 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Concluding the session Mr. Waman Meshram told that there was no role of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in the film of Gandhi, whereas Gandhi’s life or character is incomplete without Dr. Ambedkar. Still film maker didn't gave any attention towards inclusion of Dr. Ambedkar in Gandhi’s film. The reason is very simple. If Dr. Ambedkar could have got role in Gandhi’s film then, Dr.Ambedkar could have become the main hero and Gandhi a villain . Followers of Dr. Ambedkar thought of making a film. During the filmisation of Gandhi's film, Indian Govt. had spend crores of rupees over it. There was one director called Grifit from England who came forward to make a film on Dr. Ambedkar. He told that he will not take a single penny from Indian Government, only he want visa to come to India. At that time Mr. P.V. Narisimharao was foreign minister. He told Grifit to send the script of the film, he wanted to make. After going through the script, the brahminical govt. straight forward refused to gave visa to Mr. Grifit. The brahminical people are so scared of historical facts of Dr.Ambedkar’s life.
Dr. Shyam Dhawre of Mumbai came forward to make the film on Dr. Ambedkar. He applied for it but he could not get it. In this conspiracy including brahminical people, some congressman were also involved including Sharad Pawar and also Manohar Joshi. Also ex-governor of UP was involved in this conspiracy. Mata Prasad use to go in the committee of script writers and conspirically tried not to show conflicts between Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar. So lot of alterations were made in the script by n number of people.
In the entire film only two things are of worth notice. One was the role of Ramabai done by Kulkarni (brahmin) and the role of Dr. Ambedkar done by Mamooti. Nothing else was there in the film. Rest there were so many alterations in the facts and figures of Dr. Ambedkar's character or his movement. The actual life of Dr. Ambedkar is seen nowhere in the film. How he became Babasaheb from an untouchable? There is nothing.
The film makers were saying that they were short of time, hence covered only life of Dr. Ambedkar. My question to them is that if they were having short of time, then they should have shown the life mission of Dr. Ambedkar from 1916 to 1956 only. Why they have spend more time on his childhood, is not understandable. Crores of indigenous people believe that Dr. Ambedkar is their messiah. But their messiah is nowhere reflected in the film.
Two incidences have been shown in the educational era of Dr. Ambedkar. At once instance he had been shown as waiter, washing plates in the hotel. But the fact is that, in his entire life he had done nothing such type of services. But this was the deliberate attempt by the film maker. Also a dialogue between him and a Nigro is picturised. The objective of the film maker was to show that the untouchability is not only observed in India but it is an international issue. By this arya brahmins had tried to neutralise the untouchabilility issue and tried to maintain their supremacy and brahminism. Through such type of scenes people will think that untouchability is generalised issue.
In another scene the same Nigro person was shown bitten by a rickshaw puller and Babasaheb was watching him helplessly. This is again contradicting. The man who can't sustain massacre on him or his people(in actual life) is doing nothing and standing helplessly. These all scenes are picturised to malign the character of Dr. Ambedkar. Rather all British’s were co-operating with Dr. Ambedkar at every instance. Whereas the brahmins use to misbehave with him. But to hide their behavior they put forward British’s.
In this film "Castes in Hindustan" "Castes is Hindusthan" is repeatedly uttered through lips of Dr. Ambedkar. But the fact is that Dr. Ambedkar never used Hindustan word in his entire life. When Babasaheb had written the constitution, he wrote the first line as "India, that is Bharat". It means that, he foresighted the brahminical mentality to enforce the word Hindustan for Bharat and hence stressfully wrote India, that is Bharat. But why the film-makers stressed for the word Hindustan? It is a part of conspiracy and nothing else. The injustice shown in one of canteen in England can also be understood. The basic mentality behind it was to show that British’s were not in favour of Dr. Ambedkar. But Dr. Ambedkar in his entire life had never consider Britishers as his enemy. Even Rashtrapita Jotirao Phuley never consider Britishers as his enemy. But if it is shown that British’s had done injustice with Dr. Ambedkar, then indigenous people will consider the real enemy as britisher, instead of arya brahmins.
Lot of time has been spent in picturing Dr. Ambedkar in and around library. This time could have saved and the real movement of Dr. Ambedkar could have got chance but it was deliberately not shown.
Dr. Ambedkar was against child-marriage. But in the film lot of time has been spent on his marriage (child-marriage). Why this scene was pictured? What they want to show from this scene. The brahminical mentality wanted to show that the person who was opposing child marriage, himse had done the child marriage. But was his marriage in his hand ?And was he in the movement during his marriage. But still the film maker had picturised it to malign the character of Dr. Ambedkar.
In another instance, when Ramabai (wife of Dr. Ambedkar) was dead, People came to wore her green sari. At that moment Dr. Ambedkar said that "Rama' told him to wore white sari after her death". But people told Dr. Ambedkar that it is a custom and usual practice to wore Green Sari after death. For this Dr. Ambedkar is shown calm and quite. Why this has been shown? Was Dr. Ambedkar follower of old customs and rituals? Didn't he want to oppose it? His entire life and style reflects something else and exactly opposite has been picturised in this film.
In this film one scene of Gandhi is also picturised and that is of Poona pact. Poona pact is the biggest ever conspiracy done against indigenous in Indian history. In the dialogue Babasaheb is saying Gandhiji as “Bapu”. Whereas in actual Dr. Ambedkar use to call Gandhi as "Mr. Gandhi". He never addressed him as Bapu. But in film Dr. Ambedkar is saying Gandhi as Bapu, a strange thing?. Poona pact is pictured in favour of Gandhi. Since it is not shown infavour of Dr. Ambedkar, it reflects against Dr. Ambedkar. The film is of Dr. Ambedkar, but hero is somebody else.
From these all instances, it is clear that lot of alterations had been done in the script. In the film it is also shown that Babasaheb's brother is boozing and quarrelling with him. These scenes are picturised to malign the character of Dr.Ambedkar.
In the film it is also shown that Gandhi had made Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of drafting committee of the constitution. This is totally false. Gandhi put Sardar Vallalabhai Patel's duty to see that Dr. Ambedkar is not at all entered in the parliament. In one of the speech Sardar Patel said for Ambedkar that “Not only doors of Parliament but windows are also closed”. It were the Namo Shudra people and Muslim league people who elected Dr. Ambedkar from Calcutta and send him in the parliament. By this Gandhi was so angry that the constituencies through which Dr. Ambedkar was elected, "Khulna" and "Zasoor" were handed over to Pakistan after partition. What a great national leader Gandhi was? In the independant India elections Congress haven’t put any candidate against their rivals Jai Prakash Narayan, Achut Patwardhan etc.. But tried their best not to elect Dr. Ambedkar. They put 4th class candidate against Dr. Ambedkar and got elected. By going through all these historical facts, how one will believe that Gandhi himself had made Dr. Ambedkar the chairman of drafting committee. It was the political condition of Britishers to draft representative constitution to get independence.
It was necessary not to picturised the actual facts in this film, which will benefit arya brahmins and specifically for congress. If the historical facts could have been picturised then almost 90% votes of congress would have cut, by which congress would have never upsurge in power.
There is an undeclared ban on Dr. Ambedkar’s film. Why is it so? Why it was been shown in only Maharashtra and Gujarat State? For one of the premier show in Gujarat one journalist of Times of India was invited. While watching movie, he noticed that with the entry of Dr. Ambedkar on curtain there are lots of clapping from the spectators, but with the entry of Gandhi, all shouted that " Taklu had come" (Bald had come). This reaction was published in Times of India newspaper. The brahmins got scared by this reaction and declared undeclared ban on this film. The video cassettes/Cd’s are also not available in the market.
BAMCEF will try to make a film on Dr. Ambedkar till 2004. In this the basic conflicts of Dr. Ambedkar and Gandhi will be the central theme of the film. In India nobody disobeyed Gandhi, but Dr. Ambedkar made him to bow infront of me. We will elaborate this in our film. The conspiracy in Poona pact will also be exposed.
The real character of Dr. Ambedkar will definitely reflect in the film that will be made by BAMCEF.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |