When an email by one of the producers awaited him in his inbox, Delhi Crime writer-director Richie Mehta had no inkling of what was in store. "The mail had a link, and looked like one of those pop-up ads," says the London-based creator of the Netflix show, who was directed to the International Emmy Awards 2020 ­website that informed him of his addition to the list of nominees in the Best Drama Series category.

"It was a pleasant surprise in these unpleasant times. The first person I shared the news was with my wife, Olivia. I hugged her, gave her a kiss and indulged in a croissant," laughs Mehta, quick to add that though delighted with the development, he finds it unusual to celebrate in the midst of uncertainties.

"It is bittersweet. The effort of many has gone behind this accolade, but the gang cannot even get together to cheer. We will have to celebrate digitally for now."

The International Emmy Award is presented by the International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences to the best television programmes produced outside the US. Nominees were announced on Thursday. Delhi Crime has been nominated alongside Charite 2 (Germany), Criminal (UK) and El Jardin de Bronce 2 (Argentina). The award ceremony is slated for November 23 in New York.

Delhi Crime, based on the events that transpired before and after the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape, took four years to develop as the makers continued to research and refine the script. "The project was emotionally and physically draining. There was widespread outrage and anger after the incident. We had a sense of responsibility and sensitivity while making it. There were many questions that needed to be answered—Were we taking advantage of the situation? Were we doing it for some drama? Only after I was convinced that the story needed to be told that I went ahead with the project."

It was a conversation with a Delhi cop that egged Mehta on to create the series. "My first reaction was an emphatic no, but when he told me to meet the police force that worked on the case, I was intrigued. [I was eager to] hear the thoughts of the women officers," says Mehta, who earlier helmed Amal (2007) starring Naseeruddin Shah and Seema Biswas and Siddharth (2013) starring Rajesh Tailang and Tannishtha Chatterjee.

While a second season of Delhi Crime is lined up, Mehta says another project he is considering working on also beseeches the question of whether or not he should create it.

Rahul Bose on the way forward as he spearheads a multi-faceted campaign to tackle rise of domestic violence cases amid lockdown
Mohar Basu (MID-DAY; May 3, 2020)

Rahul Bose has been in association with Akshara Centre, an NGO that works towards women empowerment, to develop a campaign against domestic violence for over a decade. The actor believes the video—titled #LockdownOnDomesticViolence and featuring a string of celebrities, including Karan Johar, Sachin Tendulkar, Madhuri Dixit Nene, Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma —was the need of the hour as cases of domestic violence have witnessed a spike amid the lockdown.

"The video had to be in three languages—Marathi, because the majority of our state understands the language, and Hindi, for the migrant population in the state. The English campaign has been noticed by people the world over," says Bose.

The state government has launched several numbers, including the uniform state helpline number 100, where women can register their complaints. One can probably determine the endeavour's success by studying if there has been a drop in the cases reported since the video released. However, he disagrees, "We have to consider the other possibility that domestic violence is continuing, and yet, women can't report it."

Ever since the release of Kabir Singh in 2019, and consequently, Thappad earlier this year, there has been a larger discussion about representation of casual violence on screen. The actor, however, believes movies have minimal effect on social behaviour. "There's little co-relation between the two factors. Films don't need to carry a positive message, but they shouldn't carry a negative one, that does disservice. A ground-up campaign, in which the same message is passed on consistently, film on film, year on year, can change behaviour more than a movie can."

To make his case, he cites how the state of California launched a multi-media campaign against tobacco consumption, leading to a 12 per cent drop in sales after 20 years. "So, looking at the misogyny and status of women in India, we need a ground campaign over decades to attain gender justice. Then the Delhi Nirbhaya gangrape happened, there was a significant push forward, but we need to be at it for decades."

Upholding feminists as women more capable than her, Ashwiny Iyer Tiwari on her film Ghar Ki Murgi, which stars Sakshi Tanwar, on a modern woman's equation with society
Uma Ramasubramanian (MID-DAY; March 9, 2020)

Right from her first movie, Nil Battey Sannata (2015), to her last outing, Panga, Ashwiny Iyer Tiwari's portrayal of women in cinema has been uninhibited and unapologetic. In the same vein comes her latest offering, the Sakshi Tanwar-starrer Ghar Ki Murgi, that dwells on a modern woman's emotional journey, and her equation with society.

Despite the short having its roots in Indian settings, Tiwari says the story is universal. "Every country fights for equal representation of women. A story like this one represents everyone across the universe. [If one] takes this anywhere, the problem will remain the same, only the faces will change," she says of the film that released online over the weekend.

In a world that frowns upon the word feminism, owing to its ambiguous interpretation, Tiwari too refrains from calling her one, albeit for different reasons. "We've forgotten what the word means. Feminism for me is [a person like] my grandmother, who took care of three kids, and gave them the best education, when her husband passed away early. Or someone like Nirbhaya's mother [Asha Devi], who is fighting for justice without the aid of social media. When people tell me that I am a feminist, I say I am not one at all."

As she bags a Best Actor (Female) nomination in the upcoming mid-day and Radio City Hitlist Web Awards, Shefali Shah discusses how Delhi Crime gave an outlet to her rage against the Nirbhaya rape case
Shaheen Parkar (MID-DAY; February 21, 2020)

The shoot of Delhi Crime couldn't have been easy for Shefali Shah. Ever so often, she found herself pausing and reflecting on the gruesome nature of the crime. "The interrogation scene, where Jai Singh [one of the perpetrators] cruelly narrates the entire incident, made me want to throw up," begins Shah. Writer-director Richie Mehta's web series traces the aftermath of the 2012 Nirbhaya rape case as the cops nab the perpetrators. Shah as deputy commissioner of police Vartika Chaturvedi — who leads the investigation — was widely appreciated for her powerful act.

"Breaking through the line of performance and reality is the most important step for me as an actor. Call it a weakness or a strength, but I can't act. I don't strive to be like the character; instead, I become the character," she says. That she was deeply invested in the story only added to her performance. "The pain and anger that I felt in December 2012 was harnessed by Vartika in her single-minded focus on catching those guys."

The actor reveals that she gave her nod to the project in less than five minutes. On his part, Mehta had dedicated years to studying the case before he began developing the material. "The first thing he said to me was, 'I don't want an actor. I want a collaborator. I've created what I could on paper. Now, I need you to take over and bring her to life.'"

She was driven as much by Mehta's faith in her as by the gripping material. "It was a story that had to be told. I was unaware of several aspects of the case until I read the script. It was the answer to the one question that we all asked: Why is no one doing anything about it? When I read the script, I realised there was someone who did something about the horrific event and caught the perpetrators. It felt empowering that it was a woman [at the helm of the investigation]."

More About Delhi Crime
- Shefali Shah's character Vartika Chaturvedi is based on the erstwhile DCP of South Delhi, Chhaya Sharma, who cracked the Nirbhaya case and nabbed the criminals within three days of the incident.
- The rape scene was not recreated in the series as writer-director Richie Mehta did not want to cross the line of exploiting the gruesome act.

Cast Your Vote For The Hitlist Web Awards

Shefali Shah has been nominated in the Best Actor (Female) category for Netflix's Delhi Crime.

The other nominees are:
- Sobhita Dhulipala (Made in Heaven; Amazon Prime)
- Shweta Tripathi Sharma (Laakhon Mein Ek S02; Amazon Prime)
- Rasika Dugal (Out of Love; Hotstar)
- Geetanjali Kulkarni (Gullak; Sony LIV)
- Mithila Palkar (Little Things S03; Netflix)
- Dia Mirza (Kaafir; Zee5)

- There are 14 categories that the public can vote in. Log on to www.hitlistwebawards.com to cast your vote.

- You can also vote via SMS. Send HITLIST <space> category name <space> your choice (a/b/c/d as on the website) to 57575.

- Voting lines close on March 8.

Niharika Lal (BOMBAY TIMES; December 4, 2019)

A session titled ‘Real Crime - When Truth is Stranger than Fiction’ on Day Two of Times LitFest saw Neeraj Kumar (right), former Delhi Police Commissioner, Sushant Singh, who hosts the crime show Savdhaan India on TV, and authors Kulpreet Yadav and Ravi Subramanian discuss real-life crime cases from across the country. The panellists discussed headline-making cases, the excellent work police have done in some cases, loopholes in the criminal justice system. The session concluded with a Mark Twain quote: “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn’t.”

‘A YOUNG MAN HELPED DELHI POLICE PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACK AT INDIA GATE’
Discussing crime-based shows on true stories, the panellists agreed that these episodes have created a greater impact as they are based on real life incidents. Sushant said, “Terrifying pieces of writing on crime come from real life.” Neeraj Kumar, who has written two books on his investigations, shared the details of a 2002 case, which has never been discussed in public domain earlier. He said, “When I was in Delhi Police, almost one month after the Parliament attack, we got to know about (the possibility of) another attack at India Gate. We knew about the date of the attack, but that’s it. We had no other information and were unable to crack the code. We took help of all the cryptologists of Delhi, but they produced no intelligence of value. We were also in touch with cryptologists from the US. But they were asking for a huge sum of money and the government wasn’t ready to sanction it.”

He added, “One day in my ACP’s office, a young man (ACP’s friend) came and he asked him as to why he was so hassled. When told, the friend asked the ACP to show him the code. And that young man cracked the code! We got the information and the planned attack at India Gate was averted. He was a saviour for us, but if you see such an incident in a film, you won’t find it believable.”

Sushant added, “If we would have shown this exact scenario in a film, toh aap log (audience) kehte, ‘Yeh kya bewakoof banate hain Bollywood walein! How’s it possible? Bade bade log nahi kar paye aur ek ladke ne aise hi kar diya?”

‘A CCTV CAMERA WHICH WAS NOT FITTED PROPERLY HELPED US IN THE NIRBHAYA CASE’
Neeraj Kumar was the Delhi Police Commissioner in 2012 when the Nirbhaya incident took place and he shared with the audience how an ill-fitted camera helped the police. He said, “My investigators went to Mahipalpur (as the bus took that route) and they checked the CCTV footage of all the cameras that were installed at the receptions of those dingy guest houses. Again, truth being stranger than fiction, all the CCTV cameras were facing the reception areas of the guest houses. But one camera at a guest house was turned towards the road because it was not fitted properly. From that camera, we got the footage of a bus that took two rounds of the same area, and then the bus was identified. It was an overnight operation.”

‘SANJU GLORIFIED SANJAY DUTT’S LIFE, BUT WHO MADE THE FILM A SUCCESS?’
As the panellists discussed crime and fiction, one of the members from the audience asked whether the film Sanju had glorified Sanjay Dutt’s life, despite the actor’s checkered past. Neeraj Kumar, who probed the 1993 Mumbai serial blast cases when he was a DIG with the CBI, said, “If Sanjay Dutt would have wanted, he could have prevented the blasts. He was in the know of at least one part of the conspiracy. But he didn’t, and whether he suffered or not, or not suffered enough... you and I can have a view on whether he should have been punished more. But we’ve to work within the ambit of the law, and what a policeman feels or people feel can’t be the law.” Sushant Singh said, “I agree with you that the film Sanju glorified Sanjay Dutt’s life, but who made the movie a success? Public. I’m not a fan of the things that our films glorify. Like stalking women — ladki ka peecha karte raho toh ek din haseena maan jayegi. In Housefull 4, they have such (demeaning) dialogues, but then who makes these films a success?” 

In a post #MeToo world, what does a documentary on men who have been falsely accused of sexual harassment mean? Journalist-turned-filmmaker, Deepika Bhardwaj, discusses India's Sons
Prutha Bhosle (MID-DAY; September 22, 2019)

They first met at his Indore home. She and her husband wanted to rent a flat and signed an agreement with the landowner. In December 2012, after the couple failed to pay the house rent, the landowner issued a verbal warning. The woman then filed a rape case against him. "The Nirbhaya incident had just come to light, so the cops were on their toes. There was not much investigation done and the landowner was sent to prison," Deepika Bhardwaj tell us. After being put behind bars for two-and-a-half months, the landowner was acquitted as the charges were proven to be false. "Eight days later, he killed himself. He could not bear the fact that nobody would marry his daughter with his image been tarnished in society. He was 60 years old," she adds on the story, which along with a dozen others, will feature in her latest documentary, India's Sons.

In 2016, Bhardwaj released her first documentary, Martyrs Of Marriage, now available on Netflix. The 33-year-old former journalist had seen misuse of law up, close and personal. "My cousin was falsely accused in a dowry case by his wife. After watching the harassment and blackmailing so closely, I decided I wanted to document more such cases. I came across some devastating stories and realised I needed to help Martyrs Of Marriage reach the masses so they know how the IPC 498A [Dowry Law] was being misused by some women," Bhardwaj says.

Ever since, her inbox was flooded with emails from viewers of the film. "When I read their emails I realised the problem was much bigger. Several people have been falsely accused of sexual harassment and they don't know the way out. I was getting disturbed reading about it. People had started misusing Section 376 (rape)." So Bhardwaj decided to start shooting her second film, India's Sons, in January this year. Bhardwaj says she believes the men she is speaking to in the film, because she has studied their cases thoroughly, choosing them only after acquittal and after speaking to cops.

On the need to have this conversation at a time when women have been raising their voice against sexual harassment, she adds, "There is no doubt that women go through ordeal on a larger scale. But there is another side, which is equally important and needs to be addressed."

Amit Deshpande (right; above), founder of Vaastav Foundation (an umbrella body of men's rights organisations), says that statistics by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reveal that in 40 per cent of the rape cases that result in acquittals, charges have been filed by the girl's family after she chose to elope with the accused. Deshpande, who was once falsely accused of domestic violence, says, "About 150 members meet every Sunday in Borivali, Mulund and Vashi to discuss legal wrangles. But men rarely seek help, because thanks to patriarchy, a man's worth in our society is based on how good a protector and provider he is. And when something horrible happens to him—such as being subject to sexual assault—he is scared to ask for help. But we are trying to change that," Deshpande adds.

Deshpande (39) says about 30 to 40 per cent cases that are reported to his organisation are related to men being falsely accused of rape. "When this happens, a man's support structure crumbles. Even people close to him start doubting him. Nobody believes a man who has been accused of rape by a woman." Deshpande adds that even police treat such men as "convicts and not accused". "Even before the court judgment, it is decided that the man has raped the woman. In this tiresome procedure, a man loses not just his relatives and friends, but also his job. Therefore, we are saying that the name of the accused needs to be withheld until conviction," he adds. India's Sons makes a case that false rape cases aren't just a threat to men who suffer false accusations but also women who actually suffer trauma of rape.

Interestingly, after the Nirbhaya rape incident, British filmmaker Leslee Udwin had released a documentary in 2015 titled, India's Daughter. Bhardwaj, however, says she is not trying to draw a parallel between the movies. "What we are trying to say is that if girls are being victimised, then there are these men who too face injustice. Aren't they the sons of this country?" Gurgaon-based Bhardwaj asks.


A still from the film, India's Sons

Akshaye Khanna on changing his work strategy, doing more than one film a year and his latest outing Section 375
Sonil Dedhia (MID-DAY; September 15, 2019)

Akshaye Khanna is a man of few words. The actor, who stole hearts with Taal (1999), Dil Chahta Hai (2001) and, more recently, Mom (2017) and Ittefaq (2017), accepts that the nature of filmmaking is changing because the "audience is evolving". Khanna sits down with mid-day to discuss his latest release Section 375, how it's a conversation starter and why the film is open-ended.

Excerpts of the edited interview.

What prompted you to take up Section 375?
I was particularly thrilled with the script because it was well written and an intelligent film, where everything was sketched out thoroughly. As opposed to films which tackle similar topics. Section 375 doesn't take sides or a moral stand. It allows the audience to decide. It takes you through a case and shows the different perspectives of the society, judges and the lawyers. I believe, if a film doesn't take a stand, the audience is bound to make an opinion. I don't know to what extent the film will be watched, but it would be a good thing if it encourages a conversation.

Do you feel that the film can bring about a change in the society?
Having a difference of opinion means controversy and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Controversies have been termed as a bad connotation but in this particular instance, if you would like to label it controversial, which it is, then let's look at it positively and start a conversation about it. It will have an influence on people from the legal fraternity or people in the parliament —basically people who matter. What happened in the Nirbhaya case? The law was forced to change because public opinion was strong and immovable. Section 375 encourages the conversation by citing one particular case.

NGOs and activists have been raising awareness about fair treatment to the victim and accused. They are of the opinion that law is tilted towards women.
As an individual, I am aware that a section of people feel this law is skewed in the favour of women. I am sure people debate over the laws of rape worldwide. These debates will go on as the society evolves. As a collective consciousness, we have to decide the direction in which we need to change.

Did you personally research about rape laws in the country?
It was not required thanks to writer [Manish Gupta] and director's [Ajay Bahl] extensive research.

How did you prep for the role without any homework?
It's difficult to put it in words as it's an internal process for me. As an actor, I am always absorbing things and noticing behaviour. So, I am constantly, but not consciously doing it. For me acting is being in the moment. If I am true to it, then I have done my job.

Since your first film in Bollywood, how do you think content in films has changed?
The audience drives the change in filmmaking. The changes are never internally driven by the film industry. Films are almost like politics. Politicians follow in the direction of the majority. Take the example of Kabir Singh. It has smashed the perception of how a typical Hindi film hero should be. The character was seriously flawed but the film was widely accepted by people; and now you will see many such characters coming in. Even Uri: The Surgical Strike was an amazing subject. Films are breaking stereotypes because the audience is ready to accept them.

Does the success of these films affect your film choices?
Yes, it does influence the decision making. It plays in your mind and registers as important indicators while choosing roles as an actor.

Is it a conscious decision to be less frequent on screen?
It's something I personally want to change. I want to reduce the gaps between films and be prolific in the amount of work I do. I am also open to OTT platforms because it is the future. People are watching more content on the web than the silver screen.

Does it have to do with the fact that you are not as socially active as your contemporaries?
I don't think so. If only everything was in my control, including the scripts. [Going forward] I'd like to do two to three films a year. Contrary to the popular belief, I am not a person who does not like to work. My entire adult life has been about work, so not working is an uncomfortable experience for me. People assume that I enjoy relaxing but that's not true.

Why did you decide to hire a PR manager to promote your work, something you've never opted for in your entire career?
There are certain things I am good at and I am not at the rest. The most obvious one is having a public relations manager. I resisted it for a long time but it is pointless and stupid not to have one now. Instead of doing it myself [interacting with the media], for which I lack skills, it's better to hire a professional. I feel it's a step in the right direction.

Rachana Dubey (BOMBAY TIMES; September 11, 2019)

With every film, Akshaye Khanna reminds us that there’s no role that he’s not at ease with. As someone who had pulled off a vanishing act between 2012 and 2016, the actor has three films releasing this year. Yes, he’s deeply committed to his acting career, even though one won’t say that he’s fiercely competitive or ambitious. He has his way of doing things, at his pace, and he’s glad that the audience doesn’t feel that they have seen enough of him. The actor spoke to BT about his upcoming film, Section 375, and why he doesn’t feel the need to socialise to a degree that makes him uncomfortable. Excerpts:

As someone who is so selective about his work, it’s quite a surprise that you have three releases this year...
This wasn’t planned (smiles). As an actor, one is constantly reading scripts and interacting with creative teams. Sometimes, things work and sometimes, they don’t. It’s never in an actor’s hands. I mean, I can’t predict what I might like in the near future and just how much work I might end up doing in a year or so. The thing is, I don’t go looking for anything. I’ve never consciously chased a particular kind of a film or role. I choose from what is offered. I am not a writer, so I don’t write my stuff. I usually don’t even suggest anyone to write something for me. Of course, I am trying to change that now.

In today’s day and age, it’s as important to be seen and heard as it is to act well. But you keep an arm’s distance from attending parties, events and even being on social media... Do you feel the need to change this, too?
I don’t enjoy being on social media or at events. Honestly, if my last film or any of my last 10 films had done Rs 200 crores, one would probably not ask me this. You wouldn’t see it as a gap that needs to be plugged. In my case, not just today, but for many years, it has been seen as a gap that needs to be filled. I don’t think I am doing any injustice to my fans by not being accessible socially. While there is nothing right or wrong, to me, being an actor or a singer doesn’t mean that I have to be everywhere. What makes it so compelling that one has to be social to the extent of feeling uncomfortable to continue being an actor? I don’t see the correlation at all. And honestly, I am sick of seeing some of the actors — as they are coming out of my nose and ears. Every day and night, they are everywhere, displaying themselves to the world. I admire the stamina, and I respect it. It’s so much display for public consumption, but I can’t do it and I salute people who can. It takes talent to keep yourself on display continuously. I understand where your question comes from, but I can’t wrap my head around it. If at all there are notional or actual disadvantages of being the way I am, I’ll happily go with them.

In recent years, your brother Rahul and you have lost your parents, has that changed your relationship in any way?
My relationship with my brother was independent of my parents. In that sense, it hasn’t changed. But the immediate family for an individual is parents and siblings, and once that starts getting smaller, you hold to what is left even more.

In 22 years, you have just 44 films to your credit, of which five have not released, which makes it less than two releases a year. Some of your peers have thrice the number of releases to their credit. Why have you been so excessively selective?
Nothing wrong with it, no? It irritates me when actors blame things on other people or circumstances. Be brave enough to take the onus for what you do and learn to take the bad with the good. This, what you see, is my doing, entirely. If someone feels that I have not done enough, I would take that positively because it essentially means that people have not seen enough of me. Which also means they’re not shouting, ‘Enough of this guy!’ The work that has come my way has given me a lot of space to display my skills as an actor.

Section 375 revolves around a rape case being heard in court. You are playing a lawyer who defends an individual, who, the society strongly feels, doesn’t deserve the defence. That is not an easy role to step into, and the premise of the film itself can lend itself to controversies?
I wouldn’t call this film controversial. The debate on whether the law is skewed in favour of a particular sex, could be the controversial part of the narrative at hand. If a section of society, big or small, feels a certain way, then it’s an interesting topic for a film, and it has the potential to strike a conversation. I looked at this film as something that could spark a conversation or debate and something that can lead to a positive outcome, not as something that can be seen as biased, unfair and titillation. It’s not that sort of a film. It doesn’t take sides. The writer and director, right till the end of the film, have not taken sides. The film depicts certain facts and circumstances and leaves you to make up your mind. Being able to stay on the fence is the USP of the film’s writing. I also liked the characterisation, dialogues and how the film not only shows what is happening in the particular case, but it gives a glimpse of what we call behind-the-scenes life in the legal system.

Did you ever feel conflicted about playing criminal lawyer Tarun Saluja in this film? Have you ever been at conflict with any role that you have played in the past?
No, I have never had an issue with any character or its moralities, in any of my films. It’s possible that an actor could feel uncomfortable with the morality of his character. Having said that, what is morally correct is so fluid, it changes with time. I mean look at Kabir Singh. It’s a flawed character. Traditionally, a lead character would not be expected to show such behaviour, but people accepted the film. Maybe my character is not going that far, but people can have an issue with his morality. People have issues with some of the biggest lawyers representing criminals in our country. Some of the biggest lawyers in the world have represented people who were alleged criminals. Sometimes, people in society decide someone is a criminal even if it is yet to be proven. That’s not how the law works. Even Ajmal Kasab got a fair trial, although one would have felt he didn’t deserve it. That is how civil society works.

While the law does not allow one to name a rape victim or a complainant, but nothing stops anyone from naming an accused. The trailer of Section 375 makes a statement about how an accused, whether found guilty or not, leads a tainted life. Many activists have been speaking out and raising awareness about the need to be fair to both the parties involved (until one is proven guilty). Your thoughts...
The laws pertaining to rape were amended after the Nirbhaya Case. The burden of proof in any other criminal case is on the person who is prosecuting, but not in a rape case. A man has to prove that he didn’t do it. Now, there are many people who feel against this. It’s an ongoing debate in legal circles. These are debates that will go on as the society evolves, and as a collective consciousness, we have to decide the direction in which we need the change. Right and wrong are difficult things to assess as one size doesn’t fit all. I think this is a tough phase for those in the legal system today. In a civil society, even if a man is not proven guilty, he faces public trial and his family suffers, too.

Section 375 was dragged to court in Pune over allegedly misrepresenting lawyers and court proceedings.
I’d rather let the lawyers on both sides discuss this. But I very strongly feel that if this person is so offended with the trailer and its content, he must go to court but if his claims are even slightly frivolous, he must not waste its time. There are thousands of cases awaiting trials; the courts are backlogged. Why should someone waste the court’s time on a film’s trailer? Whether one feels I’ve done a great job or not, is it fair to waste the court’s time? That’s the bigger question here.

Pointing out the stigma attached to rape, Richa Chadha on how Section 375 argues both sides of the crime
Mohar Basu (MID-DAY; August 21, 2019)

A courtroom drama that sees Richa Chadha play a prosecution counsel in a rape case, Section 375 shines a spotlight on how the law is sometimes misused in India. Even as she is a strong critic of gender crimes, Chadha argues that the Akshaye Khanna starrer opens a dialogue that is vital in the post-MeToo era. Arguing that the film doesn't take sides, she asserts, "The law is clear that the burden of proof lies with the accused. In this case, the law is friendlier so that women can report their sexual harassment cases. However, there are myriad problems in India when it comes to reporting these crimes. Rape cases often don't get reported because of the social stigma attached to them. Why are phrases like izzat lootna or naak katna used to describe rape? There needs to be a multifaceted approach to fix this. No law is made without context, so after the Nirbhaya rape case, there were amendments made to the clauses of rape law. But to what extent it is implemented is crucial in determining how successful rape law is."

Reiterating that the Ajay Bahl-directed film approaches the subject with deep sensitivity, the actor describes it as her career's most challenging role. "I did extensive research, and Ajay had a lot of material on reported versus unreported rape cases. The material of UN Women was available for reading. Some women lawyers also guided me on how to approach cases of sexual violence."

'Overwhelmed' Poorna Jagannathan on standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Nicole Kidman and Meryl Streep in the second season of Big Little Lies
Letty Mariam Abraham (MID-DAY; July 23, 2019)

Standing tall at 5 feet 7 inches, Poorna Jagannathan greets me with a sunny smile when I catch up with the actor, who has suddenly become the talk of the town. Reason ­— Jagannathan can be seen rubbing shoulders with Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman in the second season of the highly acclaimed Big Little Lies. In an exclusive chat with mid-day, she talks about playing a lawyer on the Star World show and how lack of interesting offers in Bollywood left her West-bound.

Edited excerpts from the interview:

How did you land the role?
In the West, when it is a high-profile show, they change the material for the audition. At the audition, I didn't know what the show was or who I was working with. All I was told was that she [her character] practises family law and will be fighting a custody case. To prep for the role, I went down to the family court in LA and saw how lawyers interact with their clients and tried to assess their personality. I used to think lawyers are 'out for blood'. But family lawyers are sweet and nurturing.

What was your reaction on learning that you will work alongside Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman and Reese Witherspoon?
It was overwhelming. I learned much later that I would be acting with Meryl Streep. When you win a lottery, you are not only happy; the feeling is that of shitting in your pants. It was too much of good news [laughs].

How was it to share screen space with Kidman?
Day One was so scary, I couldn't sleep all night. I usually don't sleep the night before, but in this case, I couldn't sleep well for three weeks. Nicole is a private person and we got to know each other better over the course of the filming. My first scene with her was where I [nudge her] to accept the settlement. Nicole maintained [the commitment to her character] throughout the shoot. While I can hold on to emotions and the circumstances of the script for a long time, I can't be in that space for months. But Nicole did that with such ease. It's not because she is a commendable actor but because she had become the character. I have not seen such investment in a character, from a performer, before.

You had written a play, Nirbhaya, that dealt with sexual abuse. What new did you learn about the subject from Big Little Lies?
I was torn by the sexual violence mixed with love. In season two, you learn that Celeste [Kidman's character] doesn't have a family, and he [Perry, husband] picks up on that. That's how he is a predator and she is the prey. She doesn't have a reason to stay with him, but still, she does. It is complicated. People question why she stayed with him for so long. But the inner working of marital rape is scary. I am well-versed in sexual violence, but marital rape is much more nuanced. It is not even considered rape [in India].

Why don't we see more of you in Hindi films?
I stepped away from Bollywood. I am attracted to different kinds of stories and I was not getting those at the time. Now with [the advent of] Netflix and Amazon Prime, we have series like Delhi Crime that resonates with me.

Anshul Chaturvedi (BOMBAY TIMES; April 28, 2019)

Yes, people do ride on sentiments and encash them, but no, my project wasn’t timed to coincide with a nationalistic upsurge or the electoral season, I just want to tell a story of the unknown, passionate people, who do difficult things to protect us,” says Raj Kumar Gupta. Excerpts from a chat about his upcoming film India’s Most Wanted:

Is the current surplus of movies about the defence forces, old battles and secret agents happening because filmmakers are looking to ride the nationalistic wave for Box-Office success?
It might be that somebody has been wanting to make a film on the same subject for some time and it comes together now, and it might be just about the country. In terms of filmmaking, as you know, any film takes one-two years in making. So, it is not that one is wanting to catch a certain sentiment. It is that you are wanting to make a film and the situation around you changes so much that when your film comes, it looks like you wanted to catch that sentiment, but it’s not that.

Also, it depends on what story you are telling. If you are telling a story of a soldier, and the basic premise is that he has become a soldier to defend the country, somewhere down the line, that moment will come when he will say that I joined because I wanted to do something for the country. Policemen or intelligence agency people do not do the job for money, they do it because there is a certain passion; they want to work for the country. If you are telling their story, there will be that situation, one scene will come and that will be very organic. One has to make a distinction when you see that — and don’t judge it as if one is just trying to ride a wave. When me or any other filmmaker is making that film, it is a story he has thought three-four years back and it is pure coincidence that it has come at this time. But if you ask me koi behti Ganga mein haath dhota hai ya nahi? Dhote hain. It’s not only in our industry. There is herd mentality everywhere. But just generalising it is not right.

Movies about intelligence officers tend to have an undercurrent that they are unsung heroes. But isn’t that the core point of that nature of work — to be anonymous?
For me, their life is a story. Just because their nature of job is such, it doesn’t mean I will not tell their story. In Hollywood also, people have been fascinated by this, because it is an integral part of our lives. When I was making Raid, I was making a film on these real people who did things which were very difficult to do. That might be their job, but as a filmmaker, I find that interesting, I see it as a story that needs to be told. So yes, they are unsung, they are not coming out and saying anything, they have maintained dignity, but that should not stop me from telling their story as I find that story fascinating. Similarly, I thought that this story is something the country should know. ‘Unsung heroes’ is a phrase that one might say has been overused, but it should not stop me from telling that story.

There are so many superhero films being made, where the heroes save the world from evil. My film is also similar, just that my heroes are real heroes, based in the real world, dealing with real situations and saving real lives.

Is there a paradox between calling somebody India’s Most Wanted and having a degree of suspense for the audience about who he is? If he is most wanted, shouldn’t he be a universally recognisable name?
Don’t you think sometimes it’s fascinating to know who was India’s most wanted and we were not aware of it? Sometimes I also discover — Oh my God! Kya baat kar rahe ho! I was shocked when I learnt that he was described this way in intelligence circles. Why do we call Dawood India’s most wanted when this guy, who has killed so many people, was the biggest target? He was number one on the list. At times you discover these things and that becomes fascinating.

What’s also fascinating about these stories that one might not have heard is that they also show how these people (in the intelligence agencies) work, what they go through, what are their limitations. You see their lives. You might not know what they do to protect you and for me that’s fascinating. I might just stop and say thank you.

After your film’s teaser released, there were conflicting opinions on one element — the background voice quoting the Gita to justify killings.
What you see in film is not something cooked up. It is inspired by true events. It is a story about how one of India’s most wanted terrorists was captured without firing a single bullet. As far as the quote is concerned, when I was researching it was as intriguing to me as it is for the viewers — people who do these things, how they twist words and how they quote things to justify their acts. When somebody was interrogated, he quoted this (the Gita). And, in the film, there is a befitting reply the protagonist gives. Right now, what everyone is seeing, is one side of the film. One has to see the film to see the reply. We all know how people are brainwashed, how words are twisted and this is something which has come from the real life event. I can’t tell you more than this at this point.

When you talk of terror, it is as much about the ideology of the terrorist today, as it is about the actual acts of violence, isn’t it?
I think it is very complex. It is not something which has an easy answer. We all respect all religions and I don’t think any religion teaches violence. There are words which are twisted, quoted by these people to justify their acts.

So the man quoting the Gita has a certain philosophy. In multiple movies, the protagonist against the state — in some movie a terrorist in Kashmir, in another a Naxalite in central India — is a challenge for the filmmaker. How much do you humanise the character who picks up a gun against the state? Are you owning him as a misguided, brainwashed citizen who can be reformed, or are you saying that this is a man who should be shot?
Of course, every side has a human story. Going back to my first film, Aamir, it has that same debate where a person from the same community is on a different side of the debate. One is wanting to do something and this man is saying this is happening to us and he should believe him, but he says I don’t believe in you, I have lived my life, I don’t see your point of view. That is a humanistic debate. In these kind of situations whenever someone is trying to prove a point, he might give his reasons, which might be true and might not be, it depends on the desperation level of someone who is trying to impose something on the other person. But it’s on me whether I have that mind to make my own opinion and then act on it. So in that sense, there was an answer in Aamir, and that’s how I approach my subject. When one is doing that job, there is a justification which one wants to give, but then there is this counter point which comes in. And it says that nothing can justify that kind of violence. No one preaches that. That debate has to happen at a human level. It has to be person to person.

There is that fine line — either you glorify a terrorist and it becomes a propaganda for that side, or you degrade him so much that looks like a caricature, an unrealistic portrayal. How do you draw that line — portraying the person as a human being and yet not being sympathetic towards him?
I think it’s a debate while you are writing, filming, pitching your character. At best, it’s your instinct hoping you don’t fall on either side and you have a balanced point of view. But, as I said, there is no justification to killing people, so in that sense, one has to come back to the argument.

Your teaser got caught up in the election fever as well. BJP supporters quoted it and asked why the Congress didn’t act against this terror from 2007 to 2013. Congress supporters asked why the current government hasn’t taken the case forward yet. A teaser about a nameless, faceless terrorist led to political debate. Did you see this coming?
I have been researching this subject since 2013. At that point, I was not aware who would be in power today. There was something that I found interesting and I started researching on it to make a film. We all know how hyper-sensitive we are and we all know how anything and everything can be politicised and right now in this environment, with the ongoing elections, anything can have any meaning, but from my point of view it is not something I want to get into. It is a film, a story I wanted to tell for the last four years. It took me some time to research, write this story to make sure that I get it right. We didn’t plan to release it now (in election season).

How has the man who made No One Killed Jessica not made a film on Nirbhaya yet?
No One Killed Jessica was a story born out of tragedy. I spent 20-25 days with Sabrina. I used to sit with her for two-three hours every day. It was not easy and you get overwhelmed and when you are doing something like this, you keep two things in mind — the sensitivity of the subject, of people, as well as getting overwhelmed by the subject itself. Then execution slips. After I finished my research, I was not sure whether I will be able to do it. I took over a month’s break from the entire research, so that I have some perspective when I would write it. Even after I started writing it, I was not sure if I would be able to do justice to it. But as you start writing it, things start coming together and you start balancing it, then only you realise there is some form you are able to give to that story.

So it is very difficult when you are dealing with tragedy. Also, you want to have a perspective on that subject, you don’t want to just do it for the sake of doing it, thinking okay, this is the case, it is such a gruesome tragedy and now I want to bring in my emotions in telling this story.

So did you go back and disengage and de-emotionalise your reflex?
Not in terms of emotions. It’s something that the entire country has been affected by. I need to understand that, not the tragedy of it, we all know the tragedy of it. It is a sensitive subject and you have to have some perspective on that subject. You have to know the entire thing, you do not want to sensationalise it. As a filmmaker you are always scared. I am always scared as I don’t want to sensationalise things. I want to have a perspective on things and then tell those stories. So probably, five-six years down the line, I might think that I have a perspective on telling that story. Then only I would want to attempt it.

Is there any emotional cost to it for a filmmaker?
It has an emotional cost because you have to recreate those emotions. As a filmmaker it is not that you go and say that chalo ye karo, let’s shoot this. When you are shooting something like this, or even in No One Killed Jessica, or any other film, it’s never that you come and start shooting it. There is an emotional journey that you have to go through. When you are living a tragedy, it’s not just about that. You are thinking about a person who has gone through that. It kind of kills you. You become numb because you have to relive that and you have this added responsibility of doing justice to the subject or that situation, which is not easy. So emotionally it is very, very difficult.

How Richie Mehta, a Canadian director, and one of India's most under-rated actors, revisited 2012 Nirbhaya case as a seven-part Delhi Police procedural
Mayank Shekhar (MID-DAY; March 24, 2019)

On December 16, 2012, Canadian writer-director Richie Mehta was visiting Delhi, working on an independent production Siddharth, as the Nirbhaya gang-rape case snowballed into a national headline, shocking citizens - the Capital's young in particular - enough to hit the streets, protest, and collectively wonder aloud. What the hell just happened!

A few days later, while confirmations on the severity of the crime had settled in, Mehta met a family friend, recently retired police commissioner Neeraj Kumar, who was familiar with his work, and asked if he might want to follow the thread of that story for a film.

"The incident was too fresh at the moment to look at it as a film," Mehta thought. Kumar essentially asked him to read the court's verdict that was just out. He did. And that set in motion a four-year journey of intense research, of what's become Delhi Crime, a seven-part, six hours plus Netflix series (that dropped this weekend, and premiered at Sundance this year), shot over 62 days, detailing, almost in real time, simply five days following the staggering crime.

Five days is how long it took Delhi Police to nab those six culprits - akin to finding a needle in a haystack - who were on that white, private bus, on the road, when a woman and her male friend unsuspectingly boarded it, returning home from a movie one random night.

Since his late teens, Mehta, born and raised in Toronto, has been spending almost half a year in Delhi (where his mother is from), working on films, that he says, have centred on the city. This is important to know, because for anyone familiar with the Nirbhaya incident - even reading journalistic accounts of which can jolt you out of your senses - the series on it, first scene onwards, although extremely sensitive and subtle in its depiction, hits you hard. 'Bahot hard'. Too frickin' close for comfort, really.

Did the fact that Mehta is still not from Delhi per se equip him to be able to tell one of the city's most brutal crime stories, with relative dispassion/distance? Perhaps, he agrees, since the city isn't necessarily ingrained in his DNA, and he isn't so aware of "the fabric of what it's like growing up in an urban Indian environment." But the series itself, it has to be said, is as much discovery of Delhi, more so how it is policed, for any viewer - whether or not they've ever lived in the Capital.

At the heart of the script is an incredible man-hunt, and a striking police procedural, centred on a deputy police commissioner (DCP), played to perfection by Shefali Shah (Satya, Monsoon Wedding: arguably one of India's most under-rated actors). She leads a team of top-notch investigators. Shah's part is modelled on IPS officer, DCP (South) at the time, Chhaya Sharma.

Over coffee that lasted a few hours, Shah recalls having met and interviewed Sharma on the minutest details of her job, down to the books on her desk, or what she scribbles on her workbook/diary. She came away "having met one helluva woman - at once a caring mom, and a kickass officer." What Shah found peculiar about Sharma was that while the incident had incited rage and pain across, as an officer, she could channel all that energy into the investigation/man-hunt alone: "She could block out (emotions), knowing that if she falters, her team would break down." You can sense all of this in Shah as the deeply restrained, yet expressive, DCP Vartika Chaturvedi on screen.

Although wholly character-driven (rather than strong on plot), Ivan Ayr's Soni, that also recently dropped on Netflix, is an equally empathetic take on the workings/limitations of Delhi Police as a force. And while magnitudes of the two crimes can't be compared, Black Friday, Anurag Kashyap's docu-drama on investigations behind 1993 Bombay blasts (which was also initially designed as a series) is perhaps the Indian film that comes closest to Delhi Crime, as a painstakingly exhaustive police procedural.

For inspiration through, Mehta lists three films in particular: "One was [William Friedkin's] The French Connection, the Gene Hackman police procedural, from the '70s. The other was David Fincher's Zodiac (2007) - also a procedural, but which was as much about the serial-killer, as the social fabric of that environment. And then, [Paul Greengrass's] United 93 (2006), which staged events as they unfolded while blocking and shooting actors - again, in a very non-judgmental way."

You do especially sense a United 93 connection, given Delhi Crime's shooting style that, through seemingly natural lighting, pretty much places the viewer as a fly on the wall, while cops go about their day (and night), round-the-clock, sticking it out, without a home to go to, until the bloody job is done. The entire series, Mehta says, was shot with the camera placed on cinematographer Johan Huerlin Aidt's shoulders: "He is in the room as a bystander, so we take his point of view (POV) in every scene, as if you (the viewer) are standing there."

The larger POV in Delhi Crime however is entirely the police's, which was in fact Mehta's primary impetus to script the series in the first place. And that he intended as a feature first. He says, "When I played it [the script] out as a film-plot, it just became a series of happenings - this happened, this happened. It was dry and empirical - a cold document - with no characters in it. I had to bring more life into it. When I did that, it (the script) just grew in a way. I also needed to know these characters, without losing thread of the main man-hunt, which you wouldn't have time for in a feature."

You can instantly sense the script emerging as Mehta recounts his conversations with cops, which straight off translate into scenes on the show. For instance, he asked an Investigating Officer (IO) - who only deals in heinous crimes like gang-rapes etc - about what keeps her up, or haunts her at night. She said, "The fact that my daughter, who wants to study abroad, may never come back." Likewise, Mehta came across an officer struggling to find a groom for his daughter, because most prospective families would rather not associate with cops: "Inse dosti ya dushmani, dono buri."

But the final trigger for Mehta to devote four years on a story that everyone already knows was actually an optimistic one. While being narrated a recent monstrous crime, he asked the IO if he still believed in people, after all that he had seen. "Of course," he said. He asked him why. The officer reasoned, "There are 17 million people in Delhi, 80,000 police officers, 45 per cent of them are on traffic, and VIP duty. So, 55 per cent of 80,000 are keeping peace, 24 hours a day. They can't stop a crime from being committed. There are too many people (in the city) for preventive-policing. We can merely detect and apprehend, if the circumstance is correct. So the only thing keeping peace is the people, 99.999 per cent are really good. We just deal with few thousand bad apples."

Strongly highlighting rotten apples, and their deeds, also might be a good way to protect against criminal history repeating itself. Public outrage over Nirbhaya in 2012 did just that. So does Delhi Crime.

BOMBAY TIMES (October 8, 2018)

In April 2017, Mumbai Mirror had reported that a woman employee of Phantom Films had accused co-founder and director Vikas Bahl of sexual harassment, a charge Bahl had vehemently denied at the time. The report also hinted that there were multiple victims and quoted one of the stakeholders as saying that Bahl was prone to “bad behaviour”. Now, the woman has revealed more details about the incident to HuffPost India, alleging that Bahl sexually assaulted her during a trip to Goa in 2015, on the promotional tour of Bombay Velvet. She has also stated that she told the other partners at Phantom – Anurag Kashyap, Vikramaditya Motwane and Madhu Mantena – about the incident a few months later, but nothing was done about it till March 2017; and that Bahl continued to harass her till she finally quit the company.

After her detailed account of the assault and Phantom’s failure to address it, on Saturday, Kashyap announced that the production house was being dissolved, only tweeting that “Phantom was a dream, a glorious one and all dreams come to an end . We did our best and we succeeded and we failed. But I know for sure we will come out of this stronger, wiser and will continue to pursue our dreams our own individual ways.”

Now, Kangana Ranaut, whom Bahl directed in the 2014 film Queen, has also lent her weight to the allegations, giving details about Bahl’s conduct towards her, and has said she could “tell something is wrong with him”. In a statement, the actress said, “Totally believe her. Even though Vikas was married back in 2014 when we were filming Queen, he bragged about having casual sex with a new partner every other day. I don’t judge people and their marriages but you can tell when addiction becomes sickness. He partied every night and shamed me for sleeping early and not being cool enough. I often told him off. He was scared of me but still every time we met socially greeted and hugged each other, he’d bury his face in my neck, hold me really tight and breathe in the smell of my hair. It took me great amount of strength and effort to pull myself out of his embrace. He’d say, ‘I love how you smell K’. I could tell something is wrong with him.”

Kangana has also said that she lost out on a role after she supported the survivor at the time her accusations came to light, and also slammed those who are “finding the courage to attack him now”. She says, “I believe this girl, but what is sad is that now that Phantom has dissolved many are attacking him, even though the girl asked for help long ago. That time the story was conveniently killed, but I supported her at that time as well. You can see my media interaction during one of my brand endorsement interactions, I thought the movement would catch up, but I was wrong. At that time, Vikas had come to me with a script about a gold medallist from Haryana. When I supported the girl, he stopped talking to me. I didn’t mind losing out on a good script and I never called him either. I was determined to say what I felt was right. But the matter was pushed under the carpet and I didn’t hear any updates about the same. It’s amusing after the news of Phantom’s dissolution (that) many are finding the courage to attack him. Shame on such a society. Go look at yourselves in the mirror, bunch of cowards, attacking powerless men won’t begin a movement. Either we do it or we don’t. Let’s not be opportunists. If we are a shit society let’s accept (it). At least have that much honesty within yourself. Selective outrage will only serve as entertainment. This will just be tabloid gossip and nothing else.”

With inputs from Lasyapriya Sundaram, Rachana Dubey
-----------------------------


In December 2012, when Queen was being shot in Delhi and the capital was coming to terms with the Nirbhaya gang-rape, which had happened a few days before, the crew of the film decided to wear black to protest the incident. At the time, Vikas Bahl had said, “We were wondering what we could do to keep up the momentum of the protests. We thought, if we can’t stop work we can at least wear black for a day and put it out there. The sad part is that the solution – actually offered as a solution – here is that girls should stay at home and they won’t get raped. That’s not the direction this should go in. Girls should be able to go out at 2am, that’s the point.” During the protest, the director was also chanting, “Kill the bastards or castrate them.”

Subhash K Jha (DNA; March 30, 2017)

In her forthcoming film Maatr, Raveena Tandon takes on the subject of rape with a brutal force. The film lays open some ugly truth about the way the judicial system fails a rape victim. Says Raveena emotionally, “This is a topic I feel very strongly about. I’ve three daughters (two of them are adoptive) and I worry about their safety constantly. And why just daughters? Are sons safe any more? Is anyone safe any longer? We’ve politicians claiming women are responsible for provoking rapists. Can you imagine the depths of callousness that our politicians have plunged to? When a 30-year old woman was gangraped at a tennis club in Bengaluru, the Karnataka Home Minister wanted to know why she was playing tennis at 9.30 pm.”

Raveena feels the cases of rape are growing each year. “If we don’t take drastic steps, if we don’t instill the fear of God and justice into potential rapists, I am afraid the rape statistics will multiply. But how can rapists be dissuaded when the most brutal of the Nirbhaya rapists Mohammad Afroz was declared a juvenile, treated with kid’s gloves in jail, given a sowing machine and rehabilitated as a tailor. He was eventually alleged to have links with a terror outfit. If this is what happens with brutal rapists I can just see elders of primitive cultures telling their youngsters to go and sow their wild oats while they still fall under the juvenile laws’ act.”

Raveena met Nirbhaya’s mother in Delhi, the city where Maatr is set. “She told me something I’ll never forget. She said all the attention that her daughter’s rape and murder got lasted for four days. From the fifth day she was on her own fighting for justice on her daughter’s behalf. Her tears haven’t dried up as yet. They never will.”

Raveena feels the law must change for rape statistics to fall. “I’ve researched extensively for my role. And I feel we need much stronger laws. We also need clerics and priests to stop blaming the length of a woman’s skirt for rape. A three-year old who gets brutally assaulted doesn’t wear a supposedly provocative skirt to be targeted. When will the custodians of religion and culture get the point. Rape is not about sex. It’s about subjugation and dominance.”

Raveena feels her role in Maatr has changed her life. “It is an experience that has left me shaken. We need drastic reforms in rape laws. Our film puts across uncomfortable facts. It will make the audience think.”

MUMBAI MIRROR (February 3, 2017)

Madhureeta Mukherjee (BOMBAY TIMES; September 17, 2016)