers for the current IPL season (and blast the effrontery of the punchline, ‘My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist). Some months ago, the MNS successfully extracted an apology from film producer Karan Johar for the ‘insult' caused to Marathi manoos pride in the film “Wake Up Sid” by the mere mention of Mumbai as Bombay.

Charring canvases, vandalising artistic spaces and institutions of excellence, disrupting film and theatre performances or targeting individual artistes is part of the energetic occupational description. And just as an artist, filmmaker or writer can get inspiration from any source, these practitioners have the felicity of claiming any artistic act as being injurious enough to a particular identity, ‘tradition', gaurav (pride) or asmita to warrant mob action in its demand for apologies, amendments to the creative work or straight bans.

Since the idea of civilisational grace as having a thin skin, hardened attitude and aggrieved heart on the sleeve has often gone uncontested at the level of governance or political engagement, the calendar of art attacks has increasingly got crowded and diversified.

In 2005, the screening of “Parzania”, set against the backdrop of the 2002 Gujarat violence, was forestalled across the state, tom-tommed as an attack on Gujarati pride. A common wavelength connected the majority community, Parivar activists and government. The act of suppressing the film reiterated the connection between Gujarati pride and the dehumanising brutality suffered by the minority community. Again it was in Gujarat in 2006 that “Fanaa's” release was obstructed to avenge the ‘harm caused to Gujarat's interest by lead actor Aamir Khan's statement supporting the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

The way these practitioners see it: politics is a way of life and culture is a way of politics. The idea of according art its own domain seems an act of utter weakness when ‘creative' tasks of a higher magnitude demand urgent attention.

Of the various facets of democracy, one of the easiest ways to joust for a larger slice of the political pie is by espousing forms of majoritarianism with variants of communalism, regionalism, parochialism or nativism. The formula is quite straightforward: fashion a weapon of chauvinistic identity by parasiting on the turbulent societal anxieties simmering just below the surface in an increasingly complex world. Once that is accomplished it's time to deploy this weapon on the streets in the name of ‘the people'.

Grim example

For 15 years the Hindutva campaign to isolate, target and brand the iconic artist M.F. Husain as a deviant, connecting his ‘crimes' with his community's ‘disloyalty' has been a grim example of this form of political mobilisation. There was a time in the mid-1990s when even L.K. Advani turned art critic briefly by attempting to give a communal overtone to artist Satish Gujral's comments against Husain; comments that Gujral sensibly withdrew.

However, the hundreds of cases instituted against Husain across India for executing a ‘nude' drawing of Saraswati and later a painting of Bharat Mata, the title bestowed by a third party, have kept the nonagenarian artist in exile, uprooted from his home and the cultural environment that has nourished his impulses.

The slew of Hindutva campaigns unleashed in public space set the stage for many more contestations subordinating the artistic domain to the cause of social and political engineering.

Today, in an age of snowballing identity politics of various hues — as an avenue of vertical mobility or lateral regrouping to retain power — the attempt to control images of the constructed self-identity assume importance in a world governed largely by perception. This attempt surfaces in a variety of ways. Implicit in this endeavour is an awareness of the amplificatory potential of this mobilisation through the 24X7 mass media. Filmmaker Ashutosh Gowariker's “Jodhaa Akbar” had its share of hiccups when an outfit called the Rajput Karni Sena captured media attention by demanding an apology from the director for his ‘ historically inaccurate' portrayal of Jodha.

No apology was given; several theatres refrained from screening the film in Rajasthan. Protests spanned several places in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

No doubt spurred by such uplifting activities, a couple of weeks ago the Sena trained its sights on the Salman Khan starrer “Veer”, dubbing it an attempt to malign the image of “our brave community”. Thereupon the Sena wrote a new chapter in bravery by indulging in acts of vandalism in theatres screening the movie. Clearly, the ‘art' lies in feeling aggrieved all the time.

Similarly, in Punjab too the Sikh clergy's disapproval of ‘inaccurate' portrayal of characters as per Sikh tenets (“Jo Bole So Nihal” and “Singh is King”), told their story of a directed, puritanical gaze aimed at keeping their influence over their flock intact. At a deeper level such interventions through the mass medium of popular cinema add to an ongoing process of fixing of identities along religious lines in the state.

Seen thus, the notion of public sphere in India as a democratic space encouraging a diversity of views, or dissent against majoritarianism seems to be in peril. And by and large, in the event of infringements of artistic freedoms, political establishments engaged in hard-nosed realpolitik have seemed reluctant to firmly speak the language of Constitutional guarantees.

Read more HERE.

Art under fire

The MNIK brouhaha seems to have died down. But will this be the last we hear of assault on artistic expression? Where, then, is pluralism in our democracy and the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech?

There was a time when the term slash and burn brought to mind a form of shifting cultivation practised from ancient times. In the past two decades, with the ascendance of majoritarian politics in India, the term has exemplified a trajectory of political opportunism characterised by a virulent aesthetic of violence in public space — especially in the cultural terrain.

Most recently we saw Shiv Sainiks foam at the mouth in an attempt to stop the release of Shah Rukh Khan's film “My name is Khan” for his ‘anti-national' statement ruing the omission of Pak cricketers for the current IPL season (and blast the effrontery of the punchline, ‘My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist). Some months ago, the MNS successfully extracted an apology from film producer Karan Johar for the ‘insult' caused to Marathi manoos pride in the film “Wake Up Sid” by the mere mention of Mumbai as Bombay.

Charring canvases, vandalising artistic spaces and institutions of excellence, disrupting film and theatre performances or targeting individual artistes is part of the energetic occupational description. And just as an artist, filmmaker or writer can get inspiration from any source, these practitioners have the felicity of claiming any artistic act as being injurious enough to a particular identity, ‘tradition', gaurav (pride) or asmita to warrant mob action in its demand for apologies, amendments to the creative work or straight bans.

Since the idea of civilisational grace as having a thin skin, hardened attitude and aggrieved heart on the sleeve has often gone uncontested at the level of governance or political engagement, the calendar of art attacks has increasingly got crowded and diversified.

In 2005, the screening of “Parzania”, set against the backdrop of the 2002 Gujarat violence, was forestalled across the state, tom-tommed as an attack on Gujarati pride. A common wavelength connected the majority community, Parivar activists and government. The act of suppressing the film reiterated the connection between Gujarati pride and the dehumanising brutality suffered by the minority community. Again it was in Gujarat in 2006 that “Fanaa's” release was obstructed to avenge the ‘harm caused to Gujarat's interest by lead actor Aamir Khan's statement supporting the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

The way these practitioners see it: politics is a way of life and culture is a way of politics. The idea of according art its own domain seems an act of utter weakness when ‘creative' tasks of a higher magnitude demand urgent attention.

Of the various facets of democracy, one of the easiest ways to joust for a larger slice of the political pie is by espousing forms of majoritarianism with variants of communalism, regionalism, parochialism or nativism. The formula is quite straightforward: fashion a weapon of chauvinistic identity by parasiting on the turbulent societal anxieties simmering just below the surface in an increasingly complex world. Once that is accomplished it's time to deploy this weapon on the streets in the name of ‘the people'.

Grim example

For 15 years the Hindutva campaign to isolate, target and brand the iconic artist M.F. Husain as a deviant, connecting his ‘crimes' with his community's ‘disloyalty' has been a grim example of this form of political mobilisation. There was a time in the mid-1990s when even L.K. Advani turned art critic briefly by attempting to give a communal overtone to artist Satish Gujral's comments against Husain; comments that Gujral sensibly withdrew.

However, the hundreds of cases instituted against Husain across India for executing a ‘nude' drawing of Saraswati and later a painting of Bharat Mata, the title bestowed by a third party, have kept the nonagenarian artist in exile, uprooted from his home and the cultural environment that has nourished his impulses.

The slew of Hindutva campaigns unleashed in public space set the stage for many more contestations subordinating the artistic domain to the cause of social and political engineering.

Today, in an age of snowballing identity politics of various hues — as an avenue of vertical mobility or lateral regrouping to retain power — the attempt to control images of the constructed self-identity assume importance in a world governed largely by perception. This attempt surfaces in a variety of ways. Implicit in this endeavour is an awareness of the amplificatory potential of this mobilisation through the 24X7 mass media. Filmmaker Ashutosh Gowariker's “Jodhaa Akbar” had its share of hiccups when an outfit called the Rajput Karni Sena captured media attention by demanding an apology from the director for his ‘ historically inaccurate' portrayal of Jodha.

No apology was given; several theatres refrained from screening the film in Rajasthan. Protests spanned several places in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

No doubt spurred by such uplifting activities, a couple of weeks ago the Sena trained its sights on the Salman Khan starrer “Veer”, dubbing it an attempt to malign the image of “our brave community”. Thereupon the Sena wrote a new chapter in bravery by indulging in acts of vandalism in theatres screening the movie. Clearly, the ‘art' lies in feeling aggrieved all the time.

Similarly, in Punjab too the Sikh clergy's disapproval of ‘inaccurate' portrayal of characters as per Sikh tenets (“Jo Bole So Nihal” and “Singh is King”), told their story of a directed, puritanical gaze aimed at keeping their influence over their flock intact. At a deeper level such interventions through the mass medium of popular cinema add to an ongoing process of fixing of identities along religious lines in the state.

Seen thus, the notion of public sphere in India as a democratic space encouraging a diversity of views, or dissent against majoritarianism seems to be in peril. And by and large, in the event of infringements of artistic freedoms, political establishments engaged in hard-nosed realpolitik have seemed reluctant to firmly speak the language of Constitutional guarantees.

Read more HERE.

I didn't say anything that was radical: SRK

Shah Rukh Khan said on Friday that he maintains caution following the controversy over the release of his film My Name is Khan after his IPL remark favouring Pakistani players.

"I am little worried, careful about what I say. I will always stay on the side I am sure of. I will clearly do this," Khan said, while speaking exclusively toHeadlines Today's Senior Editor Koel Purie.

"I don't think of it - MNIK row - as a victory or a battle. I have been numbed by this. We do not need this in this country. What I said was not completely wrong and it may have been misunderstood," he said after Mumbai flocked to seeMNIK, defying Shiv Sena threat.

"I did not say anything that was radical. I always stand by the side which is right," he said.

On rumours of his bowing down to Sena supremo Bal Thackeray and apologizing for his IPL remarks, he said, "I did not know what to retract and I still don't. Nobody demanded an apology and the question never arose."

"It was never asked, what I said was absolutely clear," he added.

To a question regarding his portrayal of a Muslim man in MNIK, he said, "Character is important. It is incidental that the hero is a Khan. It is about the beauty of this country that I have played different characters, coming from different religions. It is my duty to explain my religion to my fans."

While talking about the controversy, Shah Rukh said as an aftethought, "My family is embarrassed to take me out in public because of my viewpoint as I speak my mind."

When asked if he will support his fraternity in times of crisis, he said, "We do offer personal support." He thanked all those who supported him during the controversy, but said the film fraternity holds back from speaking its mind.

On being asked if the Sena-SRK spat was a publicity stunt, he said, "I have said it on my Twitter and I will say it again, shut up. I don't need these gimmicks. I'm publicity. Shah Rukh Khan needs no external publicity. I have planned for my publicity. I pay for my publicity, I work for my publicity and I market my publicity."

LINK

I didn't say anything that was radical: SRK

Shah Rukh Khan said on Friday that he maintains caution following the controversy over the release of his film My Name is Khan after his IPL remark favouring Pakistani players.

"I am little worried, careful about what I say. I will always stay on the side I am sure of. I will clearly do this," Khan said, while speaking exclusively toHeadlines Today's Senior Editor Koel Purie.

"I don't think of it - MNIK row - as a victory or a battle. I have been numbed by this. We do not need this in this country. What I said was not completely wrong and it may have been misunderstood," he said after Mumbai flocked to seeMNIK, defying Shiv Sena threat.

"I did not say anything that was radical. I always stand by the side which is right," he said.

On rumours of his bowing down to Sena supremo Bal Thackeray and apologizing for his IPL remarks, he said, "I did not know what to retract and I still don't. Nobody demanded an apology and the question never arose."

"It was never asked, what I said was absolutely clear," he added.

To a question regarding his portrayal of a Muslim man in MNIK, he said, "Character is important. It is incidental that the hero is a Khan. It is about the beauty of this country that I have played different characters, coming from different religions. It is my duty to explain my religion to my fans."

While talking about the controversy, Shah Rukh said as an aftethought, "My family is embarrassed to take me out in public because of my viewpoint as I speak my mind."

When asked if he will support his fraternity in times of crisis, he said, "We do offer personal support." He thanked all those who supported him during the controversy, but said the film fraternity holds back from speaking its mind.

On being asked if the Sena-SRK spat was a publicity stunt, he said, "I have said it on my Twitter and I will say it again, shut up. I don't need these gimmicks. I'm publicity. Shah Rukh Khan needs no external publicity. I have planned for my publicity. I pay for my publicity, I work for my publicity and I market my publicity."

LINK

Is Pawar behind Sena's renewed opposition to SRK-starrer MNIK?

NEW DELHI: NCP boss Sharad Pawar seems to have got back at Congress over the price rise missiles aimed at him during last week's meeting of the Congress Working Committee by egging on Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray to revive his opposition to Shah Rukh Khan-starrer `My Name Is Khan'. 

The Sena's chief's U-turn on MNIK after having dropped his objections to the film is seen as a fallout of Pawar's calculated move to meet Thackeray on Sunday, ostensibly to dissuade him from opposing inclusion of Australian players in IPL 3. Pawar claimed he was only wearing his cricket cap when he met Thackeray. 

Pawar's "offer" to make a presentation on IPL and presence of BCCI chief Shashank Manohar at the Thackeray residence buoyed the Sena chief and left Congress fuming. Pawar threw a lifeline to Thackeray just as the Sena chief was isolated over attacking SRK's comment that he would have liked Pakistani cricketers to be in IPL. It also came just as Sena also had its thunder stolen by Rahul Gandhi's ride in a Mumbai suburban train. 

Congress sources said while MNIK's producer-director Karan Johar was promised adequate protection for the film when he met Mumbai police commissioner D Shivanandan on Tuesday, he and SRK might also meet chief minister Ashok Chavan on Wednesday. "If the police assurance is strong, the meeting with the CM may not happen. But it needs to be seen how secure the producer and exhibitors are feeling," said sources. 

With what is seen to be a wink and a nod from Pawar, apparently smarting from the CWC flaying him for price rise, the Sena supremo is back in business. Exhibitors in Mumbai were told of plans to disrupt the film. Panicked exhibitors approached SRK who swiftly got in touch with Congress leaders seeking protection for the film's release on Friday.

Read more HERE.

Is Pawar behind Sena's renewed opposition to SRK-starrer MNIK?

NEW DELHI: NCP boss Sharad Pawar seems to have got back at Congress over the price rise missiles aimed at him during last week's meeting of the Congress Working Committee by egging on Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray to revive his opposition to Shah Rukh Khan-starrer `My Name Is Khan'. 

The Sena's chief's U-turn on MNIK after having dropped his objections to the film is seen as a fallout of Pawar's calculated move to meet Thackeray on Sunday, ostensibly to dissuade him from opposing inclusion of Australian players in IPL 3. Pawar claimed he was only wearing his cricket cap when he met Thackeray. 

Pawar's "offer" to make a presentation on IPL and presence of BCCI chief Shashank Manohar at the Thackeray residence buoyed the Sena chief and left Congress fuming. Pawar threw a lifeline to Thackeray just as the Sena chief was isolated over attacking SRK's comment that he would have liked Pakistani cricketers to be in IPL. It also came just as Sena also had its thunder stolen by Rahul Gandhi's ride in a Mumbai suburban train. 

Congress sources said while MNIK's producer-director Karan Johar was promised adequate protection for the film when he met Mumbai police commissioner D Shivanandan on Tuesday, he and SRK might also meet chief minister Ashok Chavan on Wednesday. "If the police assurance is strong, the meeting with the CM may not happen. But it needs to be seen how secure the producer and exhibitors are feeling," said sources. 

With what is seen to be a wink and a nod from Pawar, apparently smarting from the CWC flaying him for price rise, the Sena supremo is back in business. Exhibitors in Mumbai were told of plans to disrupt the film. Panicked exhibitors approached SRK who swiftly got in touch with Congress leaders seeking protection for the film's release on Friday.

Read more HERE.