Jodhaa Akbar/Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi

After 17 years of probe, the Babri Masjid demolition report has been finally submitted by the Liberhan Commission. The contents of the report are yet to be made public. But politicians have already started the blame game.

Is it a matter of faith? Is it an issue of rule of law?

I think the problem is our definition of secularism in India. We have taken the concept of nation state from the West but not the definition of secularism. Secularism means the state is without religion. But here, the Indian state supports all religions. Can equality and impartiality be ensured in that case? After all, we are humans.

Invocation of secularism then becomes subjective. That's why we have seen so much politicking happening in the name of religion in India. In the Indian kind of secularism, rule of law becomes a joke. That's why we have riots (rioters are never punished), we have commissions (reports' recommendations are rarely implemented), but hardly any justice.

I am not very optimistic about the fate of the commission's report.

Personally, I feel that the Babri Masjid issue will remain a thorn in the side of Indian secularism, the symbol of gulf between the two blood brothers, Hindus and Muslims. I feel that Indian Muslims should have gifted the controversial structure to the Indian Hindus. Just as Akbar had, in the film Jodhaa Akbar, allowed his bride Jodhaa to build a temple in the prayer room of the Red Fort. Can there be anything bigger than peace? Doesn't Islam itself means peace?

Like, to attack and destroy does not signal strength. It signals brutality and animal power. Similarly, sacrifice does not signal weakness. It demonstrates higher values.

Is that too Bollywood type of a wish? Let me expound it a bit more.

...

Recently, when Ashutosh Gowariker's Jodhaa Akbar swept all the IIFA Awards, I made up my mind to see it. I had missed the film when it had released in the theatres. Luckily, on last Saturday afternoon, Vasantham Channel showed the movie in Singapore. I liked the film--for its gentle tone, its beautiful production, its credible acting, soulful music and above all, its message of harmony and love.

However, being a student of history (having had the opportunity of studying history from the masters of Mughal History at AMU), I could not be convinced of its authenticity. The details were there but the film did not give me a feel of the public life of the time of Akbar. I am not even going into the historical authenticity of Jodha, whose existence is denied by authentic historical records of Akbar's time.

But that is not the point of the film, as I understand it. On a plain level, it is a love story between two powerful, beautiful people--an emperor and a princess. They have an elaborate wedding, like all big budget Hindi movies have--NRI women love this kind of stuff, don't they?

But the film goes deeper than that. I think, at a subliminal level, Ashutosh wanted to appropriate the legend of Jodhaa and Akbar and create a myth: a Hindu myth. In a way, it was a Hindu appropriation of the Mughal history. The film shows the self-respect of a Rajput princess; it shows the bending of a Muslim emperor to the power of that self-respect and love triumphing over narrow religious dictats. Despite the protests of the mullahs, Akbar allows Jodhaa to have her own shrine in the Mughal palace. He abandons the Hindu pilgrimage tax and bans the forced conversion of Hindu prisoners. All very noble things to do! I am glad Akbar did that (did he?) and in fact, all Mughal emperors should have done that--at least the last two acts.

In a way, the film makes the (often portrayed as barbaric in the case of many rulers) Mughal rule more palatable to the Hindu mind (that has been made to see the 1000 years of Mughal rule, as Muslim rule, with Jizya and all that, as slavery of Hindus, destroying the great Hindu civilization). In a way, the filmmaker seems to say that yes, this is how we can remember the Mughals/India's Musilm rulers: by remembering Akbar and denying other rulers not much space in our minds and myths. And by extension, he seems to propose that this is how Indian Muslims could assimilate themselves in the Indian nation--with love and sacrifice, and mutual self-respect. You may disagree with me, but this is how I saw Ashutosh's film.

There is a great message in this film. For Muslims, the message is to be more accommodating. That's why, I was saying that Indian Muslims should have gifted the controversial place in Ayodhya to our Hindu brethren. As a gesture of goodwill. As a token of our love. As a recompense. Why did it not happen? Now it is too late. India would have been a different country today had it happened 17 years ago. Or is Jodhaa Akbar 17 years too late?

As for the film, I was disappointed only in one respect: the battle scenes could have been more impressive. After seeing several Chinese films made in recent years (especially John Woo's Red Cliff and Yimou Zhang's The Curse of the Golden Flower), one expects similar kind of action and production values and I expected that from a UTV production.

Finally, I want to say that let us banish (from our streets) all violence to the film screen. Let us keep all religions private and not allow politicians to make it a votebank issue. Let us love, live and let live. Let us be good humans.

Can Kollywood do a Bollywood?

Weekend • July 14, 2007

Zafar Anjum

RECENTLY, Outlook, one of India's top news weeklies, did a cover story on how South India has stolen a march over the North by almost all indicators of development in the past 60 years.

The only territory (so to speak) that remains unbeaten from the great South Indian wave is Bollywood, that world-famous Hindi film industry based in Mumbai in Maharashtra state.

But can this situation remain unchanged?

After all, the South, too, has a thriving film industry in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

The most successful of these southern Indian film industries is Kollywood, the Tamil film industry which is concentrated in Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

In terms of industry size, Kollywood (about 150 films per year, annual turnover of about US$500 million, or $758 million) is only second to Bollywood (about 250 to 300 films per year, annual turnover of more than US$1 billion).

Like Bollywood, Kollywood too has big-name film stars, big budget producers and big-time hits.

After Bollywood films, Tamil films have the widest overseas distribution, especially in Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia.

Some Tamil films (Rajinikanth's Muthu, for example) have markets even in countries like Japan, South Africa, Canada and the United Kingdom. Big-budget Tamil films such as Chandramukhi, Anniyan, and Sivaji: The Boss are getting simultaneously released in the major foreign markets.

The most recent example is the success of Rajinikanth's Sivaji: The Boss in the overseas market. In Malaysia, the crowd went mad and sabotaged a theatre for a delay in showing the film.

In UK alone, Sivaji collected 13.6 million rupees ($513,000) showing on 12 screens on its opening weekend, in contrast with the much-hyped Bollywood film Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, which only collected nearly Rs 23 million, despite being shown on 47 screens.

Of course, Rajinikanth is more of an exception. After all, he is India's highest-paid actor, commanding fees in the range of 200 million to 300 million rupees per film, many times higher than the fees commanded by Bollywood superstars Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan.

In terms of star power, if Bollywood has Amitabh, Ashkay and the three Khans, Kollywood too has Rajinikanth, Kamal Hasan, Vijay, Surya and Vikram.

So, can Kollywood surpass Bollywood in the future? Or if that is too ambitious, can Kollywood do a Bollywood in terms of gaining international recognition and presence?

Gitesh Pandya, the editor of United States-based BoxofficeGuru.com and a film commentator on CNN, told Today: "Tamil cinema definitely has a large built-in fan base around the world. Rajinikanth's latest film proved how big an audience the right film can generate.

"However, it will need to take a few more major steps before reaching the level of Bollywood.

"The top stars need to raise their profile with non-Tamil moviegoers and the films need better distribution in markets like the US and UK. Here in the US, it is relatively easy to find Bollywood films in the major cities, but Tamil films play in fewer theatres and lack the same marketing and distribution push."

Mr Pandya is bang on target.

Like Bollywood, Kollywood has a good base of a Tamil-speaking diaspora (about 10 million Indian and Sri Lankan Tamils) spread around the world, with an audience that spans Sri Lanka, UK, US, Canada, Italy and South-east Asia.

But this market is still not as big as Bollywood's. The latter's foreign market, at 30 million, is thrice the size of Kollywood's.

Apart from this, other factors have also worked against Kollywood in its attempts to raise its international profile a la Bollywood.

Bollywood, from the beginning, has had pan- Indian and crossover appeal. Its movies have been popular in Asia, the Middle East, Russia and even Africa for a long time now. Despite the language barrier, its unique, often melodramatic narrative style, wrapped in its song-and-dance drama format, has appealed to people worldwide.

The other good thing that has happened with Bollywood is that it has learnt how to ride on the success of the Indian diaspora, supported by banks and Indian business bodies like the Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

After the Indian economy's liberalisation in the 1990s, India's film exports surged as the Bollywood film-makers began to tailor their narratives with the Indian diaspora in mind. This move has paid off handsomely. The result is that the Indian film industry — which incorporates the output from all of India, including from regional industries like the Tamil, Telugu and Bengali film sectors — is now worth about $4.5 billion.

The pack is, of course, led by Hindi films from Bollywood.

With the Indian diaspora growing in number and influence, all major countries want Bollywood at their doorstep. And what better way to welcome Bollywood than to let it host its annual IIFA Awards, which has been held in London, Johannesburg, Amsterdam and Singapore, among others.

If Kollywood wants to raise its profile internationally, it, too, has to go the Bollywood route: Fashion narratives that appeal to a larger audience (including the non-Tamil Indian diaspora), promote the films worldwide, and make their stars more visible.

Kollywood has woken up to this idea ... just a bit late in the day. But the signs are good. Tamil film- makers such as Shankar, P Vasu and Mani Ratnam are crafting such movies. Shankar's Anniyan was dubbed in Hindi and French, among other languages. Rajinikanth plays a successful non-resident Indian in his smash hit film Sivaji. You get the drift of things?

Also, the inaugural International Tamil Film Awards ceremony is being held in Singapore this Saturday. That is a step in the right direction.

Clearly, the Tamil film industry also wants to come closer to its international viewers through such events. And why not? It can only mean better business for Kollywood.

Published in Weekend Today dated July 14.

Bollywood comes to Britain

As the latest edition of IIFA Awards go to Sheffield, UK, in June, trite articles on Bollywood have started to appear in the UK media.

Here's The Telegraph's take on the Bollywood fever:

Where Bollywood films were once seen only in specialist cinemas in predominantly Asian areas, they are now routinely programmed alongside mainstream films in multiplexes.

And Bollywood producers are increasingly using British locations and actors, or making films with substantial English dialogue as well as Hindi and other Asian languages. Namastey London - a bittersweet romance about a British-Asian woman and her arranged marriage to an Indian national - was shot largely in the UK, while Goal, about an Asian football league and entirely shot here, will be released later this year. About 15-20 Bollywood films a year are made at least partly in the UK.

So why the surge in interest? Akshay Kumar, Bollywood heartthrob and star of Namastey London, says: "India is 'in' - it's gone global. When you have one of the world's fastest-growing economies, people become interested in its culture and history. And Bollywood films have a unique quality that no other filmmakers can produce."

I wonder why the Blacks and the Black Fridays from Bollywood are not mentioned?