I could not think of anyone other than Vanraj Bhatia as a composer on my films. All my projects, except those made in the last few years, had him on board. Having trained in Indian and Western classical music, his knowledge in both genres was deep-rooted. Even though we were long-time collaborators, we would squabble often. My Tardeo office would be rocked by our creative differences and arguments. He was critical of the kind of films I made, what was termed the parallel cinema or the New India Cinema. He used to complain that I [didn’t] use his music [to maximum effect]. My films did not have the hero running around trees and singing — something that he would have probably loved. [Despite our] different tastes in cinema, he would create the best score for me. 

He was inclined towards music from his student days, and in the ’50s, spent several years in Paris, studying with the legendary composer-conductor, Nadia Boulanger. After returning to India, theatre doyen Ebrahim Alkazi asked him to teach music at the National School of Drama in New Delhi. It was a short stint in the early ’60s because he soon realised that he wanted to compose music.

He shifted back to Mumbai, and began scoring music for ads and jingles. At the time, I was working with Lintas. We worked on several projects together, and in due course, struck up a friendship.

When I moved to feature film direction with Ankur [1975], he was the obvious choice. He was more inclined towards Western classical music, whereas my films — be it Nishant [1975], Manthan [1976] or Bhumika [1977] — were earthy and had inherent Indianness to them. But his knowledge of music was so profound that he could showcase his brilliance, regardless of the film’s subject.

He was at ease composing the folk song, Mero Gaam Katha Parey, which became Manthan’s iconic track. It was later used by Amul as the theme song for their campaign to showcase the model of cooperative farming. Baaju Re Mondar [Bhumika] showcased his classical excellence.

Even though he bagged the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and the National Award, he never got his due. He did not achieve popular success, like say Shankar-Jaikishan did; he craved it. He hated that he was termed a composer for parallel cinema. He would have liked to do more commercial films, but his sensibilities did not match. He was an evolved and sophisticated musician; there was no crudeness to his music.

Shyam Benegal defends his stance as FIR lodged against 50 personalities, including Anurag, Konkona, Aparna Sen, for their open letter to Modi over mob lynching
Sonil Dedhia (MID-DAY; October 5, 2019)

"How are we maligning the Prime Minister by writing a letter to him," questions Shyam Benegal, shocked at the recent turn of events. On Thursday, an FIR was lodged in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, against 50 celebrities — including Anurag Kashyap, Aparna Sen, Konkona Sen Sharma, Mani Ratnam and Benegal — for having written an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in June, expressing their concern over the rampant incidents of mob lynching. The case was lodged after an order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Surya Kant Tiwari on a petition filed by Bihar advocate Sudhir Kumar Ojha. In his petition, Ojha stated that the letter "tarnished the image of the country and undermined the performance of the prime minister" besides "supporting secessionist tendencies".

Benegal is appalled that their attempt at a dialogue with the prime minister has been coloured by negativity. "The PM is the foremost public figure of our country, and we never made any personal comment. We live in a democracy, and freedom of speech is a constitutional right. We voiced out [a problem] that we thought needed the prime minister's attention."

When mid-day reached out to Sen, she termed the FIR — that was lodged under sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those relating to sedition, hurting religious feelings and insulting with an intent to provoke breach of peace — as "blatantly ridiculous". "Our letter had nothing that can be misconstrued as anti-national, seditious or one that maligns anyone. It was a politely written letter, appealing to the prime minister to stop lynchings because we thought that minorities, including Hindu Dalits, need to be protected. We are within our rights to say this to our elected prime minister."

The letter appealed that the lynching of "Muslims, Dalits and other minorities must be stopped immediately." It emphasised the need for strong action from Modi. "You have criticised lynchings in parliament, but that is not enough. We feel that such offences should be declared non-bailable," it read.

Roshmila Bhattacharya (MUMBAI MIRROR; September 21, 2019)

In early 1973, Shyam Benegal, an ad filmmaker, decided it was time to make a movie. He already had a story in mind, and also an actress—Waheeda Rehman, who had worked with his cousin Guru Dutt and whose work he admired to play the central character.

Laxmi, a maid from a lower caste, is married to a deaf-mute drunk. She’s seduced by circumstances and false promises into having an affair with the young landlord, Surya, only to be left high and dry after she discovers she’s pregnant with his child. What made Guide’s Rosie the ideal choice for Ankur’s Laxmi was that being from Telangana where the story was set, Waheeda ji could speak the local dialect Dakhini fluently. “But she was a big star at the time while I was a debutant director. She was not confident I could pull it off, having never made a film before,” Shyam babu reminisces with a laugh.

After Waheeda ji turned him down, he thought of approaching National Award winning actress Sharada who had worked in Telugu films. But he changed his mind when he learnt that not being from Telangana, she couldn’t speak the lingo, a mix of Hindi-Urdu, which was essential to fleshing out the character.

That’s when one of his assistants told him about this girl who, while studying at St. Xavier’s college, had impressed in a couple of stage productions. “Does she have a background in performing arts?” he wondered, and was told that her father, Kaifi Azmi, was a famous poet, while her mother, Shaukat Kaifi, had done a lot of theatre. She, too, was a graduate from the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII). Instantly interested, he asked for her to come and meet him.

“One look at Shabana (Azmi) and I knew she was perfect for Laxmi. Yes, she was young and looked young too, but I was willing to tweak the role for her. Going with my instincts, I immediately signed her on, after learning that since her mother was from Telangana, she spoke Dakhini. I didn’t even audition her like I had Anant (Nag) who played Surya, surprising even her,” he flashbacks.

Anant Nag had accompanied an actor whose name Shyam babu has since forgotten, for an audition. “He came to offer moral support to his friend and caught my eye. I auditioned Anant as well and finding him perfect, introduced him in Hindi films. He became a big star in Kannada cinema but always made time for a role in my films,” Shyam babu smiles.

And so, Ankur rolled, with a team of newcomers, with the exception of cinematographer, Govind Nihalani, who had some cinematic experience having assisted V K Murthy. Straightaway, Shyam babu, with his two first-time actors, along with Sadhu Meher (he played the deaf-mute husband), dived into a dramatic scene wherein Laxmi rushes to rescue Kishtaya who, accused of stealing toddy, is being mercilessly whipped by Surya.

Shabana Azmi turned out to be a real find. Her performance bagged her many awards, including the National Award for Best Actress. “She’s an incredible actress with a huge range. Give her a role and Shabana owns the part,” raves her mentor, pointing out that the actress who brought in her 69th birthday on Wednesday, has also earned a reputation internationally, on screen and on stage.

Ankur also bagged the Best Actor award for Sadhu Meher and was adjudged Second Best Feature Film at the National Awards. “It made me a filmmaker and I never went back to advertising,” points out Shyam babu, who’s seen as the pioneer of parallel cinema in India.

After Ankur, he signed Shabana ji for Nishant, Junoon, followed by Mandi in which she played the madam of a brothel. “She was a really slim girl then, I pushed her to put on weight because I wanted Rukmini Bai to be a well-endowed woman, who chewed paan, cracked betel nuts and kept the girls in place,” Shyam babu recalls.

The duo went on to do more films but haven’t worked together of late. Has his protégée changed as an actress or a person in the decades since, you wonder, and he quips, “No, except for the weight she’s put on, which, as I have told her innumerable times, I don’t like. I guess Mandi is partly to blame for it and I will always feel guilty for that.”

Genteel doyen Shyam Benegal and Bollywood's enfant terrible Anurag Kashyap on how India's movie capital shaped them, and they shaped it too
Mayank Shekhar (MID-DAY; June 28, 2019)

It's pre-noon. We are at Shyam Benegal's office in South Mumbai. Anurag Kashyap has travelled all the way from Oshiwara in North Mumbai, where Bollywood currently resides. Between two of India's most iconoclast filmmakers rest stories that equally span the journey of Mumbai as a movie capital, since they also personify the change that they wished to see.

What we didn't know is Kashyap's own struggles in this city, when he moved from Delhi in 1993, began from the same Everest building, Tardeo office we are at. It was the first door he'd knocked, looking for a job. This is his first visit since. Understandably, we start the conversation with:

Mid-Day: What Happened When You First Came To Mr Benegal's Office [In 1993]?
Anurag: It was my second day in Bombay, rainy June 4. I found his address, and came right here. Shyam ji wasn't in. I met a sweet man, Mr Ravi Khemu [actor Kunal Kemmu's father; Benegal's associate]. He realised I'd only watched movies at film festivals, and recommended that I go to FTII. The exams of which were over. Then he gave me other addresses — of Govind ji [Nihalani], and Prahlad Kakkar, who was also in the same building. Eventually, I realised, I needed to do something [for a résumé], before looking for a job.

Mid-Day: Mr Benegal, You've Been In This Office For Years. Even Up Until The '90s, South Bombay Was Actually The Hub Of The City's Film Industry, Wasn't It?
Benegal: I've been here since the '70s. Before this, I used to be at Jyoti Studios [in Nana Chowk]. It was the first sound studio in the country — Alam Ara [1931] was shot there. I used to love that place. Just about anybody/everybody in the history of Indian/Hindi cinema had worked at Jyoti Studios. For years, before things became expensive in this part of the world, and offices moved to Dadar and thereafter, Andheri, this street in Tardeo was the capital of the entire film industry.
Anurag: When I came to Bombay, Lokhandwala was a small hub, with Four Bungalows, and a road between them. Nothing else. Zee and STAR had started setting up offices, and we used to come to Worli all the time. The student-lot, like Imtiaz Ali, stayed at Lalbaug.
Benegal: The film industry had been gradually moving northwards given land value. B R Chopra used to be in Parel, and then his brother [Yash Chopra] moved further up [to Juhu]. Now, many have moved beyond Andheri because it's not affordable.

Mid-Day: Has The Demographic Of People Looking For Jobs In Films In Bombay Changed Over The Decades?
Benegal: Not at all. Most of them come from smaller towns with stars in their eyes, given the larger-than-life image of cinema itself.
Anurag: Most of them come here to be actors. But now with so many job opportunities in various media, what's come down is passion for making a movie — and living and dying for it.

Mid-Day: When You Hang In Versova/Andheri, The Sense You Get Is That Actually Everyone Is From Delhi. Did That Begin In The '90s?
Anurag: A lot of people moved from Delhi, after Shah Rukh Khan. Delhi had a strong theatre scene, where Shah Rukh used to do smaller roles. But when he broke out [in the mainstream] in such a big way, everybody came to Bombay thinking, if Shah Rukh can, so can we. The exodus that was otherwise taking place anyway didn't comprise people who wanted to be part of mainstream. We liked a certain kind of cinema and theatre, and wished to be part of it. The entire cast of Bandit Queen moved to Bombay from Delhi after the film. Piyush Mishra even wrote a play about it called Jinhe Jaldi Thi Woh Chale Gaye!



Mid-Day: By The '80s, Mr Benegal, While You Were An Established Filmmaker, Your Cinema Must've Been Still Hard For The City's Showbiz To Define Within Its Constructs. True?
Anurag: They used to call it "parallel" cinema [laughs].
Benegal: I hated those terms! Somebody once called me a middle-of-the-road filmmaker. I said if I stand in the middle of the road, I'd get run over! Calling something alternate/parallel denoted a caste system. The terminology automatically indicated that nobody can see your films. Even with press reviews, while they wrote good things, there would always be a line, "This is not for general public!" That's it. Killed your film! [laughs].
Anurag: And we were categorised the "Shyam Benegal" type! Which means I need another job to sustain myself.

Mid-Day: Say A Karan Johar Collaborates With Anurag. Curious To Know How Mainstream Showbiz Comprising Manmohan Desais Of The World With Amitabh Bachchan At The Centre Interacted With You Personally, Mr Benegal.
Benegal: I had a similar kind of [joint] conversation [for the press] as we're doing now, with Manmohan Desai, and it went off quite well actually! And there was no feeling [of discord with people from "commercial cinema"] of any kind, seriously. Because you were not seen as a threat. They could be very patronising.
Anurag: There must also have been resentment that if people like Shyam ji didn't exist, then all other awards could've also been ours — outside of box-office! [laughs].

Mid-Day: Anurag, You On The Other Hand, Were The Wild-Child Seeking Validation From The [Mainstream] Film Industry. Threat In That Sense?
Anurag: I made myself into one! My career started precisely because I wasn't a threat — available to do any job for free, because I was learning, and figuring out if I can do it, or not. That's how I broke in. In the early 2000s, I started fighting aggressively for sustenance of a certain kind of cinema. Because I realised the '70s/'80s were not going to come back. Back then, to watch a film that I wanted to, I'd have to travel all the way to Town, that too to one cinema, which was playing one show, over 20 weeks! And even that began to be taken away from us. It was a massive fight.
Benegal: Multiplexes [that came in after] made a huge difference. It gave an incredible boost to filmmakers who were not part of the mainstream, as it were. Because, you had to fill a theatre of 60 or 100 seats, which was not so difficult.
Anurag: Single screens were very different for us. How do you fill up that many seats? And they wouldn't give us more than a morning or a late-night slot.
Benegal: And if you couldn't get 80 per cent audience on the first weekend, you were out on Monday. Even if you filled up 75 per cent of a 1,000-seat cinema, you'd still be out.

Mid-Day: When Television Entered The Scene In The '80s, Did That Change Things For You As A Filmmaker, Mr Benegal?
Benegal: Of course. For one, people who had never seen my films started watching them, because they were coming to your home. That's really where I developed an audience.
Anurag: That's when our fathers said, his film is coming, watch it on TV. Our introduction to his works was the TV series, Bharat Ek Khoj.

Mid-Day: While We Categorise Films As Mainstream/Parallel, The Fact Is Both Of You Have Been Commercial Filmmakers, Backed By Private Funding With Expectation Of Returns, Isn't It?
Benegal: Except for Suraj Ka Satvan Ghoda [1992] and Mammo [1994], which were NFDC [state-funded] films, all my features were made through regular, private finance. Naturally, they had to cover their cost. There's no way I could've remained a filmmaker, if they didn't. Any filmmaker would feel commercial pressure. But you really have to work on strategies, and be clever to get your way.
Anurag: You have to say things that people believe in, to protect your vision.



Mid-Day: Both Of You Worked With New Actors, Who Could Build A Fresh Audience-Base. Say Nawaz, Vicky, Etc. In One Case; And Naseer, Shabana, Smita And Others In The Other. This Created A Parallel Star-System Of Its Own, Didn't It?
Benegal: It did, to the extent that some of them [actors] started to resent it! [laughs]. They weren't getting an 'in' into the mainstream. Because they were considered to be a certain 'type' of actors. Well, you can't beat the system in matters like these. I wanted to make films that I wanted to make, and in my own way. I don't think there was any intention beyond that.
Anurag: All my actors at least get strong-character, or even lead, roles in the mainstream. That transition has happened. Because the old star-system doesn't work anymore. There's greater democracy over how the medium has changed, especially with the advent of the Internet. A person who pulls in the biggest crowds these days is Bhuvan Bam, who's a YouTube sensation.

Mid-Day: The Way Mr Benegal Did With Actors Fresh From FTII In The '70s, You Also Created A Similar Ecosystem, Decades Later, In Mumbai, Though.
Anurag: I didn't do it thinking I was creating a new ecosystem. I didn't have money, so I developed a new way of making movies. It started with Black Friday [2007] — shooting on the street, in full public view. I had no option but to hide cameras, and shoot everywhere. I had no money to create Zaveri Bazaar, so I'd shoot there.

Mid-Day: Black Friday Was Produced By Mid-Day.
Anurag: Which helped, because mid-day gave us these badges, that we flaunted around saying we're shooting a documentary. In the process, I learnt how to shoot on streets without people ever finding out. Primary requirement of that language is to work with people who won't be recognised. I went looking for good actors, with screen presence, and who aren't known. So I created casting systems, with [people like] Gautam [Kishanchandani], Mukesh Chhabra..

Mid-Day: For The Longest, Since Local Distribution Was A Bottleneck, Did You Both Consciously Look At International Markets To Expand Audience-Base?
Benegal: I never did. But because my first film Ankur [1974] went to a few international film festivals, garnering excellent audiences, I found a distributor with presence in all of western Europe. And another distributor in Britain, with a string of art-house cinemas in London. Automatically, my films after that got distribution.
Anurag: I was only trying to survive, having grown tired of people telling me that nobody would want to see my films. I spent considerable time trying to understand that market. I had to make a film that I owned — That Girl In Yellow Boots — so I could experiment in that direction.
Benegal: Now you have OTT platforms. You find your films in their bank. They're available to people all over the world.

Mid-Day: Given Where We Are Now, With The Internet, Where Practically Everyone Is A Filmmaker, Do We Even See Mumbai As A Centre Of Filmmaking In The Future?
Anurag: The world's completely changed. I just saw a whole shoot, where the producer is Bengali, the film is in Hindi, the filmmaker is from the South, the cinematographer is from Poland, sound-designer is from elsewhere. Everybody had only met on the Internet. And they're now making a film together.

Mid-Day: Looking Back At 40 Years Of Films, If You Were To Place A Turning Point, Where Would That Be?
Benegal: It was television, which went national. That made the huge difference.
Anurag: I think it was television, when it came in the '80s. And then Internet, which went global. If there was no TV, people wouldn't have seen Shyam ji's films. Likewise, if there weren't pirated downloads on the Internet, they wouldn't have seen my films either.

Mid-Day: Disappointed That Two Filmmakers Are Calling TV And Internet As Turning Points. There's Still Cinema, Right; Or Is That Charm Over?
Anurag: It's my personal choice to watch films in cinemas. But I can't deny that I found my audience online.
Benegal: The classic distance that you must keep from any screen is two and half times its diagonal length. That gives you the kind of image that you'd get in a cinema hall. I can get that in my home — on a large screen, with surround sound, the works. What I miss is the audience!

Roshmila Bhattacharya (MUMBAI MIRROR; October 19, 2017)

The first thing Shyam Benegal remembers about his protégé, Smita Patil, was her natural talent and reluctance as an actress. She was studying at St. Xavier’s College when he approached her to play the queen in a children’s film, Charandas Chor. “She was very hesitant. Her mother told her not to be silly and let the opportunity slip away,” he narrates.

Soon after, the filmmaker whisked her away to Chattisgarh for the shoot, where she was thrown in the company of Habib Tanvir’s village actors, some farmers, some local traders, who were reprising their roles from the original play. “Smita quickly became a part of the team, having no starry airs or pretensions, a quality that made her special even after she became Bollywood’s leading lady. She would haul the lights and the cables, serve meals. No one realised that she was homesick. Those days there were no cell phones, and in locations as remote as ours, you could at best book a lightning call from the local post office, which was not always possible. So Smita, who was away from her family for the first time, wrote a letter to her mother every day, but otherwise never let slip just how lonely she was,” he says.

The same year, she also played Naseeruddin Shah’s wife, Rukmini, in his Nishant, which went on to bag the National Award for Best Feature Film in Hindi and was only the second Indian film in competition for the Palme d’ Or at the 1976 Cannes Film Festival. “It was a huge honour, but being a poor ‘art’ filmmaker as compared to the other competitors who came from larger industries we had no money even to print posters. So I asked my heroines, Smita and Shabana Azmi, to drape themselves in gorgeous temple saris and walk up and down the Cannes Crussell. They immediately caught everyone’s eye and their photograph appeared on the front page of the local newspaper along with news of the Nishant screening and we had a packed house,” says Benegal, chuckling at the memory.

They did other films together, including Manthan and Bhumika. The latter was broadly based on the memoirs of Marathi actress Hansa Wadkar, Sangyte Aika, with Smita playing Usha, a role that spanned from 16 to 46. “It was a challenge as she was just around 22-23 at the time and had to literally grow up from an adolescent to a mature woman and to familiarise herself with the industry and its trappings. I had taken her to Cannes for Nishant, which was perhaps her first foreign trip. Bhumika fetched her the National Award and the Filmfare Award for Best Actress and she grew up to become one of our finest performers recognized the world over with a unique ability to blend into her surroundings,” he says, recalling the time when they were filming Manthan in Saurashtra, about 35-40 kms from Rajkot. “Smita who played a village woman, looked so much like one, that the college boys who had cycled all the way down from Rajkot after reading that a film unit was shooting in their part of the world, almost didn’t recognise her as she squatted on the floor of her home, leaning against the mud wall. They were whispering amongst themselves wondering about the heroine when one of them suddenly pointed to Smita.”

On October 17, Smita would have turned 62. Ask Benegal how he imagines she might have been today and he sighs, “I can’t, she never thought she would grow into an old lady. She would always say I’ll die young and though I would reprimand her for getting morbid, it happened that way.”

Shyam Benegal takes up for Karan Johar, says government must protect vulnerable film frat
MUMBAI MIRROR (October 20, 2016)

Shyam Benegal talks about the new grading system for films which has been proposed by the revising panel led by him
Mohar Basu (BOMBAY TIMES; April 28, 2016)

Aaron Pereira (THE INDIAN EXPRESS; August 19, 2015)

On Tuesday night, the Pune Police cracked down on protesting students of the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) and arrested dozens of students for gheraoing the institute’s director Prashant Pathrabe over the ‘assessment’ process of projects pending since 2008. Speaking to The IndianExpress.com, veteran filmmaker Shyam Benegal condemned the police action saying students were not criminals, and that both, the administration and the protesting students, need to sit down and resolve the crisis. Benegal also said that if given the opportunity, he would consider heading the institute for a third time. Excerpts of the interview:

What’s your reaction to the Pune Police swooping down on protesting students in the middle of the night?
This is the worst thing that could have happened. The worst thing. This is something we have been preventing for a long time, even when I was chairman. Twice I was chairman, there were strikes but we never ever even once invited the police into the campus. And I believe that whatever problems the institution might have between the powers that be and the students, I don’t believe a third-party is necessary there at all.

According to me, that vitiates the atmosphere forever. In an educational institution, there’s a Laxman Rekha there. You don’t allow a third-party (police) to come in. You should be able to solve the problems between the institute and those who are fighting against it. This is ridiculous. It has never happened before and I am absolutely shocked at the fact that the police were invited into the institution to take students into custody.

Is it now taking a political turn? Rahul Gandhi has met with the students, Arvind Kejriwal has offered students a temporary location in Delhi…
Whatever that might be, the fact is that first of all, I think it was a mistake in the first place for students to go inviting people from various political parties. I think that was a mistake in the first place. It’s a very ordinary problem. The problem is that they have disagreed with the person (Gajendra Chauhan) who has been chosen as chairman as they feel the person does not have credentials for the job. This is fine. Now the fact is credentials ultimately mean you’ve got a doctorate or you don’t have a doctorate. Ultimately, that is not of real consequence. Capability is something that is of consequence.

Now, if you’re not sure of a person’s credentials, at least be sure about his capability. And in order to do that, the students simply have to invite him, grill him, satisfy yourself whether the man is capable or not. Then go on a strike if you want to and believe he’s not. But all this has not been done. They went on strike straight on. That is the last option. In any student’s armory your final card is a strike. You shouldn’t use the word strike like it’s an ordinary thing. Only after you’ve exhausted all your other options (you should go on a strike). Because, it will end in a way that it has now ended, which is unfortunate… for the institution. Because a third party has walked into it and it has become a law and order problem. There was no need for any of this. Student’s are not criminals. I still can’t understand why it had to go this extent.

What do you see is the way out for the students and administration to end the logjam?
Well the option before them is that the administration and the students should sit and talk to each other. Invite the chairman-designate. That is the best way to deal with it. You have to worry about capability, not credentials. There are people who are very capable but who may not necessarily have the kind of credentials on paper. Also, he’s not somebody who’s going to be teaching you. He’s a chairman who’s there on the level of policy. As a chairman of the society, he has to see that it works well because the society is autonomous and although it depends on the government for money, the government does not interfere with its working.

But what about his close links with the BJP?
I can have close links with anybody. Why should that be a negative factor against me? I have every right to have a political view point as long as it’s not a view point that goes against the Constitution of the country. That’s the final boundary. You don’t cross that. People stand for elections, I can adhere to any political party. Nobody can stop me from doing that. Why should that come in the way? If you’re going to say ‘he’s going to push that ideology down my throat’, you are there, no? Why are you there? He has not done that yet. He hasn’t even taken up charge yet. There’s enough time for you to check out if he will move in that direction. In any case, as I said, as students, you have an interface with the director. You are there everyday.

But the faculty has backed the students in their protest
The fact is the faculty will support the students because they have to deal with them everyday of their lives. So the faculty will have a sympathy with the students. I can understand that. But the faculty also has a place in the governing council, where they can put forward these views. They just pushed themselves into opposite corners to which now there is no middle ground left. And if there’s no middle ground left, then this is what will happen. The police will walk in. I personally feel this is very unfortunate as I don’t think the acting-director should have invited the police.

But the students gheraoed the director…
I was gheraoed too. When I was the chairman for the first time, I was gheraoed not just for two-three hours. I was gheraoed for the entire night. I called for a meeting the next day and said I want to meet the entire student body and not just the union. And when that happened, we solved the problem. It just meant that I lost my night’s sleep! Ultimately, it’s an educational institution… student’s have come there to study. They are not enemies. The administration should not take them to be enemies. The students too should not take the administration as enemies. They are supposed to be working together.

What about students who are yet to complete their projects, pending since 2008? The administration has sent them notices asking that they vacate the premises.
To vacate the premises will happen only when they go on strike like this for two months. But this is something that I have never understood. Why should projects that students took up in 2008 are not yet completed? Somebody has got to examine that. I wouldn’t know why. I blame both, the students for not completing their projects and the institution for not seeing to it that they do. I don’t know if there were shortcomings on the part of the institution. I haven’t been part of it for a long time. But that is one of the most unfortunate things that can happen. It’s 2015 and we’re talking about students who have incomplete work since 2008. Nothing can be more shocking than that.

You were among those that the government was considering to head the institution. Were you informed about it?
I haven’t been informed about it. But let me put it to you in another way. I have headed the institution twice already. And now it’s been about 25 years since I finished my second stint. Now, the fact is I’m 80 years old. It’s not normal for someone who is 80 to be made chairman of an institution that’s funded by the government. Nobody has approached me, but it’s possible that I may accept it. The only thing people can do at my age is to join politics!

Are you open to joining politics?
(Laughs) I am only joking. I’m just saying that there’s no age limit for one to turn into a politician.

But if asked to head the institution, perhaps in a larger role as an advisory role, would you accept?
Yes of course, why not? I am a professional film maker. All my working life I have been a working filmmaker. Now obviously If I don’t take interest in film education, who else would? It’s a commitment I’ve made for life. Of course If anyone wants an opinion from me or views they consider worthwhile, then certainly I am available. I’ve never said no to anyone. But my only concern is that the institution, both the administration and the students have both been extremely pig headed and they’ve pushed themselves into a situation where they’ve left no middle ground. Where they can come and talk to one another as they should. If exercises that should have been done in 2008 have remained incomplete then there’s something seriously wrong. Don’t you agree? This is absurd.

Would you be open to being a mediator and help resolve this crisis?
What I would like to do is find out more about the problem and see if there’s any solution that is acceptable to both sides. I have a feeling the ministry itself is sitting in Delhi. They’re not sitting in Poona. The kind of information they may get is also probably not absolutely accurate. We don’t know, sitting in Bombay, what’s happening in Poona.

What in your opinion can the students and administration do to end the crisis?
The police coming in was very bad. I think it shouldn’t be allowed at all. I don’t think students should be put in lock-ups. They should be sent back promptly. They are not criminals, they are students. That is not the way to handle the issue. Unless, of course, the students threatened someone or have beaten up someone belonging to the administration. I would like the administration to extend a hand to the students. You can’t sit on a high horse. Unless if you want to close down the institution which they have every power to do. Which would be a great loss although we have many film institutions in the country today. I think FTII has a special place because it is a tried and tested system in cinema and television.

Shyam Benegal, who has made way for Kiran Rao as the new Chairperson of MAMI, talks about the change in leadership and the future of Indian cinema
Vickey Lalwani (MUMBAI MIRROR; November 28, 2014)

He has spent the past six days watching film after film at the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa but Shyam Benegal says that he will never tire of the experience. Mirror caught up with the 80-year-old at his Tardeo office on Tuesday.

Excerpts from the interview:

How was IFFI this year?
By and large, nice. Like always, it had six to eight good films. It could have been much better.

What was the problem?
IFFI is a well-funded festival. But a festival is as good as its organisers. Now, IFFI is run by the government. They have a lot of unutilised resources.

Please elaborate...
A government-run festival has people from varied backgrounds in executive positions. And just when they start understanding cinema, their term runs out. Therefore at MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving images) we give officials an extended term.

Were you happy with this year's Mumbai Film Festival?
Paisa bahut kam tha. We had difficulty in finding sponsors after Reliance opted out. Perhaps, the brand did not get the mileage they expected. We had only one centre screening the films, in Andheri. It was well attended by members of the film fraternity. But where was the general public?

Why did you step down from the position of MAMI Chairperson?
Anupama Chopra (the new festival director) and Kiran Rao (the new Chairperson) showed immense enthusiasm in raising funds. They have more energy and better ideas. It was time that I got younger people on board. Stepping down was on my mind for six years. MAMI is not my inheritance; it belongs to all who love cinema.

Have you distanced yourself from MAMI?
No, I shall always remain involved with MAMI, but now I won't be attending to the day-to-day decisions. My support for MAMI is irrevocable.

Did you recommend Kiran Rao and Anupama Chopra?
'Recommend' would be a wrong word. But yes, I did mention their names to the trustees. And they deserve it.

It's been five years since you made a film (2009's Well Done Abba was his last). What's gone wrong?
Nothing has gone wrong. I will soon make a film. I decided to put my time and energy in to a TV show, Samvidhaan. It needed a lot of research and time. A show on the Indian Constitution was required.

Are you satisfied with the response it got?
Yes.

What's your take on the films of today?
I think we are making some good cinema. Some of the recent content is amazing.

And do you see any equivalents of your frequent collaborators like (late) Smita Patil and Shabana Azmi?
Zaroor honge, bas unka bahar aana baki hai. I think Rajkummar Rao is an ocean of talent. I haven't seen Alia Bhatt's work but she seems impressive. I am also keen to catch up on Varun Dhawan's work. I think Anushka has a sunshine-like smile. And I am impressed by the work of Rajkumar Hirani, Imtiaz Ali, Anurag Kashyap and Dibakar Banerjee.

As told to Mithila Phadke (THE TIMES OF INDIA; November 9, 2014)