It was the best of the moments, and it was the worst of the moments, and let me tell you why I so write. Time was when I was a rookie journalist with the "New Indian Express." As I was basically a Ph.D. researcher, I was a freelancer with the newspaper. Yet I used to be a regular, too, so much so that per week, I could pen at least three articles for the Features' Desk.
When I got to know that Bhishm Sahani of the "Tamas" fame would be there, I got the Desk Editor's permission to interview him. I got a proper interview time allotted by him, an interview graciously accepted by him, given his advanced age. Later on when the write-up was published and I sent him a xerox copy, I received a "You are very kind" post card from him which is one of the high points as a journalist for me.
That is the best aspect. The worst moment was one of the so-called great academicians signalling him through gestures not to speak! Well, it was a properly n prior permitted interview for a leading newspaper. Even to hint at such a gesture was absolutely unprofessional. And here was this absurd behaviour! The less said about such ugly nastinesses, the better it is for one's own memories!
Anyways, despite such "censoring", the interview did take place! One of the questions I had asked Sahani-ji was about censoring of texts, films, paintings, any cultural/aesthetic product for that matter.
His answer, I feel, can be a leading light whenever such issues toss up n down the entire socio-cultural ethos like a whirlpool. Sahani-ji's opinion -- here I am not quoting him verbatim, rather summarising his ideas -- was that an artist's freedom of expression is indubitable. Yet it cannot conveniently corrode the societal set-up.
Thought of it all because of the current furore over this bio-pic entitled "Satluj". Apparently, it deals with the aftermath of the Bhindranwale era in Punjab. No, I have not watched the film. No, I have not read up about Jaswant Singh Kharla. No, I am neither praising nor criticising the entire discussion.
Well, as it transpired during the interview mentioned above, we have to understand that an artist as an individual is a part of the society. The whole, too, matters as much as the part; the center of a circle, too, is as valid as the circumference; neither side of a square can either be elongated or shortened without disfiguring the original, right?
To consciously ignore either to suit one's own immediate agenda, to cherry-pick conveniently to valorise one's own current postures, to create bitter binaries to hypocritically manage one's own present profiteering, whether it be socio-cultural, historical, political, ideological is an intellectual crime! Instead, better defend an idea through/with an idea! In brief, self-reflexivity matters the most!
Pratima@ I do think that 'managing' media in such a pseudo mode is much worse than the p.r. promotion about film stars' personal lives just before the release of a film! Is the film really banned, moreover? The cuts could continue to be challenged in the Supreme Court, and even beyond (the President's intervention?!?), right? Given the times today, in addition, is it possible at all to ban anything? Conveniently it can be downloaded from very many legal/illegal sites! In fact, the film must have gotten loads of curious publicity because of the so-called prohibition!?! Or was that the plan of promotion???
Quote of the day: "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." A quote by George R.R. Martin.
Word of the day: Censorship Censorship is defined as the suppression or prohibition of speech, public communication, or other information considered objectionable, harmful, or inconvenient by governing authorities, private institutions, or individuals. It restricts freedom of expression and aims to control the flow of information.