Manipur News

by B.G. Verghese 
The past week has seen witnessed impassioned appeals that the death sentences passed against the LTTE killers of Rajiv Gandhi, Afzal Guru, sentenced for his role in the attack on Parliament House in December 2001, and the Khalistan Liberation Font terrorist, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, for bombing a Indian Youth Congress gathering in Delhi in 1993, be commuted from life to death sentences.  The argument made out is that they have been on death row for unconscionably long without disposal of their mercy petitions and thereby made to die a thousand agonising deaths.    

This is a valid point and there is absolutely no reason why these matters have been kept pending for so very long across different regimes. Article 72 of the Constitution stipulates no deadline by when the Home Ministry/Government should make its recommendation to the President. If decisions have not been taken it is because governments have sought to trade stern duty by pandering to political constituencies. As long as the Constitution provides for the death penalty (which the Supreme Court awards in “the rarest of rare cases”), unless there has been a miscarriage of justice, or new evidence or other compelling circumstances, – such as Nalini, one of the Rajiv assassination accused, giving birth to a child in jail – it should not take more than a few weeks for the decision to be announced. Most often, delay itself invites political play and the building up of pressure from interested quarters, national or international, to impede decision-making. This is the trap into which governments have repeatedly fallen across parties and have only themselves to blame.

As long as capital punishment remains on the Indian statute it should be laid down that unless a mercy petition is decided within four weeks of the final sentence, the Supreme Court’s verdict will stand and any death sentence executed within a week thereafter.

However, it is passionately argued, that most countries have abolished the death penalty and it is only befitting that as a democratic, liberal state, India should follow suit. This is not without merit – though terror perhaps stands on a somewhat different footing; but as long as the law is the law, it must be observed and there should be no shifting of goalposts.  If capital punishment is abolished tomorrow than let all future heinous crimes be heard and decided in that context. Fiddling with due process can open the door to other ills.

It is argued that the execution of Iqbal Butt, the killer of the Indian diplomat, Mhatre in Birmingham, years ago, stimulated resentment and anger among anti-national and jihadi elements in J&K and Pakistan and that the execution of Afzal Guru and Bhullar could trigger similar reactions. These arguments must be dismissed out of hand as caving in to terrorist blackmail. For the same reason, any mercy petition by Ajmal Kasab should not be given consideration on such pusillanimous grounds. In each and every case, the decision must rest on merit. The Tamil Nadu Assembly recently adopted a resolution calling for commutation of the death sentences imposed on the Rajiv killers. The Punjab Assembly is contemplating passing a similar resolution in regard to Bhullar. And now a J&K MLA has introduced a similar motion for clemency for Afzal Guru “in keeping with the aspirations of the people”.

This of course is undiluted nonsense and confuses legitimate debate on the merits of capital punishment with playing politics.  

Anna Hazare’s fast has also triggered debate on the legitimacy of that form of protest in a day and age – unlike the Gandhian  era – when the country has a democratic Constitution,  a representative and popularly elected Parliament to which the Executive is duly accountable, a judiciary subject to due process and a free and powerful media.  A two or three day self-purificatory fast is one thing but a fast unto death (howsoever named) is tantamount to suicide which is a cognisable offence under law. Such fasts amount blackmail as the coercive element lies in the threat of public disorder and violence in case of death.    

It is for this reason that Irom Sharmila’s 11-year fast in Imphal, though greatly moving and distressing, has resulted in her being restrained and forced-fed.  This writer too believes that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, should be repealed in its present form and any essential provisions should be incorporated in other legislation, as recommended by the Jeevan Reddy Commission. Irom Sharmila has appealed to Anna Hazare to endorse her demand and even to visit Imphal. A visit might be problematic as it could confuse matters by conflating issues.

Anna plans to watch the process and content of Parliament’s enactment of a Lok Pal Bill on the basis of the recommendations of the Standing Committee after a full examination of all and everybody s demands and suggestions. The unanimous Parliamentary resolution adopted on August 27 said no more than this despite much posturing and divergent interpretations by sections of “civil society” and the media. However, Anna now says he will resume an indefinite fast should the outcome not be to his satisfaction. This could be no more than another case of careless reporting. There can be no supplanting of democratic consensus by authoritarian diktat and blackmail. One trusts Team Anna will not be so foolhardy as to tread this path.

As in the case of corruption, numerous civil society groups and government agencies are dealing with many other burning issue such as electoral reform, political party reform,  police reforms and so forth all of which have a bearing on good governance. The Aadhar (UID) programme will itself vastly strengthen the government’s ability to improve governance by more accurately targeting those who should benefit from various rights based programmes and replacing money transactions with e-banking payments. None should think they can muscle in at any point and at any time and seek to appropriate such vital national programmes on the basis a narrow agenda set by a small, self-appointed coterie in the name of “civil society”. 

While the law must take its course every time, the Government and Parliament too would be advised not to appear vindictive or stand unduly on privilege. At the same time, Anna cannot bristle over the fact that tax notices have been served on Kejriwal (and Baba Ramdev). Let the matter be settled expeditiously one way or the others. No one is above the law, even if only a technical offender. Anna is categorical that Kejriwal is innocent. Maybe But in defending Kejriwal he has labelled government servants liars and wily fraudsters and the Home Minister, Chidambaram as a “mischievous man” and habitual liar. This is not the first time Anna and his team have used such abusive language.   

The media too must examine its role as part “farce multiplier” through what was in some ways embedded and biased reportage and commentary. The Independent Broadcast Regulatory Authority under Justice J.S. Verma should look into this matter de novo and Government would do well to prepare a draft Bill for regulating the broadcast media, and refashioning the Press Council, in the interests of maintaining the health and vigour of what is today the most powerful Estate in the land.
www.bgverghese. com

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2011/09/the-quality-of-mercy/

by Subir Ghosh
The Indian film industry is one of the largest in the world, and Indian cinema is unmatched in its variety. Tracing the history of Indian cinema through the traditional methods is not tedious – it is too gargantuan a task. This column will revisit Indian film history, and look at various aspects of Indian films and individuals who have made Indian films so memorable, through different prisms. This week, we take a look at ten celebrated collaborators. There would be needless to say problems with this list, for no finite list can be all-encompassing. Maybe, those who have been missed out can be covered under a list of a different kind.

Himansu Rai and Franz Osten: In the 1930s when Bombay Talkies was launched as a public limited company, founder and one of the pioneers of Indian cinema Himansu Rai gathered the who’s who of talented young Germans of the time. Among them were filmmaker Franz Osten, cinematographer Josef Wirsching, sound engineer LenHartley and architect Karl von Spreti. Osten directed films like Jawani Ki Hawa (1935), Achhut Kanya (1936), Jeevan Naiyya (1936), Janambhoomi (1936) and Jeevan Prabhat (1937). After Rai died in 1940, the Germans left India. Bombay Talkies too collapsed soon.
V Damle and S Fatehlal: The two were the Prabhat Film company partners, who directed films like Sant Tukaram in the 1930s. They excelled with other spiritual/religious films like Gopal Krishna (1929) and Sant Dnyaneshwar (1940). The latter had one of the earliest forms of a freeze shot in Indian film history. Unfortunately, both died in oblivion, and remain unknown entities, despite making socially relevant films in both Hindi and Marathi.

Naushad and Mehboob Khan: They were known as the mega pair of blockbusters: Andaz (1949), Aan (1952), Mother India (1957) and Son of India (1962). Their partnership was legion. Changes in the script by the director would upset the composer, and the latter would often suggest changes while the shooting would be on. Their collaboration went way beyond that of a filmmaker and a musician: each often had a say on the other’s work.

Khwaja Ahmad Abbas and VP Sathe: The two made an unusual pair of writers, when they worked on screenplays. Their collaborations ranged from V Shantaram’s Dr Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani (1946) to Raj Kapoor’s Barsaat (1949), Shree 420 (1955) and Bobby (1973).

Satyajit Ray and Bansi Chandragupta: At one point of time, there seemed to be little change in the credits of Satyajit Ray’s films, and among these was the name of Bansi Chandragupta as art director / production designer. The latter remained a constant right from the Apu trilogy of Pather Panchali (1955), Aparajito (1956) and Apur Sansar (1959), to Jalsaghar (1958), Devi (1960), Teen Kanya (1961) and finally Shatranj Ke Khiladi (1977). The partnership ended only with Chandragupta’s demise in 1981.

Shakti Samanta and Gulshan Nanda: The first was a filmmaker, and the second the uncrowned king of Hindi paperbacks. When they teamed up, they came up with one hit after another: Aradhana (1969), Kati Patang (1970), Ajnabee (1974) and Mehbooba (1976), incidentally all starring the star of the time – Rajesh Khanna. Once they split, each had a range of flops. Samanta’s started with Anand Ashram (1977) and Nanda’s with Jheel Ke Us Paar (1973).

Dev Anand, Vijay Anand and Sachin Dev Burman: When the two brothers from the Nav Ketan group made a film, it would be a foregone conclusion that the score would be provided by SD Burman. The films would be a hit, and so would the songs: Funtoosh (1956), Kala Pani (1958), Guide (1965), Tere Mere Sapne (1971). When SD’s son Rahul Dev emerged on the scene, he took over in Hare Rama Hare Krishna (1971), another resounding success.

Raj Kapoor, Radhu Karmakar and Mukesh: The grand showman of Bollywood had two constants: cameraman Radhu Karmakar and playback singer Mukesh. Karmakar worked as cinematographer in each of Kapoor’s films. The filmmaker even credited him for directing Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behti Hai (1960) when Karmakar wanted to go his own way. Mukesh made Kapoor’s songs immortal with his voice, right from Barsaat in 1948 till his death in 1976. Kapoor could not get over his friend’s death, and made the latter’s son Nitin Mukesh sing for Satyam Shivam Sundaram (1978).

Guru Dutt and Johnny Walker: This was possibly one of the strangest of combinations to be seen in mainstream Hindi cinema: the king of tragedy and the king of comedy together. If that was not all, Walker would more often than not be cast in song sequences: from Pyaasa (1957) and Kaagaz Ke Phool (1959) to Chaudvin Ka Chand (1960). They remained inseparable till the end.

Shankar and Jaikishan: If there was a charbusting duo, it was this. From the ‘Teri pyari pyari surat ko’ in Sasural to ‘Ramaiyya vastavaiyya’ in Shree 420. In the 50s and 60s they reigned supreme, and was the most sought-after composer pair in the industry. After Jaikishan died in 1971, his partner continued with the same Shankar-Jaikishan name, but could not meet with the same amount of success. By the time Shankar died in 1987, they music industry had changed.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2011/09/indian-cinema-a-retrospect/