Double bill

Actress Manisha Koirala has a case, but by taking her grievance to an extra-judicial power centre she may well have lost it.

IT is possible to see the Manisha Koirala-Shashilal Nair controversy as yet another of Bollywood's publicity-seeking exercises. The film involved is a virtual remake of a European movie. And the director in question has done a bad job of imitating it. Neither of these facts, of course, is unusual or unprecedented in the Mumbai film industry.

A Short Film About Love (1988) was directed by the legendary Krzystof Kieslowski. It is considered one of his best works. In the present instance, Ek Chhotisi Love Story is everything that the original was not. In the first place, a European theme has been transplanted in an Indian context. And all the irony, humour and drama of human interaction that were there in the original have been lost.

Kieslowski's movie raised a question that has tormented philosophers like Baudrillard what is the nature of present-day love? In A Short Film About Love, Kieslowski probes a certain pure form of romantic love an attraction so deep and so innocent that the physical aspect of it becomes an unwanted distraction.

The storyline of A Short Film About Love revolves around 19-year-old Tomek (played by Olaf Lubascenko) training his telescope inside the apartment of an older woman, the beautiful Magda (Grazyna Szapolowska). Initially it would seem that Tomek is looking for titillation, but watching the pattern of his actions night after night, it becomes clear that he is more interested in Magda when she is fully clothed and engaged in some mundane activity.

The central irony comes when the tables are turned. The object of the voyeurism becomes the voyeur. Magda falls for Tomek when she realises that he loved her selflessly. Kieslowski's movie was lauded by critics for its richness of feeling.

However, Ek Chhotisi Love Story ends up presenting a diseased relationship. By the end of the movie you are left wondering if it is such a big headache for a single woman to live in Mumbai if she chooses to leave her windows curtainless.

Given the obvious lack of taste in some of the ``objectionable scenes'', Manisha Koirala's decision as an aggrieved party to take the matter to court was the right one. It is her subsequent course of action in her quest for a resolution of the matter that is questionable. It changed the nature of the case from one of breach of professional trust between an actress and a director to one of seeking moral policing by the Shiv Sena. In between, the National Commission for Women (NCW) seemed only too happy to play to the tune of a right-wing government in a matter involving women's rights.

Manisha Koirala first took the matter to the Bombay High Court, saying that the director had used a body double in obscene scenes, which action portrayed her in bad light. She charged the director with breaching the terms of a contract under which she said he had promised to use such scenes only if she also found them acceptable. But this `contract' was not in writing.

Shashilal Nair chose to ignore Manisha Koirala's request for the deletion of certain scenes. He claimed that he had used a double with her permission because she had meanwhile gained weight.

On August 30, the single bench cleared the release of the movie, holding that the scenes to which the actress had objected were integral to the film. Subsequently, 97 prints of the film were shipped to distributors across the country.

The next round, however, went to Koirala. The High Court, which she approached with an appeal, stayed the release of the movie until October 5. The court found that the matter needed further consideration. This order, however, did not stop individual cinemas from exhibiting copies that had been released already.

And then, both Shashilal Nair and Manisha Koirala chose to approach Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray in quest of ``justice''. By doing this they separately seemed to endorse Thackeray's parallel justice system, giving credence to the view that a diktat from him may be as good as a court order. Thackeray, usually benevolent to those who make it a point to approach him for such justice, this time refused to attend a special screening of the movie. But Shiv Sena hordes promptly created havoc at some cinemas showing the film.

The issue has also put the spotlight on relations between the Shiv Sena and Bollywood. Within a few years of its founding, the Shiv Sena had formed its own Chitrapat Shakha, hinting of an active role it saw for itself in the industry. The Shiv Sena has since enthusiastically taken to moral policing. Its operatives have rampaged through cinema halls, threatened directors and sought to dispense its own patronage. As far back as 1968, Thackeray took up the cudgels against Dilip Kumar after the actor made certain uncharitable comments about him. In 1992-93, after the communal riots in Mumbai, the Shiv Sena targeted actress Shabana Azmi.

Not surprisingly, the High Court suo motu issued contempt notices to both the actress and the director for their having approached an ``extra-constitutional authority'' to resolve a matter that was sub judice. A Division Bench comprising Justices R.M. Lodha and Dilip Bhosale sought to know why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against both of them for having taken the dispute to a third party when the matter was under the court's consideration. The Judges said: ``The arm of the court is too long to bring a defiant to justice, but a litigant in a pending case cannot take the help of a third party for enforcing a judicial order or to exert pressure on the opposite party.'' Despite a plea from counsel for Shashilal Nair, the bench declined to issue a similar notice against Thackeray.

The role the NCW has given itself in this context is also a matter of surprise. The Commission, which had only recently chosen to remain silent on matters that certainly warranted closer examination, including violence against Muslim women during the Gujarat riots, took a stand favourable to Manisha Koirala who approached it, giving a call against the violation of women's rights. The NCW called a meeting to discuss the issue and suggested that the matter be taken up as a test case of violation of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prevention) Act. But such an approach only introduced a ``moral'' dimension to Koirala's situation and amounted to diluting the basic issue involved, which is one of breach of trust in a professional context.

HOW the issues involving the body double have been handled by both Shashilal Nair and Manisha Koirala also needs to be examined. The NCW, of course, did not bring in the ``moral'' dimension here. Manisha Koirala herself has shown no qualms about emphasising that she alone is the aggrieved party, and not the double. As a result, the double has been relegated to the background after she was named and her pictures were pasted in some publications. Some media reports were uncharitable enough to conclude that she should not be bothered about the issue, as she had received more than her share of publicity.

Manisha Koirala approached the Information and Broadcasting Ministry as well. The Central Board of Film Certification had cleared the movie with an `A' certificate. Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act provides for the `decertification' of a film. The Ministry can issue a notification that a ``certified film shall be deemed to be an uncertified film in the whole of India''. In this instance, the Ministry's first step was to approach the Law Ministry for its opinion. When the Law Ministry gave its nod, the I&B Ministry asked the director why the certification granted to his film should not be suspended. On the other hand, it asked Koirala why the certification should be suspended. In New Delhi, both of them explained their stand at a closed door, two hour meeting in the presence of Minister Sushma Swaraj.

Cynics of course see a publicity angle to the whole drama. Such a reaction is not surprising given the fact that Manisha Koirala took a week to file an appeal in the High Court after a single bench declined to give her relief. This was sufficient time for the release of 97 prints. Instead of rushing to the court with an appeal, the actress waited until September 5 to do so. The High Court did admit her appeal and stayed the release but did not clarify what would happen to the 97 prints that had been despatched already. The actress' lawyers also did not press for a clarification on the point.

Even if the object of the controversy has been to draw publicity, the focus of the debate needs to be turned to the larger malaises that it has revealed the erosion of respect for institutional structures to get justice, and the lack of a professional approach in the film industry, which seems allergic to setting down contracts in a proper manner but does not shy away from crying foul when unwritten pacts are violated.