WHAT AILS JNU?

What Ails JNU?

It is JNU at its worst.  When an educational institution starts getting deteriorated in an accelerating way, the end result is the product what is called – Kanhaiya.

Jawaharlal Nehru University started with good intentions to commemorate the memory of our first Prime Minister who valued the higher education and research as the very basis of national foundation for growth and development.  This university was the brain child of Professor Nurul Hasan – a renowned historian, elder statesman and an academician with abiding faith in leftism.  He developed personal proximity to Pandit Nehru and Mrs. Indira Gandhi during heyday of these leaders.  Both the leaders projected democratic values with ideologically inclined left to the centre attitude. They visualised socialist pattern of society with mixed economy and mixed polity as the bases for their future course of action.  These ideologies are now the relics of time and do not work anymore.   

JNU, according to Professor Nurul Hasan, was established only as a research centre of high order, more than what we have, the Institute of Advanced Study, at Shimla.  So the university was set up particularly to cater higher research in humanities with no provision to have post graduate classes and professional courses to degrade its research standards and programmes.  JNU started with higher aim of research centre in 1969. A few professors were appointed to start with.  But from the very beginning, it could not justify its existence purely as a research body fully occupied with research activities.  Professors at the university demanded opening of PG classes because they feared they could lose their jobs for not being engaged fully in research oriented activities.  This was the first stage of deterioration of JNU.  

When JNU was started it was wrongly supposed that it should harbour communist ideological base since its originator was inclined to leftist ideology.  But this attitude dominated, somehow, in the recruitment of professors unofficially.  At an early stage most of the professors were imported from West Bengal.  Good or bad, the university started getting coloured ideologically, day by day, year after year, so as to develop a centre for communist propaganda.  Although educational institutes should be, in principle, neutral towards politics, but JNU, nonetheless, became a hub of communist’s activities – in theory and practice both.  This was the second stage of deterioration of JNU.

Our national governments at the centre have always been soft on ideological basis as part of democratic freedom.  Mostly it was the Congress government which ruled over sixty years, mildly and softly, and allowed the university to become a political centre and a breeding ground of communists of all variants and varieties. It was nothing wrong till it crossed limits and became a separatist centre for encouraging Kashmiris separatists and terrorists.  Even Vajpayee and Modi governments did not interfere in JNU affairs till February 9, 2016.  For the last two-three decades, JNU activities were getting more and more politicised, actively and passively, through its teachers, students and even vice-chancellors.  It was a wrong practice to put up VCs at JNU with leftist leanings.  This was a hidden practice, but prevailed invariably for the appointments of the top posts. But why did this happen?  Because it was felt that everybody should get his organisational head according to his choice.  Professor Nurul Hasan was made the Governor of West Bengal only because he was supposed to be leftist in ideology and was easily acceptable to the State during that time.  So many VCs were appointed at JNU who had leftist leanings.  This created an accumulated impact of bad governance which ruined the university.  Most of JNU professors who survived this ordeal were supposed to be leftists, actively or passively.

             JNU thus became consciously a cauldron of communism.  There were various variants of communism which flourished on the campus.   The Communist Party of India (CPI) was the most wide spread of all.  It was revolutionary party which cultivated communist aspirations grown on Indian soil.  Another party on campus sowed its seeds a bit differently through its powerful organ i.e. CPM (Marxist).  It developed among students deriving its strength purely on Marxist ideology.   It was ideologically a hard core party which propounded Marxist theory of work and action and derived inspiration from erstwhile Soviet Union.  But the worst of all was the shade of communism which spread its ideology through revolutionary spirit as adopted by Maoists.  It is CPM (ML & Maoist) which supports Naxalism, Red Book, Lal Salaam, the Gun through which the power flows, and suppression of the Nation and Society till the power comes to the hands of the poor.  They work secretively and combine with separatists and terrorists.  The present upheaval at JNU is the result of this group at large.

Here one must relate to the changes brought about in the communist world.  With the fall of Berlin Wall and USSR broken into pieces, the relevance of communism in the present day world is only historical.  It has no place in the globalised economy and democratic free world.  JNU is sitting on the relics of old ideology of communism.

It is strange rather surprising to know how separatist activities flourished on JNU campus and no precautionary step was taken up to curb them by the administration.  It is good to provide freedom of speech and also to allow students to celebrate their cultural programme, but how outsiders with covered faces entered the campus?  In fact, they were well invited persons, not intruders, and known to JNU students community.  Kanhaiya, the VC, Proctorial Board and the Disciplinary Committee of JNU are answerable to the citizen of India as they are paid out of their tax money.  What they were doing when anti-national slogans were raised?  Why the proctorial board or any representative member of the board was not present on the occasion.  It is the duty of proctorial board to keep account of student’s activities on the campus in detail.  JNU administration has miserably failed in performing its duty in this respect.

The other fact which is normally ignored, and often misunderstood, is the role of police on the campus. The police, as legally appointed investigating agency, have every authority to enter the campus if the crime is committed inside the university.  It is a myth that it can’t go inside the campus – a notion that is non-sense.  If the police force does not enter the campus, it is on account of its own good gesture. In some especial case, it can wait till the accused does not surrender.  But normally the police can arrest the person who commits criminal offence inside the campus.  However, the accused has every right to call his/her lawyer to defend the case before the police and the court and seek time for the same before arrest.  In the present case of JNU, the government vis-a-vis the executive council of the university are equally responsible for not taking precautionary measures to stop student’s menace repeatedly occurring on the campus.

JNU students are divided in various groups and factions.  These groups are basically political in nature but they operate as cultural bodies which go at times out of control and create law and order problem.  The role of police becomes imminent here and no permission of the Vice-Chancellor is needed to control such a situation.  No place is out of bounds for the police.  Is there any clause in the statutes of JNU or any other university in India where it is written that the police cannot enter the campus?  When students go on rampage, the police force helps the authorities to bring the situation under control.  The students on the campus act heterogeneously because of their different groups, variants and mind-sets.  The students have their own organisational bodies such as – SFI, AISA, DSU, NUSI, AISF, LPF, DSF, BAPSA, CFI, ABVP etc.  As long as they work separately or work within their own group, no problem arises.  But the moment a large gathering of various groups is held in the name of a common cultural programme, the problem crops up. They do not recognise each other either by face or by name.  And in the event of such slogans as raised by students on campus on 9^th February, 2016, a pandemonium was created; a chaos was generated.  It is tragedy to note that the JNU controlling body remained somnolent to the whole affair on the campus.  Of all the variants of student’s bodies at JNU, it is the total sum of ‘Communist Group’ which dominates the campus.  This group is all powerful and remains at variance with the other bodies.  Since this group has all India and even foreign support, the group is powerful monetarily, organisationally and ideologically.

Under the unprecedented situation of chaos and confusion, not only the students, but some teachers remain involved actively or passively.  They support the right of freedom of speech even at the cost of anti-national slogans; they issue press notes in favour of students even when they behave unruly, creating utter confusion and total chaos.  They politicise the issue to gain students favour.  But such activities directly hamper their growth and inversely impact their teaching and research standards. They let loose students do whatever they like except learning, library and class work, tutorials, seminars and regular research papers to be prepared and submitted to the faculty or the guide.  At JNU students get more time for political activities than attending classes and teachers spend more time in supporting political activities than delivering lectures in the class or guiding research work.  Some teachers become so familiar with students that they live at their level and even visit their home town to create regional affiliations.  Caste, creed and sectarianism dominate their relationship and education becomes worst sufferer in this scenario.

It is pertinent here to understand how the red forces fully occupied the campus.  There are different shades of red found at JNU.  It is a war within – between different shades of red.   When the students’ union elections are over, they almost become one.  It is this fact which makes Kanhaiya more convenient to attend the function organised by any other sub-group of which he remains an intrinsic part.  When anti-national slogans were raised at the function, Kanhaiya was very much the part of the gathering, not that he was passively standing, but he was actively involved.  He has not attained sainthood to become passive at a place where he has to show his mettle well.  He was the part of larger connivance being organised on the campus.

The early years of JNU did not witness any political impact.  First two-three years were well engaged in pursuing Ph.D. and M.Phil. courses, guiding students and managing their research projects.  The School of International Studies was established and the first set of students was mostly research oriented.  The general tenor of the school was apolitical.  In case of Russian studies, the students and teachers were pro Soviet Union but there was no politics attached to it.  These were the formative years of JNU when it posed to be a serious centre for learning devoid of any political leanings.  The professors at this centre could in no way be identified as Marxists, communists or socialist.

But the scenario did not last long. Mr. Prakash  Karat, who had returned from UK and got acquainted with the ideological functioning of the British Marxists, became instrumental in giving a broader structural frame work to the already existing neutral students body at the School of International Studies (SIS) at JNU. Karat got into close contact with CPI (M) leaders who wanted their students’ wing, SFI, opened at JNU as it was believed to be a clean slate for the party for its entry into JNU without much competition or fight with other bodies.  With the initiative of Karat, the SIS students’ association got merged with SFI and a new JNUSU constitution was properly framed to give an institutional structure to the students-union.  This was how ‘the left’ and JNUSU came to be known as one and the same thing, at least, during the initial years of development of union activities at JNU in which Karat played a leading role.  Thus ‘Communism’ and students’ ‘Unionism’ were born at the same time at JNU and CPI (M) had an advantage of being the first organization established on the campus.  In 1971, an independent candidate won Presidentship, but in 1972, SFI candidate captured the seat.  This followed the ‘Communists Activism’ on the campus.

However, the functioning of the new School of Social Sciences changed the character of JNU.  It was CPI which started inroads on the campus.  Thanks to the group of students and teachers led by Professor Moonis Raza and patronised by the stalwarts like professor Nurul Hasan and others for giving clear way to the establishment of the student wing of CPI,  AISF,  on the campus.  CPI had mass base at the All-India level, while CPI (M) was effectively located at provinces, especially West Bengal and Kerala.  The split of the party was not good for the left movement, but the leadership never tried to bring out any reconciliation or compromise for it because of the power they held in their own constituencies and provinces.  In JNU, those responsible for setting up AISF were active party members who belonged to the groups of students and teachers.  However, both the communist parties attempted to bring these two wings of students together to converge and to be called Progressive Democratic Front (PDF).  Initially it worked out as proposed, but could not achieve much success in the long run.  When the School of Social Sciences (SSS) started MA classes, the main research work for which the university was established got pushed to the background and the real decay of JNU started.  PG and under graduate students were least engaged in learning process and they enjoyed spending more time on political discourses and related activities.  Since this time, political activism became a fashion at JNU, and learning, research, class room work, lectures and seminars were reduced to pass-time professions and students and teachers were least bothered about them.  It may be said that with Professor Moonis Raza JNU attained its perfection and with him started its decay.

The radical left wing students were least satisfied with the theoretical as well as the practical aspects of the programmes as spread out by the parties, from time to time, which they felt were less effective.  They wanted sharp, militant activities, more revolutionary and practical for quick change and transformation of the society.  It was at this juncture that students’ wing known as AISA was born of the parental body called the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation.  This party believed in the ideology of the revolutionary legacy of Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad.  They also got linked with the “AZADI” movement of NE and Kashmir.  There prevailed an utter confusion among leftist and radical revolutionary groups of students on the campus.  Majority of the students were communists belonging to CPI or CPI (M), but they also accepted the ideology of militant groups and adopted their slogans of “AZADI” of all varieties.  They wanted “AZADI” from and within India.    They made a very thin line between these two types of “AZADIS”.  It was only when Kanhaiya stepped out of Tihar Jail that he made it clear what type of Azadi he wanted.  It was an afterthought and he made a U-Turn from what he spoke actually at the gathering on 9^th March, 2016 at JNU. 

Kanhaiya suddenly gets a special status in the minds of the people.  He becomes a precious news item to occupy front page, and at times, the prestigious head line of the Dailies.  In TV shows, he often gets prime time.  His rating sours high like a celebrity and his name and the events in which he participates get viral on social media.  He floats his life like available drift wood to be used by anyone who gets it.  He is never stable and clear in his thought process.  He is 30 and still a student; may attain 40, and even then a student! Who knows?  He is pursuing Ph.D. without seriously getting into it.   He wants to be a teacher, but behaves like a politician.  JNU provides him subsidised training of leadership and he has acquired it with distinction.  But his upbringing has not provided him good language, taste and temperament.  His Hindi (the only language which he speaks) is extremely bad and his pronunciation is awfully disgusting.  Last year, in June (2015), he  misbehaved with a girl student on the campus, but the matter was hushed up with minor punishment (fine), (See TOI March 11, 2016, Page 17, Bengaluru Edition).  He feels that he has the potential of becoming a CM or a PM candidate.  But he has no contents, appeal or force in his speeches which usually turn into farce.  His body language speaks more than what he speaks.  He presents the spectre of a juggler, forcing mob to believe the unbelievable, by playing tricks, producing rustic humour and mannerism.  He bends his spinal cord convexly, bringing his eyes up toward the sky to create fake hypnosis presuming that he has won the world  by his ‘Azadi’ slogans and wishing to get round of  applause from his less awakened peers.

It was pre-planned to create revolutionary uproar on the campus, with fully charged atmosphere, by celebrating Afzal Guru Day.  Students at the campus along with some JNUSU activists arranged a cultural evening, with belated disapproval by the university, to protest against Afzal Guru’s hanging, calling it as a judicial killing, defying the university authorities and showing contempt for the court.  Students raised slogans against India and showed solidarity with anti-national forces by demeaning the country.  The separatists’ activities on the campus were at the zenith and the celebration was not just an evening event, but a consolidated effort, of months and years of preparations, to bring about such anti-national activities to happen.  Why JNU authorities were not alert to check and control such shameful events organised on the campus?  Such activities happened last year also but no body took any notice of them.  What had happened in JNU on that evening was unfortunate.  The slogans raised were derogatory for the nation, judiciary and the patriotic tenor of the people.  The police arrived on the campus and Kanhaiya Kumar was the first to be arrested.  The police charge sheeted him for sedition case.  A few other names were also surfaced, but Kanhaiya was on top of the list.

JNU authorities blinked the next day.  Till then much damage had been done.  As damage control exercise, they appointed a committee to inquire about the whole incident and take action according to prescribed rules and regulations.  JNU panel indicted nearly 21 students for wilful defiance in holding and joining Afzal Guru meet and at least five of them were recommended for rustication.  It is yet to be seen if it is a paper tiger or really meant for a strict action to be implemented or a way of creating a rift among students by punishing the weak and sparing and protecting the strong. 

Kanhaiya got a name, fame and got a life, love and leadership. He was flying on cloud nine.  He became famous overnight, nationally and internationally.  He found himself as a hot selling material instantly and emerged as a brand name.  Anything ‘Kanhaiya’ is a derivative of leadership, ‘Azadi’, defiance of authority, and a force generating instant revolution – Lal Salam – as he describes it.  Kanhaiya is a brand that enhances TRP for electronic media channels and an item song that is hot for print media to cover columns.  Kaihaiya is a name and a voice of freedom, opposition, solidarity and undaunted heroism.

But this popularity has been brought about for wrong reasons.  Kanhaiya has been charged for sedition by the police and it will take years for him to come out of this ordeal.  JNU is responsible for catapulting him to such heights vis-à-vis bringing him down to earth.  He oscillates between these two extremes.  What is in store for him in future only God knows, but the real culprit is the university which provides a camouflaged cage for innocent students to be trapped and get ruined.  They are not 21, but hundreds of them who receive nothing from JNU – no learning, no education, and no future.

It is for a reference to remember and go through it deep to ponder over the contents of the following passage written by an alumnus of JNU, graduated years before, but still the pinch he feels and perhaps opines for new generation to be alerted from the institute which once was his Alma Mater.  Here is what SHEKAR writes:

“I am a graduate of JNU from the 1980s, and have hated my affiliation with that institution since that time, bitterly regretting a decision not to forego a JNU degree for one from a more prestigious institution where I had the option of studying. This is not a scholastic institution in the classical sense of the term, but a gateway for subsidized entry into politics and the government. Every one of my classmates went into one or the other, the latter by a large margin, with the student union leaders ending up in the former. I learnt very little here and am glad the ideologies never appealed to me. This is one institution that needs to be shut down...we will never see great academic scholarship from here”.

JNU has out lived its utility as an academic institution in the strict sense of the term.

    

                                                                                    

Girish Karnad & JNU

Girish Karnad & JNU

Girish Karnad tries to come to the fore-front whenever he gets an opportune time to keep alive his wanning power and faded glory.  On the last two occasions – one on Naipaul’s episode and other on Tipu Sultan’s case - he showed his emptiness of literary and historical contents for which he was once known and awarded but he rested for all these decades on his past laurels contributing nothing substantial or noteworthy beyond.  Now he gets a chance to come to lime light bringing Kanhaiya – a non-descript – as an excuse.  What is common to both – Kanhaiya and Karnad?  Perhaps nothing  apparently.  But certainly there is one element – divisiveness – a force that divides people, communities or even the society, common to both.  Karnad has emphatically mentioned that CN Annadurai demanded a separate Tamil Country in Parliament in 1961.  Perhaps karnad does not know the privilege of a Member of Parliament.  Even otherwise this does not mean that everybody has a right to demand for such division on every occasion.  India as a nation-state was very soft during Nehru’s time.  But it had learnt a lesson and changed its course even during Congress regime.  It became hard and gave a fitting reply to Pakistan by creating Bangladesh.  It was hard stand but politically right decision.  Again, when JP gave a call for armed forces to revolt, on 25^th June 1975, the Congress regime dealt with iron hand.  The governments are here to rule , not to rein.  If Rajnath Singh says that nobody will be spared for anti-national and divisive activities he means it so.  He is hard like a nut, an iron-willed man.  No government can afford to be ‘soft’.  Anna was not a terrorist.  He was a nationalist.  And he was able to be moulded through political persuasion.  But now in the times of terrorism (internal or external) a soft action would deteriorate the country.  Girish Karnad must remember that his utterances would diminish the image of our country.

How has Girish Karnad joined the band-wagon of JNU group without any sense of JNU’s historical growth and it deep dyed communist ideology.  Needless to say the whole of JNU cannot be blamed for shameful activities on the campus but the support given to such activities by the students and the faculties or remaining mute for not condemning the same is a matter of great concern.  As the body gets cancerous at one point but slowly the disease spreads all over the body, the same applies to JNU.  Which are those elements that invite terrorists on campus?  Who allows anti-national elements to dominate the campus?  To be truthful, frank and blunt, faculty-members and students in general and VC in particular are responsive for this sorry state of affairs at JNU.

Karnad is well aware of the fact that he is giving fuel to the fire.  His urge to increase his political graph will lead him to nowhere but nearer to Afzal Guru’s ideology.  Is he prepared to choose that path?               

GIRISH KARNAD & TIPU SULTAN CONTROVERSY

 Girish Karnad and Tipu Sultan Controversy          

Girish Karnad seems to be an opportunistic provocateur who longs for the occasion to arrive and to prove his self-styled secularism.  He puts the hosts, the guests and the organisers in a precarious position by creating controversy during the festive-function over one or the other issue.  Only recently Girish had come to lime light for wrong reasons by criticising the Nobel Laureate VS Naipaul – calling him ‘tone deaf’ – for not recognising the Muslim contribution to Karnataka (Indian) Music; what matters if they have destroyed ‘Vijayanagara Empire’?

              

              

Defeated people don’t write their history.  They are incapable of interpreting the historical events to find out correct answers.  They can equate Chhatrapati Shivaji to Tipu Sultan, Gandhi to Jinnah and Modi to Lalu without any sense of historical proportion, cultural background and contemporary politics.  Girish karnad must remember that secularism does not mean to forget history and its proportionate impact on the society.  Instead of suggesting to change the name of BIAP, it would have been better had he proposed any new scheme like a bullet train to be constructed and run between Mysuru and Bangaluru in the memory of Tipu Sultan.`

The controversy does not seem to cease.  The CM of Karnataka Siddaramaiah did not appreciate Girish Karnad’s suggestion for the change of name of Bangaluru International airport from Kempegowda to Tipu Sultan.  He was shocked but did not utter a word regarding it to avoid face to face confrontation.  But Karnad was bent upon creating mischief.  His comments generated communal disharmony and law and order problem wherein three lives had been sacrificed.  A public speaker must restrain himself from speaking on controversial topics.  Girish Karnad is cold blooded provocateur.  He should not have been invited for the simple reason that he always mars the celebration and brings disrepute to the organisers.  He speaks out of context without any purpose or necessity.  How birthday celebration of Tipu Sultan is related to the Airport?

There were three fundamental mistakes done by Girish Karnad.  First, he did not balance properly the dark and bright side of Tipu Sultan.  History narrated that Tipu Sultan was a tyrant who committed atrocities and forced conversions in Kodagu and Dakshina kannad districts.  But Girish Karnad did not want this point to be raised because it was history and did affect Kerala but not Karnataka of which Tipu was a ‘good’ king.  Even The British had done such atrocities.  Why we mixed up past and present together?  Karnad seemed to be totally weak in his argument in defending Tipu Sultan.  He had to read both sides of the coin in making comments.  Second, Girish Karnad wrongfully compared Tipu Sultan to Chhatrapati Shivaji the great icon not only of Maharashtra but of whole India and went to the extent of bringing him to the level of Gandhi and a great freedom fighter.  The non-violent freedom movement of Gandhi as we understood was totally different from what Tipu raged wars against Britishers to save his kingdom. Neither Tipu Sultan nor his successors ever tried to organise a movement to drive the British out of India. Those were the days of defending and extending one’s own territory and Tipu did the same to save his kingdom.  Tipu was equally against Marathas as he was against Britishers.  We should not compare historical figures for contemporary political gains.  Third, Girish Karnad hurt the sentiments of Vokkaliga community and majority of the people living in the state of Karnataka and disrupting the social harmony.  By his unsolicited suggestion and comments Madekeri had become the hot bed of agitation.  Creating bad blood and apologizing cannot go together.  Girish  Karnad should be brought to book as per our law of the land.  Freedom of speech does not mean disrupting peace and harmony.  Karnad is a habitual offender of creating controversy and bringing social disharmony and thus generating lawlessness.                            

              Girish Karnad created historical fallacy.  His ignorance of history makes him insensitive to historical consciousness of India as a Nation State.  During Tipu’s time, India was a colonial regime with different kingdoms fighting for their own empires to consolidate.  Two different stocks of people, both foreign to the land of India, who captured the country, were fighting with each other.  Both were invaders, except the Marathas, the Deccan Dravidians and the Hindus who were native to this land and owe their origin to pre-historic age.  There was historical flaw in celebrating Tipu Sultan’s birthday, when we discard Aurangjeb’s or for that reason Akbar’s birthday. Why we rejoice over the birthday celebration of Tipu Sultan?  They all belong to the stock of ruthless invaders.  The concept of Nation State developed during Gandhi’s freedom movement.  But again they played a trick: they divided India.  Invaders don’t form a nation.  They destroy it.  And we can’t erase so easily our historical consciousness that reminds us of invasions, colonialism and the partition. 

KIS KISKO PYAR KAROON - A COMEDY FILM WITH KAPIL SHARMA

KIS KISKO PYAR KAROON (KKPK)

Comedy film with Kapil Sharma

An assessment with a note on media critics

(Who Should I Love? May be its English Title)

The most hilarious movie – Kapil Sharma’s debut film – Kis Kisko Pyar Karoon – is a treat for eyes, ears and heart.  It is a must-watch-movie for those who wish to seek pure humour, subtle dialogues, double-meaning words with sentences fully twisted, intermingled and moulded in joyful romantic setting.  It is a riot of laughter.

The duo - producer-director – Abbas-Mastan has given reasonable liberty to Kapil Sharma to come out to true form and colours.  Perhaps the movie is so moulded in Kapil’s persona intrinsically that it is difficult to say that Kapil is meant for the movie or the movie is meant for Kapil.  Abbas-Mastan’s first and last choice for the script in hand was Kapil Sharma and he has acted in the film so nicely with the perfection of an artist that no body can imagine that he is for the first time appearing on a silver screen.

When Shakespeare wrote ‘The Comedy of Errors’, he based the play on the crisis of mistaken identity which was the central theme of the story.  It later became the foundation for most of the creative writings on humour and comedies.  Creating confusion, absurdity and illogical situations, thus became the integral part of the writings on humour and buffoonery.  Relying heavily on impossible happenings became generally acceptable phenomenon to produce comic plays and humorous stories including puns, word play and slapstick.  Humour thus became a part of literary pursuit and artistic presentation.  It started influencing our lives and writings through plays, stage shows and movies at large.

Humour is humour.  It should be taken lightly and not with the mind-set like that of Mamata Banerjee.  It is because humour sprouts out of absurdity and illogical behaviour.  Don’t put meanings to it.  The best way is to accept it as long as it keeps the audience engaged with joyful tears filling up the well of eyes which happens when one gets a full throated laughter.  Bollywood had lost this humour-tradition long back with the disappearance of Raj Kapoor along with the trail of Johnny Walker, Mahmood and Mukari and, of late, with the exit of Govinda from the scene.  However, the old time humour was created through sporadic attempts made by the hero or by the side line story developed through junior artists.  But humour could not get the centre stage of film making.  Recently, a few movies have been filmed like Sajan Chale Sasural, Garam Masala and No Entry etc. but they have been surfaced just on the basis of forced humour or farcical situations.  They lacked natural delivery of dialogue and effective performance.

Kapil Sharma has brought humour to the mainstream of Indian cinema and hopefully with sustainability, respectability and acceptability in larger context.  Kapil has his own brand of humour.  It is intelligently produced with perfect sense of timing and spontaneous delivery of words, phrases or sentences.  He has marshalled this art through his stand-up comedy shows.  These shows were almost missing or rarely adopted in Indian entertainment industry.  Shekhar Suman and Raju Srivastav had put some efforts in this direction but they could not give comedy a structure and sustainability of its own.  They remained individualistic in their approach.  Kapil Sharma has tried to give a framework, purpose and the basis of its utility to those who like to enjoy stand-up comedy as a form of entertainment.  Others have come up like AIB but they are debased in their form, style and approach.

It was with this backdrop that Kapil Sharma rose to a high pedestal and reached the silver screen.  The movie KKPK produces a type of humour which never touches farcical situation.  It is undoubtedly the humour par excellence.  The hero – Kapil –weaves out a cob-web story to be entangled himself in its labyrinth but also comes out of it comically, pathetically and tragically.  However, the hero never loses sympathy of the audience till the end of the story. 

Those who understand humour as a part of literary and cultural aspect of life would never question the logic of situation or say that it does not work.  For example, a film critic or a film news vender – whatever you say – has criticised the hero of KKPK for “under playing its comic side, allowed drama and romance to take centre stage which did not quite work”.  This is an idiotic way of putting things and the critic does not understand the humour in its true sense.

Humour by nature thrives and prospers in its absurdity.  Logic is its first victim.  But it is the art of acting or the director’s role which protects from getting it fall into a farcical situation.  Kapil’s humour does not annoy the audience.  It is acceptable in its various shades and forms.  It is not isolated from the real life situation.  It keeps its comic charm intact and allows it to be exposed in various styles of sublimity, relief and emancipation.  It never spoils the taste and ambience or mood.  It provides deep understanding to overcome tension.  Another film critic of a TV show has criticised the hero of KKPK and added that if he wanted to come out of the idiot box he should have opted for less idiotic script.  This unsolicited advice is neither needed nor desirable and Kapil Sharma knows his mind, art and skill quite well. The critic should take care of his own channel and the idiot box.

Those film critics who try to find out logically sound story in a humorous script are foolish enough to be rated with no stars.  Perhaps except The Hindu which is not a feed post and assesses the film objectively, all others have lined up to pull down Kapil for his debut entry into the film world for the reasons best known to them.  When Kumar Shiv Ram Kishan married three women within minutes in the movie it became a source of trouble and jealousy to the print and electronic media as to how the hero could manage such an opportunity when some of their associates could not find even one in their late thirties or forties.  This is unjust and most unrealistic a situation.  And critics got a point in KKPK to term it a weak and idiotic story.  But when our ‘President of Immortals’ can marry Rukmani and in addition can have a girlfriend-devotee, Radha, why can’t we the mortals have two, three or four wives for the sake of mere fun and humour or just for Beti Bachao……Andolan?  The hero saves the lives of three women whom ultimately he marries.  The hero of the film KKPK has been painted as a rich man but his parents not-so-rich who have traditional habits and are separated for the last 15 years.  For the media-film-critics it is a matter of enquiry as to how the hero acquired so much of wealth even without being a politician or without a scam to his credit and purchased in Mumbai three/four flats of a high-rise building.  The film critics want to bring the whole matter to Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Income Tax Department to make the situation more realistic and convincing.  No Problem.  Again, the media reporters are unable to digest the conversion of Newton into Nutan and inversion of established scientific theory of gravitation and negation of biological respirational process to be shown through chest (and not by nose or mouth).

The story is well knitted and planned with a definite beginning, middle, climax and end.  The middle part of the film moves rapidly and reaches the climax just before the intermission where Kumar Shiv Ram Kishan is entrapped in his own doing with no way out.  How wonderfully Kapil Sharma acts under the influence of liquor, stages after stages, pegs after pegs, is a scene to watch with full attention.  It is a drama in monologue with perfection of an artist, an actor and a character totally engrossed in the persona of Kapil Sharma.  For a moment the audience forgets about Kapil and Kumar Shiv Ram Kishan as a worldly man appears, as normal as a man of audience, quite entrapped in the wrong doings of mundane affairs without any fault of his own and with no clue to find out a passage.  This is Kapil at his best and seems to have surpassed Devdas in action by any of the actors of the present or old times, dead or alive, though under different situation but with the same intensity, not for the lost-love but for the love of life.  Nothing can be so realistic as creating pathos and pity on self in a drama full of humour and comic situations.  Kudos to Kapil for the performance!

The story of KKPK moves around the hero with three wives and a girlfriend.  On every step one finds a funny situation – illogical but humorous.  Kumar Shiv Ram Kishan is four-in-one character - unbelievable - but exists solid in one frame.  He is a free conscientious citizen, wealthy to the core, allows himself to lend helping hand to girls in distress (perhaps inspired by his Mun-Ki-Baat) and marries spontaneously. The drama is ridiculous but believing the unbelievable is the crest of humour.  Theoretically, it is perfect and even Shakespeare nourished unconvincing, absurd and illogical situation to create humour.  It is a story loaded with heroines and all of them get chance to perform their role turn by turn.  Mostly they are not established girls of film industry but they have acted normally well.  They all seem to be funny in their presentation and outlook.  One can mark this aspect from female side i.e. Manjari Fadnis (as Juhi), Simran Kaur Mundi (as Simran), Sai Lokur (as Anjali) and Elli Avram (as Deepika – girlfriend).  Towards male characters, Varun Sharma (as Karan) is very impressive and is the second prop of the story after Kapil Sharma.  He creates humour by redefining the laws of nature which appeal equally to classes and masses.  Sharat saxena acts nicely as father of Kapil and equally impressive is his mother Supriya Pathak.  Music given by Sisil Amrute is attuned to the demand of the script and songs.  One cannot demean the role of Kam-wali-Bai (Jamie Lever) who intermittently heightens the pitch of the comic situation.  Not a single character in the story is out of place and the audience has already pronounced its verdict: the film is bound to reach the landmark of collecting one hundred crore of Indian rupees or more.  Well done director – duo!  You have conceived the story in pictures and scenes marvellously.  Your imagination of instant marriages, the concept of cocktail tower, Kapil’s monologue delivery, the crisis of Karva Chauth and the confusion at the super market – all have added new dimensions to your directorial skill.  You have presented humour in its true perspective and understood better than what the media – print or electronic have projected.  It is for media consumption to do their homework with the following definition to remember:

Humour is super understanding of revealing and presenting the unbelievable and absurd situation artistically, creating confusion and crisis of mistaken identity and narrating it convincingly, exposing various forms of relieving tensions and emancipation from negativity of ideas and bringing man and society to the sphere of finding some rare moments of happier and joyful life. 

The film KKPK has justified the purpose of achieving its goal theoretically and practically quite well.      

THE DEBROY PANEL REPORT ON RAILWAYS - 2015: A TRAGEDY OF ERRORS

THE RAILWAYS' PANEL REPORT – 2015: A TRAGEDY OF ERRORS

As was expected the thrust of the Railways Panel Report (The Bibek Debroy Report) was actually laid on privatization of the railways.  Though the Panel was conscious of the role played by railways workers union in running the organisation, it had very subtly tried to introduce the basic aspect of VC and PPP.  There was nothing new in these reforms because they had been talked about and accepted since long, but one could put a question mark on their total feasibility, dependence and gainful working process.

Needless to say that the Rakesh Mohan Committee Report failed basically because it wanted to transform the railways overnight and establish so many top institutions to replace the Ministry.  Rakesh Mohan had no intrinsic experience and knowledge of the working of the railways.  The Report lacked practicality and therefore was shelved finally by Nitish Kumar.  The Bibek Debroy Report does not seem to be different from the Expert Group report and Mr. Bibek Debroy falls in the same category as an out sider as is Rakesh Mohan for the railways.  The railways unions have sharply reacted to the report which has used camouflaged word like liberalization and not provocative terms as privatization and deregulation.  Mr. Debroy has said that ‘private’ process is already a part of government policy and there is nothing new in it.

Mr. Debroy must understand that he cannot run the railways without employee’s cooperation that not only include the present staff but the pensioners also.  One must not forget that a little percentage of employees retiring every year have a close influence over the serving staff.

The panel has done the same mistake as was performed by the earlier Expert Group by creating controversial categories like core and non-core activities.  The idea was much popularised by the Late Prahalad within the theoretical framework of the bottom of the pyramid, almost a false notion and a misnomer.  If Japan passenger railway can earn more revenue by non-core activities, why can’t Indian Railways?  It is only the lack of leadership which is deteriorating the Railways.  The Debroy Panel must not forget that the Indian Railways is not only the life line of the country but the second line of defence.  Taking this transport sector lightly is to jeopardise the national defence and integrity of India.  Do not judge core or non-core activities by profitability or by lack of it.  Why bring private players to run passenger trains?  Mr. Debroy must understand that private capital demands instant profits and it can’t run railways as envisaged by the Panel.  Why did the Reliance group leave such a well-established and internationally renowned Delhi-Airport Metro?  They left because it was not profitable to them instantly.

The Debroy Panel is trying to disturb the DNA of railways.  The Indian railways is an integrated holistic system.  By infusing outside blood into the railways, it would create unnecessary disharmony and non-homogeneous working order.  The Indian Railways has the best of accounting, managerial and operating staff.  It only needs leadership undauntedly operating through its Minister and Railway Board.  It must exhibit the purpose, aim and vision.  There is nothing wrong with the railways.  But it needs strong will to pursue profits.  Harvardization or whartonization would bring railways to its doom.  The institution of railways was born much earlier to the advent of modern science of management.  It has its own management science and system.  It is too late for the railways to take lessons of management from outside pundits and green card holders but serving India temporarily showing lip loyalty to the nation.  The Indian Railways would work best in its indigenous way.  

Still there is room for change and reform and the Indian Railways is capable of doing so, but it must be within the framework of accepted norm of railways as a public sector run by its 13 lakh of employees along with the pensioners who are the part and partial of the total workforce.  The Panel should not degrade the railways and its employees.

There is a suggestion for the honourable Minister of the Railways – Mr.Suresh Prabhu to observe.  He should not waste time in appointing panels, committees or study groups and going through their findings or recommendations. The studies rarely benefitted the railways.  They follow the same old path, the same action i.e. privatising the railways.  It is better for the minister to concentrate on real work, hard schedule and plan-target to achieve.  He should sleep fewer hours than what Modi sleeps and command the Railway Board directly with fixed targets and a hard time framework.  He must try to aim at result oriented activities.  Railways fare and freight must increase in amount and volume at least 3-5 percent more than the national GDP.  The Board Members are Minister’s respectful and loyal work-horses ready to move the ministry’s carriage.  They should not let loose in different ways.  Their targets should be fixed to be achieved.  Non-performing member should be taken to task – rather removed.  Transport profits are always fleeting.  One has to take hard steps to capture them.  If no timely steps are taken, other mode of transport sector would beat one up.  Transport sector needs more discipline and vigil to bring it on track.  Don’t run railways like Mamata Banerjee who brought the fund balances to its lowest.  And please don’t distribute bounties of ill-founded projects or innumerable passenger trains on the budget day to increase unplanned expenses and pile up the backlog of unfinished projects.  Discipline must start from the top or the railways will be ruined.    

  

The Load of School Bags: A Solution

The CBSE has divided syllabus into two parts and the examinations are taken twice a year as Summative Assessment – I and Summative assessment – II.  While publishers are publishing single book for the whole year for a particular subject, students have no option but to carry the voluminous book regularly.  Why not ask the publishers to print a set of two books, separate for SA I and SA II and they should be asked not to add unnecessary matter to increase the number of pages.  They should use only light weight paper for the book.  Accordingly note books to be used by students should be made thinner with fewer pages separately for both the summative assessments. By adopting the above system the load of school bags can be reduced to half. 

The class time-table may also be adjusted to reduce the load of the school bags.

The other Boards of education should also follow the similar system.  However, the computerisation of class room teaching may be the future course to be adopted.

Nirmalesh Misra/ Care R N Misra

Don Bosco School Lakhimpur-Kheri UP.

MY CHOICE

MY CHOICE

The writer in her article (Ms. Radhika – ‘Wanted: less style, more substance’: The Hindu, dated 2. 4. 2015) relating to the famous video which has gone viral - ‘My Choice’ has termed the story as ironic because it could not bring home the real point for which it was essentially meant.  The concept of women’s empowerment has been misinterpreted within the fold of personal domain rather than public.  The whole process has been seen as an opportunity lost. 

But the writer has not gone into the depth of the ideas put together to form a silent but forceful activity that makes sense to deliver a positive message for the freedom of choices.  The essence of women’s empowerment is freedom from bondage.  This very concept of choice is in the background of every activity relating to the women emancipation.  The empowerment is not confined to employment, financial independence and strength.  It embodies in its fold the freedom of spirit in its true naked form.  Why bring Padukone and 98 other women into picture?  They may be symbols, if not reality; they may be celebrities, if not down to earth.  But they are all women - pure and simple representing all walks of life.  The video carries sense of art, imagination and literary charm.  Why to expect a direct protest, a dharna or a crude political street show for speaking out against abuses, rapes,everyday sexism and domestic violence   as form of support to women’s empowerment.  A short artistic film, a documentary or even stills have their appeal and message.  The central piece of the story is woman, but not as a shadow of man.  It is not fight for equal rights and opportunities.  It is for freedom: the freedom of spirit.  They have already marched on and come forward.  Men in video are not side-lined.  They have been included subtly.  Women do not want to be lost in the jungle of men.  Women have individuality like a tree in the forest, like a solid flake of snow in all round snow fall.

The writer seems to be unimaginativeand a native of the rocks with aversion to romantic words, infusion of poetry and artistic narration and feels them to be uncommon to women’s empowerment.  If romance is lost what remains in life?  Love is the only common commodity that makes life meaningful to every living being.