Ban on Play Mr. Jinnah
arvind gaur July 5, 2005
#161 Posted by arvind on July 15, 2005 2:18:00 am
DEAR VEERESH, PLS D`T TELL LIES....
WHY ARE U TELLING LIES TO THE WORLD TO PROVE UR POINT OF VIEW. WHY SHOULD I APOLOGISE TO U? I EVEN DONT KNOW UR REAL NAME / MAIL ID .
``........................#146 by veeresh on July 13, 2005 7:05pm PT
a) I have received direct eMails from Arvind Gaur, apologising for the behaviour of anonymous people claiming to be his well-wishers. I have told him that he need not apologise, the question here is of freedom of speech so his friends are entitled to it, even if they feel I am not.............. ``
DEAR VEERESH, PLS D`T DO IT AGAIN BCZ ITS MORALLY, ETHICALLY & FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
ONE MORE THING , I THINK THIS CHOWK .COM IS FOR HEALTHY DISCUSSIONS ....NOT FOR THREATS & ABUSES....
WITH LOVE
ARVIND GAUR
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#162 Posted by mog on July 15, 2005 3:36:39 am
Re: # 158 sangoo didi eh kee hondaa hai ciao miao, sonia ji daa vee sunyaa see hondaa hai ciao tussee aus paase de teh nahee ho?
Khair sangoo didi it is like this that like in bunty and bubby i am here only all these days and you are buying taj mahal it seems that is a joke ji joke only HAHA HA HA like you are saying i m also saying upar dee gurgur what a lovely!!!but you must ji must share with antara did and sobti aunty and also their uncle this nice article also by our manto ji on jinnah and tilak and gokhale it is almost seeming here that rss and muslim league and communist and maybe congress all are same same what you are thinking is it not so?
you need not worry HAHA HA HA if in open public debate anybody is saying wrong things jootaa maro chappal uttaar ke HAHA HA HA
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001086&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1&channel=university%20ave
Tilak and Gokhale
Manto
Pre-Gandhian Nationalism and Freedom struggle is the heritage of both Pakistan and India
Pakistani History books have made the grave error of not according the high place to Tilak and Gokhale that their achievements merit. They are mentioned in passing, as Jinnah`s seniors in the Congress Party but nothing more. Indeed, Jinnah was most influenced by these two men, imbibing idealism and nationalism from them. His fondest hope had been of becoming a `Muslim Gokhale`. As in the words of one author, `Jinnah`s conversion to the partition demand cannot be fully appreciated unless we appreciate his commitment to the cause of Indian Nationalism and Hindu Muslim Unity in the Pre-Gandhian era.`
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was born in 1856, a year before the 1857 War of Independence. He began as an educationist in the tradition of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founding the New English School. His contribution to Indian Nationalist Politics started with his career as a journalist in Poona, with his papers `Kesari` and `Mahratta`. Though a conservative Hindu, seeking Hindu revival, he was free of communal bias, and preferred to keep religious agenda out of Politics. The founding of Indian National Congress in 1885 brought Tilak to the forefront of the National Politics. Within the Congress, Tilak came to represent the extreme wing of the Congress calling for a `Dominion` status for India. This split became more visible in 1907 when the Congress became visibly split between Gokhale`s Moderates (including M A Jinnah) and Tilak`s extremists. In 1908 Tilak was arrested for seditious writings in his paper `Kesari`. He asked as counsel India`s best young Barrister Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah, whose valiant defense earned Talik`s long lasting affection and admiration. Tilak however was sentenced to 6 years rigorous imprisonment by Judge Davar, who earned knighthood for doing so. Tilak continued to be a force in Indian Politics until his death in 1920 which was mourned by Muslims and Hindus alike.
Gopal Krishan Gokhale was ten years junior to Tilak. His basic approach to Politics was perhaps the most influential in Mr Jinnah`s own life. As a moderate, Gokhale preferred Negotiation rather than non cooperation. A strict constitutionalist, he was elected to Bombay Legislative council, and the Imperial Legislative Council in 1899 and 1902 respectively. It was Gokhale more than anyone else, who inspired and influenced young Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who despite his admiration for Tilak`s patriotism sided with Gokhale in the split of the Congress in 1907. Like Jinnah, Gokhale never went to jail. He continued on the path of constitutional struggle for self rule for Indian people. His death in 1915 deprived the sub continent of a great leader who could have led the Indians, Hindus and Muslims together, to freedom much earlier than they did.
The Pre-Gandhian National struggle was markedly different from the Gandhian Movement of the 1920s and early 1930s. Despite attempts on Mr Gandhi`s part to portray Gokhale as his political Guru (ref `Gokahle my Political Guru`) Gandhian methods and ways were a flight from the moderation and progressive nationalism espoused by Gokhale and his disciple Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Gandhi despite frantic attempts was unable to gain membership in Gokhale`s `Servants of India` for atleast two years. His drives for recruitment for the British Army, and his calls for cooperation and opposition against the movements for self rule and Dominion Status did not make a darling of the leaders of the Indian Nationalist Movements. Sadly it was Mr Jinnah who made the fatal and terrible mistake of nominating Mr Gandhi as the candidate for Home Rule League Bombay Presidency despite better advice from close friends and committed secularists like Jayakar. Mr Gandhi assured the Home Rule Leaguers that he will not bring in his theories and fads into Politics and was made the president of the League in 1920 (MR Jayakar, the Story of My life, 1958, pages 316-17). Paradoxically, Gandhiji made Home rule League or `Swaraj Sabha` as he called it the focal point in his `fantastic fads` and `pet theories` that Jayakar had spoken against.
Gandhian Methods of bringing religion into Politics found no sanction from Tilak who said `Let us seek Muslim Cooperation on the broad national question of Swaraj. In that, all means, give them privileges if these will satisfy them and bring them into Congress fold, but never seek to introduce theology into our Politics` (Jayakar the story of my life P388). Gandhi had not only brought his ancient Hindu Philosophy saying `I am a Hindu first and hence a true Indian` (Secular and Nationalist Jinnah by Ajeet Javed Singh Page 187) but also tried to enlist the Khilafatists to his side by supporting their cause and thereby sidelining the secular Muslim element who did not feel any special love for Khilafat. Tilak also reportedly said `I have great respect and admiration for Gandhiji but I do not like his politics. If he was to retire to the himalayas, and gave up politics, I would send him fresh flowers out of my respect for him.`
The Pre-Gandhian Nationalist Politics was the politics of sophisticated secular nationalists who walked side by side on the question of self rule. Gokhale`s death in 1915, and Tilak`s death in 1920 left this form of Politics orphan. Jinnah, the worthy disciple, had one major drawback, as Gandhi noted so wisely the `eminent Muslim gentleman` was from the `minority community`. Gandhi`s arrival unlike the revisionist History suggests was not welcomed by the Indian Nationalists of the mainstream, nor did Gandhi try to make himself attractive to them. On the contrary he criticized Tilak for inciting the masses against the British, who were there for `the welfare of the world`(Philip Sprat Gandhism in analysis 1939 Madras, India`s freedom struggle Dwarkadas Kanji). Indeed, when Tilak was humiliated by Lord Wellingdon, the Governor of Bombay, it was Jinnah not Gandhi who set out to avenge Tilak`s humiliation leading a procession to prevent the address to Wellingdon as the departin Governor, from the citizens of Bombay. Gandhiji stood at the sideline, refusing to join the Nationalists. Indeed, Gandhiji openly and shamelessly sided with the British on this and many other issues. Yet revisionist History, some prompted by Gandhiji himself, tries to portray him as the inheritor of the nationalist tradition of Gokhale and Tilak which is entirely fale.
After Tilak`s death, followed lonely Jinnah`s unceremonious exit from the Congress at Nagpur, gave Gandhi the opportunity to organize Congress on Religious and spiritual lines, while also encouraging the reactionary non cooperation of both Swarajists, and the Khilafatists.
Henceforth, the Lucknow pact (also known as the famous Tilak Jinnah pact) which had woven together a thin fabric of unity between the two extremely divided communities of India, Hindus and Muslims, lost importance. Gandhi`s religious spiritualist Movement, undertaken undoubtedly by good intentions split the movement as Tilak and Jinnah had feared. After the Khilafat fell in Turkey, the illusion of Hindu Muslim Unity in form of united Khilafat and Non cooperation Movements fell apart. The ghost of Chatterjee, and the Anand Math was reawakened, in the form of Shudhi and Sanghtan Movements to convert all Muslims to Hinduism or to drive them out. The Mullahs empowered by the Khilafat Movement and Gandhiji were given a foot in the door which they now wholeheartedly saw as the door to political leadership of the Muslim Community. Moplahs rose in revolt in South India, killing and converting Hindus to Islam. The thin fabric of Unity for which Tilak, Gokhale and their worthy disciple Jinnah had worked so hard was lost forever. Jinnah stayed around making efforts to reclaim what his mentors had started in first two decades of the century. However, utterly disappointed, he was finally converted to the cause of Progressive Muslim Nationalism in 1937 by the great poet Philosopher
Muhammad Iqbal. That was the beginning of Jinnah`s journey on the road to Pakistan.
Khair sangoo didi it is like this that like in bunty and bubby i am here only all these days and you are buying taj mahal it seems that is a joke ji joke only HAHA HA HA like you are saying i m also saying upar dee gurgur what a lovely!!!but you must ji must share with antara did and sobti aunty and also their uncle this nice article also by our manto ji on jinnah and tilak and gokhale it is almost seeming here that rss and muslim league and communist and maybe congress all are same same what you are thinking is it not so?
you need not worry HAHA HA HA if in open public debate anybody is saying wrong things jootaa maro chappal uttaar ke HAHA HA HA
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001086&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1&channel=university%20ave
Tilak and Gokhale
Manto
Pre-Gandhian Nationalism and Freedom struggle is the heritage of both Pakistan and India
Pakistani History books have made the grave error of not according the high place to Tilak and Gokhale that their achievements merit. They are mentioned in passing, as Jinnah`s seniors in the Congress Party but nothing more. Indeed, Jinnah was most influenced by these two men, imbibing idealism and nationalism from them. His fondest hope had been of becoming a `Muslim Gokhale`. As in the words of one author, `Jinnah`s conversion to the partition demand cannot be fully appreciated unless we appreciate his commitment to the cause of Indian Nationalism and Hindu Muslim Unity in the Pre-Gandhian era.`
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was born in 1856, a year before the 1857 War of Independence. He began as an educationist in the tradition of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founding the New English School. His contribution to Indian Nationalist Politics started with his career as a journalist in Poona, with his papers `Kesari` and `Mahratta`. Though a conservative Hindu, seeking Hindu revival, he was free of communal bias, and preferred to keep religious agenda out of Politics. The founding of Indian National Congress in 1885 brought Tilak to the forefront of the National Politics. Within the Congress, Tilak came to represent the extreme wing of the Congress calling for a `Dominion` status for India. This split became more visible in 1907 when the Congress became visibly split between Gokhale`s Moderates (including M A Jinnah) and Tilak`s extremists. In 1908 Tilak was arrested for seditious writings in his paper `Kesari`. He asked as counsel India`s best young Barrister Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah, whose valiant defense earned Talik`s long lasting affection and admiration. Tilak however was sentenced to 6 years rigorous imprisonment by Judge Davar, who earned knighthood for doing so. Tilak continued to be a force in Indian Politics until his death in 1920 which was mourned by Muslims and Hindus alike.
Gopal Krishan Gokhale was ten years junior to Tilak. His basic approach to Politics was perhaps the most influential in Mr Jinnah`s own life. As a moderate, Gokhale preferred Negotiation rather than non cooperation. A strict constitutionalist, he was elected to Bombay Legislative council, and the Imperial Legislative Council in 1899 and 1902 respectively. It was Gokhale more than anyone else, who inspired and influenced young Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who despite his admiration for Tilak`s patriotism sided with Gokhale in the split of the Congress in 1907. Like Jinnah, Gokhale never went to jail. He continued on the path of constitutional struggle for self rule for Indian people. His death in 1915 deprived the sub continent of a great leader who could have led the Indians, Hindus and Muslims together, to freedom much earlier than they did.
The Pre-Gandhian National struggle was markedly different from the Gandhian Movement of the 1920s and early 1930s. Despite attempts on Mr Gandhi`s part to portray Gokhale as his political Guru (ref `Gokahle my Political Guru`) Gandhian methods and ways were a flight from the moderation and progressive nationalism espoused by Gokhale and his disciple Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Gandhi despite frantic attempts was unable to gain membership in Gokhale`s `Servants of India` for atleast two years. His drives for recruitment for the British Army, and his calls for cooperation and opposition against the movements for self rule and Dominion Status did not make a darling of the leaders of the Indian Nationalist Movements. Sadly it was Mr Jinnah who made the fatal and terrible mistake of nominating Mr Gandhi as the candidate for Home Rule League Bombay Presidency despite better advice from close friends and committed secularists like Jayakar. Mr Gandhi assured the Home Rule Leaguers that he will not bring in his theories and fads into Politics and was made the president of the League in 1920 (MR Jayakar, the Story of My life, 1958, pages 316-17). Paradoxically, Gandhiji made Home rule League or `Swaraj Sabha` as he called it the focal point in his `fantastic fads` and `pet theories` that Jayakar had spoken against.
Gandhian Methods of bringing religion into Politics found no sanction from Tilak who said `Let us seek Muslim Cooperation on the broad national question of Swaraj. In that, all means, give them privileges if these will satisfy them and bring them into Congress fold, but never seek to introduce theology into our Politics` (Jayakar the story of my life P388). Gandhi had not only brought his ancient Hindu Philosophy saying `I am a Hindu first and hence a true Indian` (Secular and Nationalist Jinnah by Ajeet Javed Singh Page 187) but also tried to enlist the Khilafatists to his side by supporting their cause and thereby sidelining the secular Muslim element who did not feel any special love for Khilafat. Tilak also reportedly said `I have great respect and admiration for Gandhiji but I do not like his politics. If he was to retire to the himalayas, and gave up politics, I would send him fresh flowers out of my respect for him.`
The Pre-Gandhian Nationalist Politics was the politics of sophisticated secular nationalists who walked side by side on the question of self rule. Gokhale`s death in 1915, and Tilak`s death in 1920 left this form of Politics orphan. Jinnah, the worthy disciple, had one major drawback, as Gandhi noted so wisely the `eminent Muslim gentleman` was from the `minority community`. Gandhi`s arrival unlike the revisionist History suggests was not welcomed by the Indian Nationalists of the mainstream, nor did Gandhi try to make himself attractive to them. On the contrary he criticized Tilak for inciting the masses against the British, who were there for `the welfare of the world`(Philip Sprat Gandhism in analysis 1939 Madras, India`s freedom struggle Dwarkadas Kanji). Indeed, when Tilak was humiliated by Lord Wellingdon, the Governor of Bombay, it was Jinnah not Gandhi who set out to avenge Tilak`s humiliation leading a procession to prevent the address to Wellingdon as the departin Governor, from the citizens of Bombay. Gandhiji stood at the sideline, refusing to join the Nationalists. Indeed, Gandhiji openly and shamelessly sided with the British on this and many other issues. Yet revisionist History, some prompted by Gandhiji himself, tries to portray him as the inheritor of the nationalist tradition of Gokhale and Tilak which is entirely fale.
After Tilak`s death, followed lonely Jinnah`s unceremonious exit from the Congress at Nagpur, gave Gandhi the opportunity to organize Congress on Religious and spiritual lines, while also encouraging the reactionary non cooperation of both Swarajists, and the Khilafatists.
Henceforth, the Lucknow pact (also known as the famous Tilak Jinnah pact) which had woven together a thin fabric of unity between the two extremely divided communities of India, Hindus and Muslims, lost importance. Gandhi`s religious spiritualist Movement, undertaken undoubtedly by good intentions split the movement as Tilak and Jinnah had feared. After the Khilafat fell in Turkey, the illusion of Hindu Muslim Unity in form of united Khilafat and Non cooperation Movements fell apart. The ghost of Chatterjee, and the Anand Math was reawakened, in the form of Shudhi and Sanghtan Movements to convert all Muslims to Hinduism or to drive them out. The Mullahs empowered by the Khilafat Movement and Gandhiji were given a foot in the door which they now wholeheartedly saw as the door to political leadership of the Muslim Community. Moplahs rose in revolt in South India, killing and converting Hindus to Islam. The thin fabric of Unity for which Tilak, Gokhale and their worthy disciple Jinnah had worked so hard was lost forever. Jinnah stayed around making efforts to reclaim what his mentors had started in first two decades of the century. However, utterly disappointed, he was finally converted to the cause of Progressive Muslim Nationalism in 1937 by the great poet Philosopher
Muhammad Iqbal. That was the beginning of Jinnah`s journey on the road to Pakistan.
#163 Posted by sanguine on July 15, 2005 8:46:32 pm
To one and all -- I came to close the forum and withdraw the article to find people are still throwing mud at each other (something they learned in their respective schools very well)
Now I hope its obvious to you that Veeresh was lying blatantly thru his teeth(about Arvind Gaur seeking apology from him) and he thought that pretending to be anonymous is going to last.... ``VEE the vee`` HAS REALLY LOST HIS HEAD....
It`s appaling to see that a man could stoop so low to actually lie when we could immediately catch him on his cheap trick. I hope he hasn`t forgotten the laws of the land that if his name calling lying and calumnising gets into a legal forum, we can and may sue him for defamation. probably he needs to read up a bit more on his rights then.
As for some others
I think Mr.B you are not aware the the movie about 9/11 was staged in the European film festivals without a hitch and there is a serial named time bomb on OBL is screened unfailingly in India, every week. When Hitler was alive, Chaplin made a Satire on Hitler namely ``The great dictator`` (without a ban or a probe by FBI). and this was 60 yrs ago.
Doesn`t it mean that in India we are advancing in the 21st century with a narrower mind?
Films and plays on Hitler and Nazis are made regularly eg. ``Shindler`s list`` was in the oscars(without a ban). In india there have been plays on Nathuram a national villain. Jinnah is still a foreigner villain. there have been plays on Bhutto and ho chi minh....
its time you started reading a bit of newspapers and watching TV maybe.
how much ever abusive english you speak you can`t compete with the liberal minded westerners. They are far more mature and progressive. unless of course you consider yourself a indianised version of KKK. Besides FBI has no history of banning anything in broadway..... and I think next i will mail you a list of thousands of plays staged there on such political issues -- without any interferance of the govt. of America or FBI. It`s only in India that the police thinks that they are more intelligent than the intellectuals.
since this forum opened some like minded people suddenly started talking the same language (i.e. abuses) and have now openly started refering to themselves as ``WE``. It`s dificult to assess whether they are really a gang and they are here to collectively spread their dirt lead by the leader of the pack ``V the V``.
But it`s natural when they see some sane people they brand them as a team. Even if I have no connection whatsoever with Baron_snoopy or bottleneck or MOG RO quid-novi, except that we are a ``non-abusive`` few in the forum.
But it`s also obvious that this gang of ``V the V`` consider themselves educated and civilised and intellectuals when they use abuses instead of adjectives and curses instead of punctuations.... and what amazing powers they have --
Because somebody will in future give Mr.B some racial stuff so before hand only, like a najumi, he started abusing us. you see this is the futuristic punk generation in time.
they think ``I am smart jee cause I can give gaalis in english jee....``
base-ically a language more prevalent in JJ colony and Yamuna pushta bridge.
SO now you see when I refer to ``background`` what I really mean.
Now I hope its obvious to you that Veeresh was lying blatantly thru his teeth(about Arvind Gaur seeking apology from him) and he thought that pretending to be anonymous is going to last.... ``VEE the vee`` HAS REALLY LOST HIS HEAD....
It`s appaling to see that a man could stoop so low to actually lie when we could immediately catch him on his cheap trick. I hope he hasn`t forgotten the laws of the land that if his name calling lying and calumnising gets into a legal forum, we can and may sue him for defamation. probably he needs to read up a bit more on his rights then.
As for some others
I think Mr.B you are not aware the the movie about 9/11 was staged in the European film festivals without a hitch and there is a serial named time bomb on OBL is screened unfailingly in India, every week. When Hitler was alive, Chaplin made a Satire on Hitler namely ``The great dictator`` (without a ban or a probe by FBI). and this was 60 yrs ago.
Doesn`t it mean that in India we are advancing in the 21st century with a narrower mind?
Films and plays on Hitler and Nazis are made regularly eg. ``Shindler`s list`` was in the oscars(without a ban). In india there have been plays on Nathuram a national villain. Jinnah is still a foreigner villain. there have been plays on Bhutto and ho chi minh....
its time you started reading a bit of newspapers and watching TV maybe.
how much ever abusive english you speak you can`t compete with the liberal minded westerners. They are far more mature and progressive. unless of course you consider yourself a indianised version of KKK. Besides FBI has no history of banning anything in broadway..... and I think next i will mail you a list of thousands of plays staged there on such political issues -- without any interferance of the govt. of America or FBI. It`s only in India that the police thinks that they are more intelligent than the intellectuals.
since this forum opened some like minded people suddenly started talking the same language (i.e. abuses) and have now openly started refering to themselves as ``WE``. It`s dificult to assess whether they are really a gang and they are here to collectively spread their dirt lead by the leader of the pack ``V the V``.
But it`s natural when they see some sane people they brand them as a team. Even if I have no connection whatsoever with Baron_snoopy or bottleneck or MOG RO quid-novi, except that we are a ``non-abusive`` few in the forum.
But it`s also obvious that this gang of ``V the V`` consider themselves educated and civilised and intellectuals when they use abuses instead of adjectives and curses instead of punctuations.... and what amazing powers they have --
Because somebody will in future give Mr.B some racial stuff so before hand only, like a najumi, he started abusing us. you see this is the futuristic punk generation in time.
they think ``I am smart jee cause I can give gaalis in english jee....``
base-ically a language more prevalent in JJ colony and Yamuna pushta bridge.
SO now you see when I refer to ``background`` what I really mean.
#164 Posted by mog on July 16, 2005 2:35:16 am
sangoo didi HAHA HA HA you met the Police People - initial are same same like People Party no?
But why Arvind ji apologised to Vereesh because i am seeing that arvind ji placed apology on his own websit also and sayin things?
please explain. i think too much freedom not good for all. freedom to best should need to be selected for peoples like you only no? HAHA HAHA how you and antaradi and sobti aunty and romila thapar uncle all are making funny funny HAHA HA HA?
Shake my spear!!
But why Arvind ji apologised to Vereesh because i am seeing that arvind ji placed apology on his own websit also and sayin things?
please explain. i think too much freedom not good for all. freedom to best should need to be selected for peoples like you only no? HAHA HAHA how you and antaradi and sobti aunty and romila thapar uncle all are making funny funny HAHA HA HA?
Shake my spear!!
#165 Posted by arvind on July 17, 2005 1:36:07 am
mr.MOG ,
pls tell me where is my own website & where i placed apology to any one ?
i cant afford my OWN web-site dear, even PC .
pls be true to facts.
yes, we hv blogs, where we posts some info/ articles. any one cn vist to blogs , there is no sucn info as u are saying. pls visit our blogs...
www.indiantheatre.blogspot.com
www.theatredirector.blog.com
with regards
arvind gaur
pls tell me where is my own website & where i placed apology to any one ?
i cant afford my OWN web-site dear, even PC .
pls be true to facts.
yes, we hv blogs, where we posts some info/ articles. any one cn vist to blogs , there is no sucn info as u are saying. pls visit our blogs...
www.indiantheatre.blogspot.com
www.theatredirector.blog.com
with regards
arvind gaur
#166 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:29:05 am
theatre Dissent Barred by Deepti Priya Mehrotra / SOCIETY
`Mr Jinnah`, a play directed by Arvind Gaur of the Asmita theatre group and written by Narendra Mohan, was recently ``deferred`` due to ``technical problems`` amid much controversy. The play portrays Jinnah as a tortured person who turned away from Congress politics due to differences regarding representation of Muslims, and charted a separate course for himself. The play`s focus was on Mohammad Ali Jinnah the person, his love for and then rage against his young Parsi wife, anguish at her early death, and intolerance when his daughter wanted to marry a Parsi. Why, one wonders, does the police object to a historical figure being shown as a man with human strengths and human failings?
In fact, after the stage show was banned (or, in police doublespeak, ``deferred``), Delhi`s theatre-lovers gathered to see an open show of the play under a tree in a large compound at ITO (Delhi`s Fleet Street).
The ambience was perfect and the performance was well-received. Afterwards, actors and audience walked in single file, candles in hand, to the Police Headquarters at ITO, where they staged a silent sit-in to register their protest at the denial of freedom to perform at the India Habitat Centre, where their shows had been planned well in advance. Refusal to allow the performance came just three days before the planned dates (June 22 and 23), when tickets had already sold out.
A number of theatre-persons, students and activists joined the protest against the police diktat. At the protest on June 23, renowned dramatist M K Raina averred, ``The police have no business to interfere in our profession. Even if the script has an element of controversy, it cannot be stopped from being performed.``
The controversy surrounding the censorship of `Mr Jinnah` also brings to mind the banning of `Nathuram Godse Speaks` in 1999 by the Maharashtra government. Ironically, the Marathi version `Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy` had already been staged more than 85 times. After the English version was banned, though, the Marathi version suffered the same fate.
Interestingly, while `Mr Jinnah` is a study of the man widely acknowledged to be one of the architects of Pakistan, `Nathuram Godse Speaks` examines events from the perspective of a rightwing Hindu extremist whose personal trajectory led him to commit murder. (Godse killed Mahatma Gandhi on January 30, 1948.)
Both individuals represent facets of communal politics - from opposite sides in terms of religious association. While the former play shows Jinnah`s development over the decades, his contribution to the creation of Pakistan and his remorse about the violence occasioned by Partition, the latter examines Godse`s trajectory from being a supporter of Gandhi to a stage where he felt duty-bound to kill him. There are differences, of course. Jinnah was a sophisticated, intelligent, charismatic politician; and Godse an unknown person, whose one decisive act assured him a permanent, if unenviable, place in history.
Both plays are in-depth psychological studies of figures who crucially shaped the history of the subcontinent. We may question their contributions, criticize, and even condemn either one or both of them. But there is no reason why we should fear to study them or review their roles. In fact, critical and post-modern historiography teaches us the need to examine history from different angles.
However, when figures such as Jinnah or Godse - conventional villains of our standard history texts - are subjected to sympathetic study, it seems to raise the hackles of the powers-that-be. It is deeply worrying that the authorities in India are free to casually exercise arbitrary restraints on intellectual freedom.
The Indian Constitution guarantees a democratic model. Yet, the bane of censorship has always dogged our intellectual and political spaces. Pradeep Dalvi, writer of `Nathuram Godse Speaks` and a second play `Nathuram: An Experience`, performed the second play only outside India. In this, Godse`s ghost revisits the country and meets many people. Said Dalvi (back in 1999), ``I will never show the play in India...India, I have written off.``
Many people criticized Dalvi`s sympathetic portrayal of Godse; Mahatma Gandhi`s nephew Tushar Gandhi alleged, ``The play glorifies Gandhi`s murderer.`` Yet, objectionable views are not reason enough to ban a play. A democratic polity should be able to entertain the expression of all shades of opinion. India claims to be a plural society, with a free press and a public domain where artists and intellectuals are free to project diverse points of view.
Controversies and debates ought to be the stuff of daily political life and public debate. Openness to others` opinions, the readiness to frame and explain one`s own thoughts and views, and flexibility as well as respect for differing perspectives should be basic values practiced in any open society. To disallow a cultural production because it presents an unconventional, or even unsavory, point of view, smacks of intolerance and bigotry.
The plays on Godse and Jinnah suffered from authoritarian and heavy-handed intervention, which actually feeds into furthering fundamentalism and brutal orthodoxies. While Godse`s murder of Mahatma Gandhi was a heinous crime, to go against the right of another person to differ is to actually follow in Godse`s footsteps rather than Gandhi`s. Use of force, controls and violence in order to decide matters was Godse`s strategy - certainly not Gandhi`s!
Pritish Nandy - cultural mandarin and Rajya Sabha member from the Shiv Sena - spoke out against censorship, during the controversy over Dalvi`s plays: ``Government intervention in matters of art and literature is not just ugly, it is dangerous. It destroys the very spirit of democracy and free thinking and leaves bloody stains on the polity.`` Surprisingly - and ominously - matters have come to such a pass that the extreme right is preaching to bureaucrats about the virtues of tolerance!
Unless we watch out for the growing intolerance displayed by those in power - especially the police`s increasing tendency to clamp down on fundamental democratic and human rights - we are moving towards a society that suppresses political thought, and freedom of expression and cultural performance.
– Deepti Priya Mehrotra
July 10, 2005
By arrangement with Womens Feature Service
#167 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:31:38 am
Policing the theatre
ON STAGE
Kirti Jain / New Delhi July 02, 2005 / Business Standard
Are we living in a police state? Is all this talk about the largest democracy a sham? It would seem so from what one heard about a play performance being deferred...because the police did not permit the group to perform!
The play in question is Asmita’s Mr Jinnah, written by Narendra Mohan and directed by Arvind Gaur. It had been in rehearsal for a month before L K Advani got involved in the Jinnah controversy, and had obviously been written some months before that.
In the morning preceding the performance, the police informed the group that they were not granting permission to stage the play, at least not then as they had not read the play.
Why the police would want to read the play instead of looking after traffic, or enforcing law and order, is beyond comprehension.
There is every reason to believe, for arguments sake, that if the play had been called Mr Sharma (for instance), it would not have suffered this high handedness on the part of the police.
This raises many questions. By what law, or rule, does the police get the right to grant (or not grant) permission to perform a play? If there is such a rule, is it desirable?
How is the police qualified to judge the merits and demerits of a piece of art? If not them, then is there a committee of qualified experts to do this? Does anyone know how this committee is constituted? And then, of course, there is the larger question of censorship of art and its validity that is constantly under debate.
I can only attempt to answer one of these questions. In 1876, the British government, when it was uncomfortable with political plays that attacked it, and which were drawing popular acclaim from the audience, had promulgated a law that was called the Dramatic Performances Control Act.
As a result of this act and its draconian powers over the performing arts, the Indian audiences were completely deprived of any political or protest plays for almost a hundred years till the middle of the twentieth century. In effect , the law changed the shape of the Indian theatre during those years when theatre was really at its peak.
The British left but, unfortunately, this repressive act stayed on. For the last 60 years , several theatre people have approached the authorities to revoke the act.
They have also been given assurances that this would be done. But the law stays on. By and large it remains dormant but it is there to be imposed whenever the authorities feel shaky or in disagreement about the contents (and even, as in this case, the title of a play).
It is ironic that this law is used against theatre which is otherwise considered insignificant by most sections of our society, not least of all by the government.
So, any performance can be stopped at any time, as has been done in this case. So an amateur group, which is in any case cash-strapped, will now suffer further financial loss?
Who will compensate for this loss, apart from the loss of time and energy of a large group of artists, who have probably worked on the play for two months?
And why in independent India should any group wanting to perform, even non-commercially, have to run to four different departments of the police for permissions, before every performance? When, invariably, the authorities will keep you on tenterhooks till, quite literally, the very last moment.
It is a surprise that Delhi theatre practitioners still carry on doggedly in spite of these disincentives.
It must be their commitment that drives them — a commitment to create meaningful art; a commitment to share new insights with their audience; a commitment to bring to light what they perceive is wrong in society; and a commitment to entertain. Surely these people deserve better!
ON STAGE
Kirti Jain / New Delhi July 02, 2005 / Business Standard
Are we living in a police state? Is all this talk about the largest democracy a sham? It would seem so from what one heard about a play performance being deferred...because the police did not permit the group to perform!
The play in question is Asmita’s Mr Jinnah, written by Narendra Mohan and directed by Arvind Gaur. It had been in rehearsal for a month before L K Advani got involved in the Jinnah controversy, and had obviously been written some months before that.
In the morning preceding the performance, the police informed the group that they were not granting permission to stage the play, at least not then as they had not read the play.
Why the police would want to read the play instead of looking after traffic, or enforcing law and order, is beyond comprehension.
There is every reason to believe, for arguments sake, that if the play had been called Mr Sharma (for instance), it would not have suffered this high handedness on the part of the police.
This raises many questions. By what law, or rule, does the police get the right to grant (or not grant) permission to perform a play? If there is such a rule, is it desirable?
How is the police qualified to judge the merits and demerits of a piece of art? If not them, then is there a committee of qualified experts to do this? Does anyone know how this committee is constituted? And then, of course, there is the larger question of censorship of art and its validity that is constantly under debate.
I can only attempt to answer one of these questions. In 1876, the British government, when it was uncomfortable with political plays that attacked it, and which were drawing popular acclaim from the audience, had promulgated a law that was called the Dramatic Performances Control Act.
As a result of this act and its draconian powers over the performing arts, the Indian audiences were completely deprived of any political or protest plays for almost a hundred years till the middle of the twentieth century. In effect , the law changed the shape of the Indian theatre during those years when theatre was really at its peak.
The British left but, unfortunately, this repressive act stayed on. For the last 60 years , several theatre people have approached the authorities to revoke the act.
They have also been given assurances that this would be done. But the law stays on. By and large it remains dormant but it is there to be imposed whenever the authorities feel shaky or in disagreement about the contents (and even, as in this case, the title of a play).
It is ironic that this law is used against theatre which is otherwise considered insignificant by most sections of our society, not least of all by the government.
So, any performance can be stopped at any time, as has been done in this case. So an amateur group, which is in any case cash-strapped, will now suffer further financial loss?
Who will compensate for this loss, apart from the loss of time and energy of a large group of artists, who have probably worked on the play for two months?
And why in independent India should any group wanting to perform, even non-commercially, have to run to four different departments of the police for permissions, before every performance? When, invariably, the authorities will keep you on tenterhooks till, quite literally, the very last moment.
It is a surprise that Delhi theatre practitioners still carry on doggedly in spite of these disincentives.
It must be their commitment that drives them — a commitment to create meaningful art; a commitment to share new insights with their audience; a commitment to bring to light what they perceive is wrong in society; and a commitment to entertain. Surely these people deserve better!
#168 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:33:13 am
Straight answers
PURNIMA SHARMA
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2005 08:39:56 PM ]
Surf `N` Earn -Sign innow
Arvind Gaur , Theatreperson, on directing a play on MA Jinnah
Why did you choose Jinnah as the protagonist of your play?
It`s nothing to do with the recent controversy. We`ve been working on Jinnah for the last 3-4 months. I`d think that Indian historians have not paid much attention to Jinnah and portrayed him in the incorrect perspective.
What will be some of the highlights of the play?
We`re paying a great deal of attention to his personal life -- his relationship with his wife and daughter. We`ve also highlighted the events of 1920s when Jinnah resigned from the Congress and joined the Muslim League. Finally, we`ve presented the last days of Jinnah, when, suffering from cancer he, it is believed, told one of his doctor friend -- `Pakistan ka banna bhool thi`.
How do you view Jinnah, especially in the light of the present-day controversy?
After all my readings and studies on Jinnah, I think, he was a very progressive man. He had a big role to play in the Freedom Movement, but suffered because of his identity crises.
What`s it about Jinnah`s life that has moved you?
Dedication. It`s creditable that despite being alone in his mission -- and taking on people like Nehru, Gandhi, Patel and Edwina -- he thought about his nation first.
PURNIMA SHARMA
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2005 08:39:56 PM ]
Surf `N` Earn -Sign innow
Arvind Gaur , Theatreperson, on directing a play on MA Jinnah
Why did you choose Jinnah as the protagonist of your play?
It`s nothing to do with the recent controversy. We`ve been working on Jinnah for the last 3-4 months. I`d think that Indian historians have not paid much attention to Jinnah and portrayed him in the incorrect perspective.
What will be some of the highlights of the play?
We`re paying a great deal of attention to his personal life -- his relationship with his wife and daughter. We`ve also highlighted the events of 1920s when Jinnah resigned from the Congress and joined the Muslim League. Finally, we`ve presented the last days of Jinnah, when, suffering from cancer he, it is believed, told one of his doctor friend -- `Pakistan ka banna bhool thi`.
How do you view Jinnah, especially in the light of the present-day controversy?
After all my readings and studies on Jinnah, I think, he was a very progressive man. He had a big role to play in the Freedom Movement, but suffered because of his identity crises.
What`s it about Jinnah`s life that has moved you?
Dedication. It`s creditable that despite being alone in his mission -- and taking on people like Nehru, Gandhi, Patel and Edwina -- he thought about his nation first.
#169 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:36:06 am
ABOUT THE PLAY...MR. JINNAH
If we drop some ink on a piece of white paper, and ask people to describe what they see. Most of us will see only the blotch of ink. It will take an extremely aware mind to see the white paper around it and not focus on just one tiny stain.
Similarly when a person does something highly appreciable or just the opposite, in both cases, that one deed or misdeed becomes the signature of his character. We focus so much on the visibly outstanding aspect of a life or a person, that we only see the stain on his good deeds and ignore or choose not to acknowledge the background.
Whether it`s made of gold or thorns the crown that sits on his head becomes his identity.
The story of “Mr.Jinnah” is one such story of a man, an institution in him self and a journey of a life, set in the form of a play. It`s a journey which will take you into Jinnah`s heart, mind, psyche and family, which played vital roles in the creation of a much loved, much respected and much detested and much followed persona of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah.
The play is not just a comment on a statesman`s career. It is, author Dr. Narendra Mohan`s interpretation of an introspective dialogue of a great leader. A dialogue between his inner and outer self. A dialogue with his support system, which became one of the reasons for his success and downfall. It`s a rediscovery of a stoic yet sensitive, introvert and modest man who played a pivotal part in two major upheavals in this part of the continent, first the partition of India, and second the formation of Pakistan.
Like most great tragedies, King Lear, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Macbeth and Othello the play is more of a psychological scrutiny than a political retrospective or a historical docudrama. The visual treatment of the play is unconventional. The director has chosen a visual depiction of Jinnah’s introspection, his pain, regret and sorrow as out of body projections. The facets of his character, emotional outbursts are simultaneously expressed through his body, heart, mind and soul, played by four actors other than Jinnah himself.
It seems as if the soul of Jinnah is going around the roles he played in his life and how each role suffered for his decisions. The decisions, which either stemmed from fear, concern or ambition.
The protagonist like many other men was unable to express his feelings, and failed to communicate his pain to the people he was closest to. The three women, Fatimah his politically ambitious sister, Ratti his intelligent Parsi wife and Dina his loving daughter, mirror his angst, ambition and antipathy towards his fellow statesmen.
Quaid-e-Azam was all alone after he faced the two most tragic episodes, as his family ruptures, which he endured with the calm and acquiescence. He didn`t disclose the anguish of his mind to anyone over these distressing separations.
A sister who proved to be a friend sacrificed her own dreams and became his shadow. She was his alter ego and later became the mother of the nation.
On the other hand Ratti whom he loved dearly was alienated in his political dreams. At 42 he dared to marry a Parsi girl several years younger than him.
But 22 years later the protective father and the over zealous politician almost suffocated his daughter`s dreams. While he was aware of it and could not forgive himself, yet he couldn`t mend the differences, which resulted in two most distressing estrangements in his family.
On one hand he was progressive and liberal but on the other hand his indifference towards his wife and daughter left him lonely and sad. Till his last days he thought of his daughter. He loved his home in Bombay and wanted to come back to live there.
A father, a friend, a husband, and then a broken man, lonely, hurt and betrayed due to his own lack of judgement. A man, who goes into a shell when he felt cheated, betrayed and misunderstood by many around him. A man who never wanted to hurt people, instead, to save some he jeopardized others and withered in his guilt pangs. It`s a whole new perspective by the author into a very complex man who had more facets to his character than just a leader. He was just like us and yet he was much more than us.
A man who spend his entire life fighting for the inherent rights of his people and who took up a somewhat unconventional and largely misinterpreted cause of Pakistan, was likely to be misunderstood and bound to generate violent opposition and excite implacable hostility. Yet it’s remarkable that he received some of the greatest tributes in modern times, even from those who held a diametrically opposed viewpoint.
Sharat Chandra Bose, leader of the Forward Bloc, said on Jinnah’s death in 1948 -- ``Mr Jinnah was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congress-man, great as a leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatest of all as a man of action. By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatest statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide``.
Lord Pethick Lawrence, the former Secretary of State for India, said, ``Gandhi died by the hands of an assassin; Jinnah died by his devotion to Pakistan``.
Jinnah wanted to pursue theatre while he was in London. He was an art connoisseur. He had a compulsive disorder of washing hands. Was he a control freak? Or was it that his creative repression burst out in the form of aggression. Or was it just his ego, which was terribly hurt in the congress meeting. Or was it the love and concern for the future of his community at the hands of other fundamentalist that he did what he did?
Was it by chance that birth of Dina and the birth of Pakistan was on the same date, i.e. between the night of 14th and 15th August? Was it just a mockery of destiny that both his children Dina and Pakistan, whom he loved so much, ignored his authority and deserted him? And in his last days they both haunted him.
About the Author
Dr Narendra Mohan is an eminent playwright, poet and critic. He is a trendsetter (Vichar Kavita) in Hindi poetry and his discourse on Lambi Kavita (long poems) proved path breaking. His works on Manto, Partition of India, Protest and Literature are not just literary and historical documentation, they have inspired the future generations to delve deep into the socio-cultural and His literary diary `Saath- Saath mera saya` has been hailed as a landmark as it unfolds, in a unique way, the private-personal, social and political upheavals of the last forty years on a multi-dimensional scale. The serial `Ujale ki aur` scripted by him and directed by Hrishikesh Mukherjee was widely appreciated. He has been honoured with top literary awards at the national and state levels.
His plays and poems have been translated into English and other Indian languages. He has participated in major national seminars and international poetry conventions. His poetry collections include `Is Hadese mey`, `Samana hone par`, `Ek agnikand jagahey badalata`, `Hatheley par angarey ki tarah`, `Ek sulagti khamoshi`, `Ek khidki khuli hai abhi`.
Narendra Mohan`s plays have been staged by eminent theatre groups and in national theatre festivals over the years. `Mr Jinnah` is his latest play. He has been working on this play for the last three years. Extensive historical research and a sensitive probe into Jinnah`s psyche has brought alive the multi-faceted personal-political drama of Jinnah`s life in the play. The other plays written by him are `Seengdhari`, `Kahe kabir suno bhai sadho`, `Kalandar`, `No man`s land` and `Abhang gatha`.
On Stage
(In order of appearance)
Hanif Azad - Prageet Pandit
Hamid - Ajit Kumar Mahato / Sushil Gautam
Jinnah(main) - Susan Brar
other jinnah - Pushpraj Rawat, Rohan, Girish Pal, Amit Rana
Fatimah - Anupam Pachauri
Ratti - Amita Walia
Shauqat Ali - Vishal Gaurav
Jawarhar Lal - Vipin Arora
Gandhi - Md. Shamim
Dina - Amita Walia
proxy - Sapna Khatana
Crowd / Mob - Vishal,Prageet,Praveen,Sushil,Naresh, Rajesh, Ashutosh, Shailendra Bist, Ajit, Rakesh, Manu, Avdhesh,
Siddharth, Sulaiman,Rajesh Mishra, Sandeep, Sanjay, Mohit,
Shamim, Ajit, Vipin, Manisha, Sangeeta,Asish ,Sunil Rawat,Arun Khatana
Annie Besant - Manisha Gulati
Chittaranjan Das - Siddharth Dubey
Bahadur Yaar Jung - Naresh Kabir
Guards - Mohit Chhabra, Praveen, Shailendra, Rajesh Mishra
Riot victim boy -Rajesh Thapa
Jamshed -Akhilesh Kumar (Praveen)
Commissioner - Sushil Gautam
Dunham (nurse) - Sangeeta Das
Dr. Ilahi Baksh - Manu Tyagi
Off Stage
Property -Girish Pal, Ajit Kumar Mahato,Sapna Khatana
Set Execution - Ajit Kumar Mahato, Sushil Gautam, Asish Nijhawan
Vishal
Production Controller -Sandeep, Kranti Pratap Singh
Brochure - Sangeeta Das
NOC - Sandeep Srivastava, Susan Brar
Help with Urdu - Dr. Sadiq, Abdul Khaliq Azad
Music - Dr. Sangeeta Gaur
Playwright - Dr. Narendra Mohan
Direction - Arvind Gaur
special thanks to Virendra Kumar Baranwal
AN ASMITA PRODUCTION
ABOUT THE DIRECTOR ...ARVIND GAUR
Arvind Gaur who heads the Delhi ,India based Theatre
group ASMITA is committed to innovative and socially
relevant theatre. Starting off as a journalist and
working for sometime for the electronic media, he set
up ASMITA and earned a reputation in theatre circle in
Delhi and abroad.
In the past 12 years, he has directed 48 major plays
which include Girish Karnad’s Tuglaq and Rakt Kalyan,
Dharamveer Bharti’s Andha Yug, Swadesh deepak’s Court
Martial, G P Deshpande’s Antim Divas, Albert Camus’
Caligula, Mahesh Dattani’s Final Solutions and Tara,
Eugene O’neill ‘s Desire Under the Elms, Dario Fo’s An
Accidental death of an Anarchist, Dr.Narenda Mohan`s Kalandar,
Bertolt Brecht’s Good Woman of Setzuan and Caucasian chalk circle,
Samuel Beckett’s Waiting For Godot, John Octanasek’s
Romeo Juliet and the darkness, Neil Simon’s The Good
Doctor,
Vijay tendulakr’s Ghairam Kotwal, Munshi
Premchand’s Moteram ka Satyagrah, Ashok Lal’s Ek
Mamooli aadmi, Rajesh Kumar’s Me Gandhi Bolto ,
Doodnath Singh`s Yama Gatha,
Women in Black ( written & acted by Bubbles Sabharwal)
,Untitled Solo by Lushin dubey, Uday Prakash’s Warren
Hastings ka Saand, Pinki Virani’s Bitter Chocolate,
(solo by lushin Dubey)
Bhishma Sahani`s Madhavi & Manjula Padmanbhan` Hidden
Fires ( both solo by actress Rashi Bunny),Walking
Through the Rainbow ( joint production with PCVC, solo
by rashi bunny)
Arvind Gaur has been invited to perform in theatre
festivals organized by National School of Drama,
(Bharat Rang Mahotsava), Sangeet Natak Akademi,
Sahitya Kala Parisad,Nandikar and Vivachana Theatre
Festival, Old World Theatre Festival,National School
of Drama weekend theatre, Muktibodh Natya
Samaroh,World Social Forum and Nehru Centre Festival
Mumbai.
Arvind Gaur has conducted many theatre workshops and
directed productions in different colleges & schools in Delhi.
Such as L.S.R., I.P., Gargi, Jawahar Lal Nehru
University, Hindu college,I.I.T.(Delhi), Aditi college,
School of Planning and Arhitecture (SPA) and Mother International school.
Workshops for children in schools and slums as well as Street
Theatre performances on different socio-political
issues organized and conducted by Arvind Gaur are many
in number.
He has also conducted theatre workshops for Actors and
Directors at Houston, USA and India Habitat centre,
New Delhi. He also performed various plays in
collobration with culture organizations like Theatre
World, British Council ( channai) ,Paridhi, bahroop,
Banjara Theatre group (IIT , Khargpur ),Rainbow
Cavaliers ,3M Dot Band (Jaipur) , Vivchana
(Jabalpur),Prithvi Theatre Festival ( platform theatre
IHC ,2004) and NGOs like Mobile Crèches, Action Aid ,
Haq, PCVC, Deepalaya , Heinrich Boll Foundation ,Asian
Social Forum and world social forum.
He also design lights for NAYA theatre under the
Direction of Shri Habib Tanvir.
Director Arvind Gaur has also collaborated with
various Theatre artists and Groups specially in
exploring a new language for Solo performances. His
latest ventures include ‘Women in Black’ by Bubbles
Sabharwal and “Untitled Solo” by Lushin Dubey in
collaboration with THEATRE WORLD. Not only have these
plays received great audience response from important
metropolis of India, “Women in black” was invited to
perform in Dubai and “Untitled Solo” was performed in
Chicago, Dallas, Washington DC, Boston, Rochester ,
San francisco, Ohio, Harvard university & Stratford in
USA and at the Edinburgh Theatre Festival last year .
``Bitter Chocolate `` a new solo by Lushin was also
performed at Harvard (USA) and recently at Nehru
Centre, London.
With Rashi Bunny, young actress trained in Theatre
design at University of Alabama at Birmingham and
Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA. Arvind Gaur Has
directed three solos .Bhishma sahani`s`` Madhavi ``,
Manjula Padmanabhan`s ``Hidden fires `` & Walking through the rainbow
( for PCVC, Channai)
Madhavi & Hidden fires has received rave reviews all
over and have been invited to perform for Mahindra`s
OLD WORLD THEATRE FESTIVAL, Vivachana National Theatre
Festival Jabalpur, Muktibodh Natyaotsav raipur, 5th
national Theatre Festival Balaghat ,World Social forum
Mumbai and National School Of Drama (N.S.D.),
Satta Festival Jaipur,
Theatre Club J.N.U., PCVC chennai and Queen`s Award Project
(UK) for Communal Harmony.
Bishma Sahani`s MADHAVI ,Solo by Rashi Bunny &
directed by Arvind Gaur,received special award for
best play in experimentaion with tradition at
International Solo Theatre Festival Armenia.
About ASMITA
Asmita (A sedulous Move for Innovative Theatre Activities) stands committed to aesthetically innovative and socially relevant theatre. It takes up contemporary issues to underline the contours of our time while providing the best of entertainment. It is today one of the leading HINDI theatre groups in the country. To date it has 48 productions to its credit.
All these plays have been directed by Asmita’s resident director Arvind Gaur. For Asmita theatre has a purpose of awakening the audience and creating a dialogue on prevailing social problems. It has carved a niche for itself in the Delhi theatre scene by staging plays of varied socio-political interest while not losing out on mass appeal.
Contacts- 09312233561
- 011-22116554(India)
arvindasmita@yahoo.com
arvindgaur@hotmail.com
`` I`d rather be a forest than a street
Yes I would, if I could, I surely would
I`d rather feel the earth beneath my feet
Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would ``
If we drop some ink on a piece of white paper, and ask people to describe what they see. Most of us will see only the blotch of ink. It will take an extremely aware mind to see the white paper around it and not focus on just one tiny stain.
Similarly when a person does something highly appreciable or just the opposite, in both cases, that one deed or misdeed becomes the signature of his character. We focus so much on the visibly outstanding aspect of a life or a person, that we only see the stain on his good deeds and ignore or choose not to acknowledge the background.
Whether it`s made of gold or thorns the crown that sits on his head becomes his identity.
The story of “Mr.Jinnah” is one such story of a man, an institution in him self and a journey of a life, set in the form of a play. It`s a journey which will take you into Jinnah`s heart, mind, psyche and family, which played vital roles in the creation of a much loved, much respected and much detested and much followed persona of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah.
The play is not just a comment on a statesman`s career. It is, author Dr. Narendra Mohan`s interpretation of an introspective dialogue of a great leader. A dialogue between his inner and outer self. A dialogue with his support system, which became one of the reasons for his success and downfall. It`s a rediscovery of a stoic yet sensitive, introvert and modest man who played a pivotal part in two major upheavals in this part of the continent, first the partition of India, and second the formation of Pakistan.
Like most great tragedies, King Lear, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Macbeth and Othello the play is more of a psychological scrutiny than a political retrospective or a historical docudrama. The visual treatment of the play is unconventional. The director has chosen a visual depiction of Jinnah’s introspection, his pain, regret and sorrow as out of body projections. The facets of his character, emotional outbursts are simultaneously expressed through his body, heart, mind and soul, played by four actors other than Jinnah himself.
It seems as if the soul of Jinnah is going around the roles he played in his life and how each role suffered for his decisions. The decisions, which either stemmed from fear, concern or ambition.
The protagonist like many other men was unable to express his feelings, and failed to communicate his pain to the people he was closest to. The three women, Fatimah his politically ambitious sister, Ratti his intelligent Parsi wife and Dina his loving daughter, mirror his angst, ambition and antipathy towards his fellow statesmen.
Quaid-e-Azam was all alone after he faced the two most tragic episodes, as his family ruptures, which he endured with the calm and acquiescence. He didn`t disclose the anguish of his mind to anyone over these distressing separations.
A sister who proved to be a friend sacrificed her own dreams and became his shadow. She was his alter ego and later became the mother of the nation.
On the other hand Ratti whom he loved dearly was alienated in his political dreams. At 42 he dared to marry a Parsi girl several years younger than him.
But 22 years later the protective father and the over zealous politician almost suffocated his daughter`s dreams. While he was aware of it and could not forgive himself, yet he couldn`t mend the differences, which resulted in two most distressing estrangements in his family.
On one hand he was progressive and liberal but on the other hand his indifference towards his wife and daughter left him lonely and sad. Till his last days he thought of his daughter. He loved his home in Bombay and wanted to come back to live there.
A father, a friend, a husband, and then a broken man, lonely, hurt and betrayed due to his own lack of judgement. A man, who goes into a shell when he felt cheated, betrayed and misunderstood by many around him. A man who never wanted to hurt people, instead, to save some he jeopardized others and withered in his guilt pangs. It`s a whole new perspective by the author into a very complex man who had more facets to his character than just a leader. He was just like us and yet he was much more than us.
A man who spend his entire life fighting for the inherent rights of his people and who took up a somewhat unconventional and largely misinterpreted cause of Pakistan, was likely to be misunderstood and bound to generate violent opposition and excite implacable hostility. Yet it’s remarkable that he received some of the greatest tributes in modern times, even from those who held a diametrically opposed viewpoint.
Sharat Chandra Bose, leader of the Forward Bloc, said on Jinnah’s death in 1948 -- ``Mr Jinnah was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congress-man, great as a leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatest of all as a man of action. By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatest statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide``.
Lord Pethick Lawrence, the former Secretary of State for India, said, ``Gandhi died by the hands of an assassin; Jinnah died by his devotion to Pakistan``.
Jinnah wanted to pursue theatre while he was in London. He was an art connoisseur. He had a compulsive disorder of washing hands. Was he a control freak? Or was it that his creative repression burst out in the form of aggression. Or was it just his ego, which was terribly hurt in the congress meeting. Or was it the love and concern for the future of his community at the hands of other fundamentalist that he did what he did?
Was it by chance that birth of Dina and the birth of Pakistan was on the same date, i.e. between the night of 14th and 15th August? Was it just a mockery of destiny that both his children Dina and Pakistan, whom he loved so much, ignored his authority and deserted him? And in his last days they both haunted him.
About the Author
Dr Narendra Mohan is an eminent playwright, poet and critic. He is a trendsetter (Vichar Kavita) in Hindi poetry and his discourse on Lambi Kavita (long poems) proved path breaking. His works on Manto, Partition of India, Protest and Literature are not just literary and historical documentation, they have inspired the future generations to delve deep into the socio-cultural and His literary diary `Saath- Saath mera saya` has been hailed as a landmark as it unfolds, in a unique way, the private-personal, social and political upheavals of the last forty years on a multi-dimensional scale. The serial `Ujale ki aur` scripted by him and directed by Hrishikesh Mukherjee was widely appreciated. He has been honoured with top literary awards at the national and state levels.
His plays and poems have been translated into English and other Indian languages. He has participated in major national seminars and international poetry conventions. His poetry collections include `Is Hadese mey`, `Samana hone par`, `Ek agnikand jagahey badalata`, `Hatheley par angarey ki tarah`, `Ek sulagti khamoshi`, `Ek khidki khuli hai abhi`.
Narendra Mohan`s plays have been staged by eminent theatre groups and in national theatre festivals over the years. `Mr Jinnah` is his latest play. He has been working on this play for the last three years. Extensive historical research and a sensitive probe into Jinnah`s psyche has brought alive the multi-faceted personal-political drama of Jinnah`s life in the play. The other plays written by him are `Seengdhari`, `Kahe kabir suno bhai sadho`, `Kalandar`, `No man`s land` and `Abhang gatha`.
On Stage
(In order of appearance)
Hanif Azad - Prageet Pandit
Hamid - Ajit Kumar Mahato / Sushil Gautam
Jinnah(main) - Susan Brar
other jinnah - Pushpraj Rawat, Rohan, Girish Pal, Amit Rana
Fatimah - Anupam Pachauri
Ratti - Amita Walia
Shauqat Ali - Vishal Gaurav
Jawarhar Lal - Vipin Arora
Gandhi - Md. Shamim
Dina - Amita Walia
proxy - Sapna Khatana
Crowd / Mob - Vishal,Prageet,Praveen,Sushil,Naresh, Rajesh, Ashutosh, Shailendra Bist, Ajit, Rakesh, Manu, Avdhesh,
Siddharth, Sulaiman,Rajesh Mishra, Sandeep, Sanjay, Mohit,
Shamim, Ajit, Vipin, Manisha, Sangeeta,Asish ,Sunil Rawat,Arun Khatana
Annie Besant - Manisha Gulati
Chittaranjan Das - Siddharth Dubey
Bahadur Yaar Jung - Naresh Kabir
Guards - Mohit Chhabra, Praveen, Shailendra, Rajesh Mishra
Riot victim boy -Rajesh Thapa
Jamshed -Akhilesh Kumar (Praveen)
Commissioner - Sushil Gautam
Dunham (nurse) - Sangeeta Das
Dr. Ilahi Baksh - Manu Tyagi
Off Stage
Property -Girish Pal, Ajit Kumar Mahato,Sapna Khatana
Set Execution - Ajit Kumar Mahato, Sushil Gautam, Asish Nijhawan
Vishal
Production Controller -Sandeep, Kranti Pratap Singh
Brochure - Sangeeta Das
NOC - Sandeep Srivastava, Susan Brar
Help with Urdu - Dr. Sadiq, Abdul Khaliq Azad
Music - Dr. Sangeeta Gaur
Playwright - Dr. Narendra Mohan
Direction - Arvind Gaur
special thanks to Virendra Kumar Baranwal
AN ASMITA PRODUCTION
ABOUT THE DIRECTOR ...ARVIND GAUR
Arvind Gaur who heads the Delhi ,India based Theatre
group ASMITA is committed to innovative and socially
relevant theatre. Starting off as a journalist and
working for sometime for the electronic media, he set
up ASMITA and earned a reputation in theatre circle in
Delhi and abroad.
In the past 12 years, he has directed 48 major plays
which include Girish Karnad’s Tuglaq and Rakt Kalyan,
Dharamveer Bharti’s Andha Yug, Swadesh deepak’s Court
Martial, G P Deshpande’s Antim Divas, Albert Camus’
Caligula, Mahesh Dattani’s Final Solutions and Tara,
Eugene O’neill ‘s Desire Under the Elms, Dario Fo’s An
Accidental death of an Anarchist, Dr.Narenda Mohan`s Kalandar,
Bertolt Brecht’s Good Woman of Setzuan and Caucasian chalk circle,
Samuel Beckett’s Waiting For Godot, John Octanasek’s
Romeo Juliet and the darkness, Neil Simon’s The Good
Doctor,
Vijay tendulakr’s Ghairam Kotwal, Munshi
Premchand’s Moteram ka Satyagrah, Ashok Lal’s Ek
Mamooli aadmi, Rajesh Kumar’s Me Gandhi Bolto ,
Doodnath Singh`s Yama Gatha,
Women in Black ( written & acted by Bubbles Sabharwal)
,Untitled Solo by Lushin dubey, Uday Prakash’s Warren
Hastings ka Saand, Pinki Virani’s Bitter Chocolate,
(solo by lushin Dubey)
Bhishma Sahani`s Madhavi & Manjula Padmanbhan` Hidden
Fires ( both solo by actress Rashi Bunny),Walking
Through the Rainbow ( joint production with PCVC, solo
by rashi bunny)
Arvind Gaur has been invited to perform in theatre
festivals organized by National School of Drama,
(Bharat Rang Mahotsava), Sangeet Natak Akademi,
Sahitya Kala Parisad,Nandikar and Vivachana Theatre
Festival, Old World Theatre Festival,National School
of Drama weekend theatre, Muktibodh Natya
Samaroh,World Social Forum and Nehru Centre Festival
Mumbai.
Arvind Gaur has conducted many theatre workshops and
directed productions in different colleges & schools in Delhi.
Such as L.S.R., I.P., Gargi, Jawahar Lal Nehru
University, Hindu college,I.I.T.(Delhi), Aditi college,
School of Planning and Arhitecture (SPA) and Mother International school.
Workshops for children in schools and slums as well as Street
Theatre performances on different socio-political
issues organized and conducted by Arvind Gaur are many
in number.
He has also conducted theatre workshops for Actors and
Directors at Houston, USA and India Habitat centre,
New Delhi. He also performed various plays in
collobration with culture organizations like Theatre
World, British Council ( channai) ,Paridhi, bahroop,
Banjara Theatre group (IIT , Khargpur ),Rainbow
Cavaliers ,3M Dot Band (Jaipur) , Vivchana
(Jabalpur),Prithvi Theatre Festival ( platform theatre
IHC ,2004) and NGOs like Mobile Crèches, Action Aid ,
Haq, PCVC, Deepalaya , Heinrich Boll Foundation ,Asian
Social Forum and world social forum.
He also design lights for NAYA theatre under the
Direction of Shri Habib Tanvir.
Director Arvind Gaur has also collaborated with
various Theatre artists and Groups specially in
exploring a new language for Solo performances. His
latest ventures include ‘Women in Black’ by Bubbles
Sabharwal and “Untitled Solo” by Lushin Dubey in
collaboration with THEATRE WORLD. Not only have these
plays received great audience response from important
metropolis of India, “Women in black” was invited to
perform in Dubai and “Untitled Solo” was performed in
Chicago, Dallas, Washington DC, Boston, Rochester ,
San francisco, Ohio, Harvard university & Stratford in
USA and at the Edinburgh Theatre Festival last year .
``Bitter Chocolate `` a new solo by Lushin was also
performed at Harvard (USA) and recently at Nehru
Centre, London.
With Rashi Bunny, young actress trained in Theatre
design at University of Alabama at Birmingham and
Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA. Arvind Gaur Has
directed three solos .Bhishma sahani`s`` Madhavi ``,
Manjula Padmanabhan`s ``Hidden fires `` & Walking through the rainbow
( for PCVC, Channai)
Madhavi & Hidden fires has received rave reviews all
over and have been invited to perform for Mahindra`s
OLD WORLD THEATRE FESTIVAL, Vivachana National Theatre
Festival Jabalpur, Muktibodh Natyaotsav raipur, 5th
national Theatre Festival Balaghat ,World Social forum
Mumbai and National School Of Drama (N.S.D.),
Satta Festival Jaipur,
Theatre Club J.N.U., PCVC chennai and Queen`s Award Project
(UK) for Communal Harmony.
Bishma Sahani`s MADHAVI ,Solo by Rashi Bunny &
directed by Arvind Gaur,received special award for
best play in experimentaion with tradition at
International Solo Theatre Festival Armenia.
About ASMITA
Asmita (A sedulous Move for Innovative Theatre Activities) stands committed to aesthetically innovative and socially relevant theatre. It takes up contemporary issues to underline the contours of our time while providing the best of entertainment. It is today one of the leading HINDI theatre groups in the country. To date it has 48 productions to its credit.
All these plays have been directed by Asmita’s resident director Arvind Gaur. For Asmita theatre has a purpose of awakening the audience and creating a dialogue on prevailing social problems. It has carved a niche for itself in the Delhi theatre scene by staging plays of varied socio-political interest while not losing out on mass appeal.
Contacts- 09312233561
- 011-22116554(India)
arvindasmita@yahoo.com
arvindgaur@hotmail.com
`` I`d rather be a forest than a street
Yes I would, if I could, I surely would
I`d rather feel the earth beneath my feet
Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would ``
#170 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:38:33 am
Quaid-e-Azam Jinxed: Ban on Artistic Freedom
Dear Reader,
We start this article with a recollection of events and sharing of what Asmita Art Group artists went through the course of events in last few weeks after deference of staging of Mr. Jinnah by Delhi Police. This article is addressed to anyone who believes in values of democracy.
Arvind Gaur received a script on Jinnah written by Dr. Narendra Mohan about seven months ago. The script of the play focuses on scriptwriter`s interpretation and narration of an introspective dialogue of a leader who influenced masses, had the intelligence and courage to withstand political course of events-rise and downfalls.
This script and portrayal of Jinnah intrigued Arvind Gaur, the Director of the play `Mr. Jinnah`, so much that he, along with his team of artists, started research work and discussions on Mr. Jinnah about six months ago. Long discussions and debates followed among the team members which, interestingly, comprises of people with various ideological inclinations and orientations.
As all the team members would recall, it was not merely reading of a script but an intellectually stimulating exercise where a person`s political life along with his personal life--projected as well as un-projected self --were discussed at length to find out possibilities of interpretation and visual representation on stage. Several meetings followed with the scriptwriter where he shared and discussed his viewpoint and interpretation not only with the Director but also with the team of Mr. Jinnah. Following this, almost two months ago, the team started with `on floor` rehearsals of `Mr. Jinnah`.
Fortunately or unfortunately, as it would seem to any individual reader, it`s a coincidence that Asmita announced the staging of the play on Jinnah when Mr. Advani`s statements on the leader, held responsible for the partition and the events following 1947, have been in hot debate since last month among various political circles, in news columns-online as well as in print, on various discussion forums.
However, what is most unfortunate is how the system of a democratic state treated a work of art, in the name of maintenance of law and order. You may be aware that Asmita`s play ``Mr. Jinnah`` has been `banned` from being staged. The `ban` word is probably missing from the official letter issued by Delhi Police South District Office but the meaning is all the more same. The play was ``deferred`` by the Delhi police on the plea that they were not able to scrutinise the script as it was not legible.
Asmita had applied for various clearances on May 22 about a month ago. The clearance from the traffic police and the entertainment tax office was duly procured, however, the south district police asked for a script of the play, which was immediately submitted on June 16. But, the permission was denied on June 21, a day before the announced date of the show, without assigning any clear reason. The police so far have not been able to cite a proper cause for the ban, though they agree that there is nothing objectionable in the play. Is not allowing staging of the play an attempt to culture policing and moral policing of the artists of this city, the capital of a democratic nation? The TOI editorial, June 24, also mentions,`` The police action is outrageous. It`s a sinister assault on creative freedom``.
On June 22, 2005 as a silent protest the writers and dramatists, authors, artists, actors, filmmakers, theatre lovers, and other intellectuals, historians and general public symbolically staged a portion of the play in front of the Lodi Road police station. The lead actor of `Mr. Jinnah`, Mr. Susan Brar was aggrieved due to demise of his mother the same morning. Though it was very tough but Susan braved the time and decided to stand by the team in joining the protest.
On June 23 the protest was again staged by the team where the theatre artists, writers, journalists, students were invited by the team of Mr. Jinnah to view a portion of rehearsal of the play. Following this a silent candle lit protest march was carried out from the venue of the rehearsal to the Delhi Police Headquarters at ITO. The protesters placed the candles outside PHQ and again staged several portions of the play.
However many questions crop up about the colonial type mindset of the police and the system. It is a matter of great dismayal that no one except the Asmita team has ever read the script of `Mr. Jinnah`. We say this because; the ordeal of the team of `Mr. Jinnah` does not end here. The team has been approaching many of the famous auditoriums in Delhi to hold its performance however; none of them has agreed so far to allow booking for staging of `Mr. Jinnah`. As if, Jinnah`s Djinn would start haunting the place.
One auditorium manager even asked the director to get no objection certificate from several political and religiously affiliated organizations!! Why does a psychodrama need religious sanctions? And, that too, when none of such organizations has till now raised any sort of objections against Mr. Jinnah. It seems two hundred years of colonial experience has converted us into Macauley`s children for generations to come. We are so scared of ourselves, as unsure of our convictions and values as a democratic nation and have become so much used to an outsider being our master that we as a nation can not muster enough courage to look up into eyes of our past.
The right of the citizen of a democratic state is being blatantly trampled by our own colonized minds. We do not actually need an East India Company to do that to us. It seems to be a suicidal attempt by a state which has declared itself to be a democratic republic. With events like this, the issues of social relevance in the artistic fields would soon take a backseat and a mindless entertainment would emerge which takes no responsibility of society and has no concern with civil liberty.
Are we ready to pay heed to the slow poison killing democracy? It`s high time that all of us who have even slightest concern for India as a democratic nation and democracy and civil liberty as a value, must come forward, hold hands together for the freedom of _expression. It is now just not a matter of how the police treated an artistic _expression, it is also a matter of what we are doing to ourselves by resurrecting baseless fears and inviting any sort of self styled religious representation to take decision for ourselves.
Coming back to the play, like most great tragedies, King Lear, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Macbeth and Othello the play is more of a psychological scrutiny than a political retrospective or a historical docudrama. The visual treatment of the play is unconventional. The director has chosen a visual depiction of Jinnah`s introspection, his pain, regret and sorrow as out of body projections. The facets of his character, emotional outbursts are simultaneously expressed through his body, heart, mind and soul, played by four actors other than Jinnah himself.
Let us all join hands together so that democracy may live and our future generations breathe not in a colony but in a democratic nation. Let us safeguard what is every citizen`s right to free _expression in India.
Contact us at: 9312233561 (Arvind Gaur); 9811545882 (Susan Brar); 9868577411 (Anupam Pachauri)
Or e-mail us at arvindasmita@yahoo.com; susanbrar@rediffmail.com ; anupam.pachauri@gmail.com
Anyone interested in visiting us to view rehearsals of `Mr. Jinnah` is most welcome. The play would soon be staged at a University in Delhi.
This write up is submitted with a request to the reader to forward it to friends all over the globe. It`s just not a matter of Censorship by Police in India. As a human, do you believe in right to free _expression? Decide for yourself and act today.
Regards,
Anupam Pachauri
For Asmita
#171 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:41:16 am
The Times of India, New Delhi
Editorial Opinion
Friday, June 24, 2005
Muzzling Dissent
Delhi Police bans play on Jinna
It`s the timing which has landed it in trouble. The play would have probably sailed through smoothly had L K Advani raised so much heat and dust on Jinnah`s persona. With all the attention focused on Pakistan`s founder, Arvind Gaur`s play, Mr. Jinnah, ran into rough weather. A day before it was to be staged at the India Habitat Centre in the capital, the Delhi Police asked for its script and even though it was promptly submitted, the play was `deferred`. The police say that the script was submitted late, it was illegible and that the IHC auditorium`s licence had expired.
The police may even argue that it was only playing safe given the kind of passion Jinnah has been evoking in recent weeks. Such arguments are specious. The police action is outrageous.
It`s a sinister assault on creative freedom. ``Especially since it is not a political portrayal, the script revolves around the personal life of Jinnah``, says Gaur. But even if it was, the police have no business proscribing or even vetting the play. Are they competent to do so? The police`s role is to maintain law and order. They cannot ban a play anticipating trouble.
Of course, this is not the first time a play has been banned. Earlier, Vijay Tendulkar`s Sakharam Binder and Ghasiram Kotwal and Vijay Apte`s Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy were stopped being staged. Few will disagree that orchestrated disruption of law and order to get a work of art banned is becoming a regular feature of our social life.
The dogmatism which seeks to suppress artistic and creative _expression is gaining ground. Giving in to such demands only encourages and strengthens the forces of intolerance. In the process the citizen`s constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of _expression is trampled. The most reprehensible aspect of such suppression of artistic liberty is that the threat of public violence and the official action to counter it end up serving the same objective-of silencing dissent and stifling creativity.
Editorial Opinion
Friday, June 24, 2005
Muzzling Dissent
Delhi Police bans play on Jinna
It`s the timing which has landed it in trouble. The play would have probably sailed through smoothly had L K Advani raised so much heat and dust on Jinnah`s persona. With all the attention focused on Pakistan`s founder, Arvind Gaur`s play, Mr. Jinnah, ran into rough weather. A day before it was to be staged at the India Habitat Centre in the capital, the Delhi Police asked for its script and even though it was promptly submitted, the play was `deferred`. The police say that the script was submitted late, it was illegible and that the IHC auditorium`s licence had expired.
The police may even argue that it was only playing safe given the kind of passion Jinnah has been evoking in recent weeks. Such arguments are specious. The police action is outrageous.
It`s a sinister assault on creative freedom. ``Especially since it is not a political portrayal, the script revolves around the personal life of Jinnah``, says Gaur. But even if it was, the police have no business proscribing or even vetting the play. Are they competent to do so? The police`s role is to maintain law and order. They cannot ban a play anticipating trouble.
Of course, this is not the first time a play has been banned. Earlier, Vijay Tendulkar`s Sakharam Binder and Ghasiram Kotwal and Vijay Apte`s Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy were stopped being staged. Few will disagree that orchestrated disruption of law and order to get a work of art banned is becoming a regular feature of our social life.
The dogmatism which seeks to suppress artistic and creative _expression is gaining ground. Giving in to such demands only encourages and strengthens the forces of intolerance. In the process the citizen`s constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of _expression is trampled. The most reprehensible aspect of such suppression of artistic liberty is that the threat of public violence and the official action to counter it end up serving the same objective-of silencing dissent and stifling creativity.
#172 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:42:57 am
Hindustan Times
The Edit Page
Friday, June 24, 2005
Theatre of the Absurd
There`s something to be said about Delhi Police`s commitment to duty. What else could have prompted such swift action to stop staging f a play on Mohammad Ali Jinnah? We have been told that the script was confiscated not because of its contents, but because the auditorium that would host the play had its commercial-use licence suspended.
This is rather absurd. The pendencey of licence renewal hadn`t stopped other plays from being staged at the same venue. So where was the need for drama?
Whether the police are trying to score brownie points or simply latching on to the latest intellectual fashion statement-Jinnah-bashing-we still don`t quite know yet. But why at all it is the police`s job to `inspect` works of entertainment?
The law says that the police can stop the staging of a play if it threatens to `upset` public morality or creates an unmanageable traffic situation or is liable to spark off law and order problems. The theatre goers as well s civil libertarians eagerly await the police`s confirmation as to what prompted the seizure.
The nebulous reasons cited for cancelling the play only go to show just how robbed we are as a society of any sense of moderation. The police will be shocked if we were to charge it for harbouring a colonial type mindset. But that is pretty much what the police action has been about. Again, it is an equally curious deal if our law does require the police to vet, prior to public viewing, form of entertainment.
A society that boasts of its democratic tradition and temperament cannot possibly allow-very literally- the moral police to decide what can or cannot be put on the stage. If the police does have the power to censor, it must use it with caution and sensitivity in the larger interests of a democracy`s right to free _expression.
The Edit Page
Friday, June 24, 2005
Theatre of the Absurd
There`s something to be said about Delhi Police`s commitment to duty. What else could have prompted such swift action to stop staging f a play on Mohammad Ali Jinnah? We have been told that the script was confiscated not because of its contents, but because the auditorium that would host the play had its commercial-use licence suspended.
This is rather absurd. The pendencey of licence renewal hadn`t stopped other plays from being staged at the same venue. So where was the need for drama?
Whether the police are trying to score brownie points or simply latching on to the latest intellectual fashion statement-Jinnah-bashing-we still don`t quite know yet. But why at all it is the police`s job to `inspect` works of entertainment?
The law says that the police can stop the staging of a play if it threatens to `upset` public morality or creates an unmanageable traffic situation or is liable to spark off law and order problems. The theatre goers as well s civil libertarians eagerly await the police`s confirmation as to what prompted the seizure.
The nebulous reasons cited for cancelling the play only go to show just how robbed we are as a society of any sense of moderation. The police will be shocked if we were to charge it for harbouring a colonial type mindset. But that is pretty much what the police action has been about. Again, it is an equally curious deal if our law does require the police to vet, prior to public viewing, form of entertainment.
A society that boasts of its democratic tradition and temperament cannot possibly allow-very literally- the moral police to decide what can or cannot be put on the stage. If the police does have the power to censor, it must use it with caution and sensitivity in the larger interests of a democracy`s right to free _expression.
#173 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:50:13 am
Qaid-e-Jinnah?
PURNIMA SHARMA & JYOTI SHARMA
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2005 09:27:26 PM ]
The X-Men (read: self-appointed censors of creative expression) have done it again. After the storm whipped up by Advani advocating Jinnah`s `secular` credentials, Mr Jinnah, a play on Pakistan`s Quaid-e-Azam set to be staged in Delhi, has been banned by the cops...
On Tuesday, theatre director Arvind Gaur, all set to stage his play Mr Jinnah in Delhi, was told by the office of the additional DCP (South), Anil Shukla, that his production had been banned by the ``higher authorities.``
Why? Gaur claims that Shukla told him that the script of the play, which he had been told to submit to the cops a week ago, was illegible. ``We told Shukla that we would even hold a performance in his office to clear his doubts, but he said he had no time,`` says Gaur.
``Shukla told us that it was the police`s job to ensure that the play didn`t cause a law and order problem, outrage public morality, or was opposed by any political/social organisation.`` According to Gaur: ``The ban is an encroachment on our fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.``
Big Q: Since when was Jinnah a dirty word? Who is invested with the power to decide what the public can or can`t see?
Delhi Times taps the public reaction to the police`s action.. .
Jinnah jinx
................ Jinnah the film was banned in Pakistan because Christopher Lee, having played Dracula, played the lead; and Shashi Kapoor was the sutradhar (narrator). Lee, who received death threats and saw activists demanding his arrest and deportation, was protected by armed bodyguards throughout the shoot..................
Though the film was commissioned by then President Farooq Leghari, then PM Nawaz Sharif asked cultural affairs minister Mushahid Hussain to scrutinise the script. Later, the film`s producer was accused by its director Jamil Dehlvi of financial irregularities. Since the film`s makers resisted pressure from the government to show Jinnah as a deeply religious leader, the government withdrew financial backing midway.
* Jinnah`s NOT a dirty word : Theatre director Sayeed Alam has been through the script of Mr Jinnah written by Narender Mohan. ``If anything, the play attempts to remove misconceptions about Jinnah. My play on Maulana Azad was banned in Gujarat because of what Maulana says about Sardar Patel, Nehru and Gandhi, who didn`t really resist Partition. Jinnah played a major role in Partition but I don`t understand why his name is a dirty word.``
Says Bhartiya Natya Sangh general secretary Reoti Sharan Sharma, ``Jinnah, a nationalist till 1930, is certainly not a dirty word. In any case, the police isn`t authorised to ban a play.`` According to theatreperson Joy Michael: ``Why react as if Jinnah is a bad word? If we allow the play to be staged, people will realise that all this is uncalled for.`` Adds NSD director Devendra Raj Ankur: ``The ban is a result of the controversy involving Advani. I`ve read the script of the play and nothing in it calls for a ban. It`s just the lifestory of Jinnah.``
* The Talibanisation of India?
``The ban is outrageous. Plays like Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy have been staged without a hitch; Jaswant Singh has written a book on Jinnah. Ours is not a police or Taliban-ruled state, but a democracy. The ban impedes artistic freedom,`` says theatreperson MK Raina.
For theatre person Lushin Dubey, it comes as a shock that the authorities have banned Mr Jinnah after building bridges for cultural exchanges with Pakistan. ``In this climate of liberalisation, this is puerile,`` she says.
* Who killed freedom of expression? ``Freedom of expression needs to be honoured at all costs,`` says Sangeet Natak Akademi secretary Jayant Kastuar. ``Have the authorities even read the script of the play? Just because the play is pro-Jinnah and secular, it has been banned,``
says theatre person Vivek Mansukhani. ``In the West, theatrepersons poke fun at the authorities and even royalty. Here, anything on a historical personality invites a ban. If this continues, nobody will discuss issues and we`ll only have mindless entertainment
#174 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 8:53:35 am
Jinnah Bhi Do, Yaaron
by Keval Arora
theatre Publication: TOI ,Delhi Jul 10,2005, Section:Pg 13,Culture
‘Defer’ is such a sweet word, is it not? It sounds so ominously sensible, so brimming over with the milk of human decency, that the Delhi police must surely be wondering what all the fuss is about. I mean, they haven’t actually ‘banned’ (oh, that dreaded B-word!) Asmita’s latest play Jinnah, which was to have opened at the India Habitat Centre on 22nd June. They only ‘requested’ (another sweet word, that!) the group to ‘defer’ its performances so that their experts get time to examine the script.
Can anything be more polite and decorous than that! Ok, the police asked for the script with only a week to go for the shows, despite the fact that the application for performance had been submitted to them a whole month earlier. But that’s only bad timing, no? Hardly the kind of
thing that should get people worked up. So, it’s unfortunate that members of Asmita, along with others who believe in these silly things like freedom of speech, freedom of artistic creation and the free exchange of ideas, have not truly appreciated how difficult it must have been for our police to adopt such a phrasing, unaccustomed as they are to refined expression.
The poor police have also had other problems to contend with. Like, reading scripts, for instance, to determine whether the play should be performed. Whether the police should be doing this job is another matter altogether. (Incidentally, do you think you and I aren’t safe on our roads any more because they are busy reading playscripts?) That an entire script should be tarred as suspect because they couldn’t decipher an actor’s handwriting — which constituted, oh my God, a full FIVE percent of the typewritten script — must surely have been a tough decision for the police to take. So tough that even today, a full twenty two days since they first laid hands on the script, they still haven’t said a word about the text.
Who do the police think they are fooling? Do they really think anyone’s swallowed their sanctimonious platitude that they haven’t banned the play but simply requested it be deferred? When auditorium bookings don’t happen at short notice and a production that is deferred can take months to get on the boards again, when the police seem quite content to let things linger in limbo, it’s plain that this ‘deferment’ is in effect a ban. (Either that or the experts that the police have cobbled together have been laid low by some mysterious reading-disability!)
Actually, from the point of view of the police, deferring a production is far more convenient than banning it. Deferring s o m e t h i n g they have the gall to declare they know nothing about (because, after all, they claimed the script was illegible) discharges them from the obligation to see the production, negotiate its meaning and then give reasons for a ban. Perhaps that’s too much work. Perhaps, it may also over-strain our police force if it is expected to conduct itself in a logical and reasonable manner.
Some months ago, the Police Commissioner had himself read the script of The Vagina Monologues and cleared it for performance, after consulting with his female colleagues.
Notwithstanding my skepticism regarding their qualifications for this task, I wonder if Jinnah will even get similar attention. For, this is no high-flying production visiting Delhi but a home-grown play by Arvind Gaur, a stalwart of the local theatre scene.
I humbly suggest that while we wait for the police to ride out a storm of their own making, ordinary English users can use this event to brush up their language skills. All ye hopefuls out there, repeat after me: the word ‘BAN’ is henceforth to be spelt as ‘D-E-F-E-R’ — By Order (sorry, ‘Request’): the Delhi Police Handbook of Convenient Phrases.
#175 Posted by arvind on July 20, 2005 9:27:32 am
Society
From ‘skimpy’ clothes to fashion shows and dance bars,
the moral cops will have none of it
By K. Sunil Thomas
Anil Shukla, Delhi’s Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, is a very busy person. But from June 21, for the better part of a week, he has not been occupied with major law and order issues. Instead, Shukla’s job has been to ensure that Arvind Gaur’s play Mr Jinnah is not staged in the capital.
Gaur himself does not know why the play has run into trouble and can only presume that it has something to do with the recent political storm over BJP president L.K. Advani’s comments on Pakistan’s father of the nation. The official reason given is that the copy of the script Gaur had submitted to the police for review was not ‘legible’, and that the venue, the India Habitat Centre, did not have fire safety clearance.
``It is simply the name of the play that has invited trouble,`` said theatre personality Ram Gopal Bajaj. ``This action is based on a draconian law made by the British in 1886 on performing arts,`` he said. Auditoriums in the capital are scared of staging the play and Gaur is still seeking a reason.
``Our collective social freedom is more important than individual freedom,`` Gaur admitted. ``But we can respect social freedom only if individual freedom too is respected.`` Theatre personality Anasuya Vaidya said that a regulatory code for perfoming arts ``has to come through discussion and consensus``.
Are our personal freedoms under threat? So it would seem, from the spate of seemingly unconnected incidents and rulings across the country. India’s so-called beacon of liberal mores, ‘maximum city’ Mumbai, has been making news for the last few months over the closure of its dance bars—a sleazy, but perfectly legal, sexual tension release for thousands of men. In banning it for, apparently, being an immoral den for prostitution, the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party alliance, seemed to take over the moral-policing role played by its main opposition, the Shiv Sena.
That’s not all. The rape of a girl in Delhi in early May prompted the principal of the city’s Kirori Mal College to ban western attire, like jeans. A backlash from student organisations and women’s groups forced the principal to tender an apology and withdraw the ban, but dress code proposals for girls are pending in at least two other colleges in the capital.
``If skimpy clothes are the provocation for rapes, why are such atrocities on women more common in the villages of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Uttaranchal, than in cities like Delhi?`` asked Rohit, Delhi University student leader. He says colleges take the easy route to escape from the obligation to offer counselling and to form an elected body to deal with issues of sexual harassment.
Why are Indians averse to change? Economist Asit Roy said that it is because of a ``psyche averse to change and doings things differently``.
Small towns are not new to curbs on freedom. A few years ago, in Kanpur, activists of the BJP youth wing, the ABVP, succeeded in making girls’ colleges enforce a dress code allowing them to wear only the salwar-kameez with a dupatta. Two girls who refused to conform were refused entry into college and received death threats. Right wing activists in the city also hogged headlines a couple of years ago when they went around vandalising restaurants and greeting card shops, and scaring away boys and girls on Valentine’s Day.
In Lucknow, the Students` Islamic Movement of India decreed that all Muslim girls venturing out of their homes must wear a burqa, and not use lipstick. Men were to wear a sherwani at least once a week.
One of the first moves of the BJP government which took over in Madhya Pradesh was to call for a dress code for girls in college campuses in Bhopal, though finally it was not carried through. However, it banned fashion shows and film-based cultural programmes on campuses.
No go: Women giving `Ayurvedic` massages to men could be banned
The Congress government in Kerala, too, banned fashion shows and cinematic dances on college campuses in June, besides banning students from carrying mobile phones. Apparently, a ban on women giving ayurvedic massages to men and vice versa, will soon be in place, as the government feels that it is a cover for ‘sex tourism’.
Many people probably thought that the Sushma Swaraj brand of puritanism would be shown the door when the NDA government lost power. The former I&B minister had been more concerned about the necklines of Doordarshan news readers and the risqué fare on Fashion TV (though, one closed-door meeting with FTV president Michel Adams was enough to give a clean chit to the channel, even if the programming remained unchanged) than issues like streamlining the chaotic industry. More authoritarian infringements on personal liberty have been passed, however, over the last few months under the Congress government.
Health minister Anbumani Ramadoss’s attempt to ban smoking in films is one such. ``Seventy six per cent of the 800-900 movies made in India had smoking scenes,`` he said. ``I have definite information that the tobacco industry directly pays cinema stars to smoke in films.`` Anil Kapoor, who has ``smoked in several films``, denied he had ever been paid me to endorse a brand. ``The ban would mean that certain stories cannot be made into films, such as a film on Winston Churchill,`` said actor Shah Rukh Khan. ``I do not think youngsters take to smoking because film stars are shown smoking in films.``
Kamal Mitra Chinoy, sociologist at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, feels that Ramadoss’s worries would have been better directed to the Aids pandemic or the resistant strains of tuberculosis. ``The whole effort [towards banning smoking in films] seems based on the presumption that individuals lack judgment and that the state knows what is best for them,`` he said. ``The whole process has been undemocratic. There was no discussion with the ministries, the censor board or film-makers.`` Tarot card reader Mita Bhan suggests a ``statutory warning on screen when a star lights up on screen``.
The campaign against tobacco picked up momentum in the late 90s with a spate of rulings in Delhi, Goa and Kerala. It reached a crescendo when Sushma took over the health ministry and got her colleagues to ban tobacco advertisements. Following it came restrictions on gutka and paan consumption. Y.P. Chhibbar, general secretary of the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, is now planning to mobilise public opinion through seminars and meetings on what he calls the ``whims of ministers.... people who are new to political power trying to push their way up at the expense of personal liberties.``
Sanjeev Bhargava, member of the Censor Board, says that while ``in India, we tend to bind people in a code of conduct, countries with liberal laws and an open society have actually only prospered``. He feels that we need to enforce the laws that are in place. Chinoy agrees. ``The only kind of moral policing we need is an honest cop,`` he said.
From ‘skimpy’ clothes to fashion shows and dance bars,
the moral cops will have none of it
By K. Sunil Thomas
Anil Shukla, Delhi’s Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, is a very busy person. But from June 21, for the better part of a week, he has not been occupied with major law and order issues. Instead, Shukla’s job has been to ensure that Arvind Gaur’s play Mr Jinnah is not staged in the capital.
Gaur himself does not know why the play has run into trouble and can only presume that it has something to do with the recent political storm over BJP president L.K. Advani’s comments on Pakistan’s father of the nation. The official reason given is that the copy of the script Gaur had submitted to the police for review was not ‘legible’, and that the venue, the India Habitat Centre, did not have fire safety clearance.
``It is simply the name of the play that has invited trouble,`` said theatre personality Ram Gopal Bajaj. ``This action is based on a draconian law made by the British in 1886 on performing arts,`` he said. Auditoriums in the capital are scared of staging the play and Gaur is still seeking a reason.
``Our collective social freedom is more important than individual freedom,`` Gaur admitted. ``But we can respect social freedom only if individual freedom too is respected.`` Theatre personality Anasuya Vaidya said that a regulatory code for perfoming arts ``has to come through discussion and consensus``.
Are our personal freedoms under threat? So it would seem, from the spate of seemingly unconnected incidents and rulings across the country. India’s so-called beacon of liberal mores, ‘maximum city’ Mumbai, has been making news for the last few months over the closure of its dance bars—a sleazy, but perfectly legal, sexual tension release for thousands of men. In banning it for, apparently, being an immoral den for prostitution, the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party alliance, seemed to take over the moral-policing role played by its main opposition, the Shiv Sena.
That’s not all. The rape of a girl in Delhi in early May prompted the principal of the city’s Kirori Mal College to ban western attire, like jeans. A backlash from student organisations and women’s groups forced the principal to tender an apology and withdraw the ban, but dress code proposals for girls are pending in at least two other colleges in the capital.
``If skimpy clothes are the provocation for rapes, why are such atrocities on women more common in the villages of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Uttaranchal, than in cities like Delhi?`` asked Rohit, Delhi University student leader. He says colleges take the easy route to escape from the obligation to offer counselling and to form an elected body to deal with issues of sexual harassment.
Why are Indians averse to change? Economist Asit Roy said that it is because of a ``psyche averse to change and doings things differently``.
Small towns are not new to curbs on freedom. A few years ago, in Kanpur, activists of the BJP youth wing, the ABVP, succeeded in making girls’ colleges enforce a dress code allowing them to wear only the salwar-kameez with a dupatta. Two girls who refused to conform were refused entry into college and received death threats. Right wing activists in the city also hogged headlines a couple of years ago when they went around vandalising restaurants and greeting card shops, and scaring away boys and girls on Valentine’s Day.
In Lucknow, the Students` Islamic Movement of India decreed that all Muslim girls venturing out of their homes must wear a burqa, and not use lipstick. Men were to wear a sherwani at least once a week.
One of the first moves of the BJP government which took over in Madhya Pradesh was to call for a dress code for girls in college campuses in Bhopal, though finally it was not carried through. However, it banned fashion shows and film-based cultural programmes on campuses.
No go: Women giving `Ayurvedic` massages to men could be banned
The Congress government in Kerala, too, banned fashion shows and cinematic dances on college campuses in June, besides banning students from carrying mobile phones. Apparently, a ban on women giving ayurvedic massages to men and vice versa, will soon be in place, as the government feels that it is a cover for ‘sex tourism’.
Many people probably thought that the Sushma Swaraj brand of puritanism would be shown the door when the NDA government lost power. The former I&B minister had been more concerned about the necklines of Doordarshan news readers and the risqué fare on Fashion TV (though, one closed-door meeting with FTV president Michel Adams was enough to give a clean chit to the channel, even if the programming remained unchanged) than issues like streamlining the chaotic industry. More authoritarian infringements on personal liberty have been passed, however, over the last few months under the Congress government.
Health minister Anbumani Ramadoss’s attempt to ban smoking in films is one such. ``Seventy six per cent of the 800-900 movies made in India had smoking scenes,`` he said. ``I have definite information that the tobacco industry directly pays cinema stars to smoke in films.`` Anil Kapoor, who has ``smoked in several films``, denied he had ever been paid me to endorse a brand. ``The ban would mean that certain stories cannot be made into films, such as a film on Winston Churchill,`` said actor Shah Rukh Khan. ``I do not think youngsters take to smoking because film stars are shown smoking in films.``
Kamal Mitra Chinoy, sociologist at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, feels that Ramadoss’s worries would have been better directed to the Aids pandemic or the resistant strains of tuberculosis. ``The whole effort [towards banning smoking in films] seems based on the presumption that individuals lack judgment and that the state knows what is best for them,`` he said. ``The whole process has been undemocratic. There was no discussion with the ministries, the censor board or film-makers.`` Tarot card reader Mita Bhan suggests a ``statutory warning on screen when a star lights up on screen``.
The campaign against tobacco picked up momentum in the late 90s with a spate of rulings in Delhi, Goa and Kerala. It reached a crescendo when Sushma took over the health ministry and got her colleagues to ban tobacco advertisements. Following it came restrictions on gutka and paan consumption. Y.P. Chhibbar, general secretary of the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, is now planning to mobilise public opinion through seminars and meetings on what he calls the ``whims of ministers.... people who are new to political power trying to push their way up at the expense of personal liberties.``
Sanjeev Bhargava, member of the Censor Board, says that while ``in India, we tend to bind people in a code of conduct, countries with liberal laws and an open society have actually only prospered``. He feels that we need to enforce the laws that are in place. Chinoy agrees. ``The only kind of moral policing we need is an honest cop,`` he said.
#176 Posted by CoolAL on July 20, 2005 10:12:12 am
Here I was...a perfectly neutral by-stander, who deeply believes in freedom of speech, ready to support this group with my full support.
After reading these interacts and listening to these people -- if you can call them that, I am now convinced that these are a bunch of charlatans and con-artists.
While I feel that they should still be allowed to express their thoughts -- UGH -- freely, I will make sure that I, my friends and people that I can influence will avoid them like the plague. In fact, if there is group that plans to expose scum like these, I will lend my full support to them.
Finally, I would love to see a play on Mr. Jinnah -- even the same play -- but from a different group.
After reading these interacts and listening to these people -- if you can call them that, I am now convinced that these are a bunch of charlatans and con-artists.
While I feel that they should still be allowed to express their thoughts -- UGH -- freely, I will make sure that I, my friends and people that I can influence will avoid them like the plague. In fact, if there is group that plans to expose scum like these, I will lend my full support to them.
Finally, I would love to see a play on Mr. Jinnah -- even the same play -- but from a different group.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nb: I didn't know that,... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: Re: # 182; nb thanks... The Correct Turn
- nb: Cheema, hing is asafoetida... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: Re: # 180 yaar nb... The Correct Turn
- nb: HP, if it was... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: dost_mittar and hamidm sahibaan,... The Correct Turn
- ahmedmadani: When we who write... Politics of PPP and
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 46 Zeena... Politics of PPP and
