Sometime more than a week ago, Amitabh Bachchan decided to utilize a new medium for making his stand clear on things - where his words are not filtered through the press. He started his personal blog.

Recent media reports targeting him for his supposed lack of contribution to Maharashtra had disturbed me to an extent…not so much for him in particular, but for the state of affairs in our country where caste and regional identities are repeatedly made to come out stronger than our national identity or basic humanity.  I decided to write to him, voicing my thoughts on this issue, and about the ways in which I had known him. I was glad to see his response to me the next day. Was happy to note that of the 578 comments he received on that single day, my name was on top in his response. I had managed to convey my thoughts to Amitabh the person and not the star.

Given below are his response and my entry. In the following days, I responded to him on two other occassions as well (but that will make for another entry some day..or they may lie buried in the sea of comments that have started flooding his blog, which, as per a Rediff piece, "may still take a while before".."reach[ing] the huge number Aamir Khan gets for his blog").

Amitabh’s response to my comments on the night of April 19, 2008,

"Naresh Agarwal from Singapore did a huge page and description of his links with my films and my issues and i thank him for his views and his strong support."

Copied below is what I had written:

Naresh Kumar Agarwal Says:
April 19th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Singapore 19 April 2008

Dear Mr Bachchan / Amit ji / Amit Uncle,

Haven’t ever thought of addressing you in any particular way, but this is an opportunity. Perhaps I’d go for Amit ji. It is not too professional in a western sense, preserves your individuality with no reference to age, is worthy of my Indian and family values, and is respectful of your stature.

A BRIEF BACKGROUND: I’m a 31-year old Indian, based in Singapore for the past 13 years. Hailing from my beautiful Sikkim, I’ve studied and excelled in the most prestigious school in Sikkim, Tashi Namgyal Academy. In 1995, I won a 100% scholarship for undergraduate education in Singapore. Got my Computer Engineering degree and worked for a few years in the IT industry. Am currently pursuing a PhD in Information Systems at the National University of Singapore. Will move to US for an Academic career once I finish. Hope to make a lot of difference to India and the world during my lifetime. More details here.

Growing up in Sikkim in the 1980s, you were ‘Amitabachan’ in my mind as a child. I remember watching ‘Coolie’ (the song..saari duniya ka bojh hum uthaate hain..), flashes of barbed wire on your forehead in Desh Premee (and I turned my head away to avoid seeing your pain), how I wanted to watch Mahaan because you had a triple role..and Kaalia (still haven’t watched both the movies). Everyone used to say Sholay is superhit. When I watched it as a child, I didn’t like the violence and didn’t understand why it was so great. Didn’t like to see the sadness in Jaya Bhaduri in the white saree of a widow.

As I grew up and understood the meaning of life and people, I stopped being in awe of filmstars. Understood that they’re just doing their job the way I am. No point putting them on a pedestal or pulling them down. The only personality I’m still in awe of is Lata Mangeshkar. That’s because she has especially been blessed by God to heal millions with the divinity in her voice. My ideal in life is Mahatma Gandhi..again, not because he was so great or extraordinary, but precisely because he was as ordinary as I am or you are (don’t mean to pull you down by putting ‘you’ here, but am talking on a human level). It was his staunch belief in Truth and in himself that made him extraordinary. That we do a disservice to him by putting him on a pedestal. My motto in life is ‘Let your inner spark ‘glow’..you and I could be the next Gandhi.’ You can read more on my thougts about life here.

One of my hobbies has been painting (oil/watercolor) and sketching. In 2001, I made a pencil sketch of yours as a gift to a friend who was a die-hard fan of yours. You can see the sketch here.

 

For some time, I worked as a software engineer with a digital cinema company which was setting up digital cinema servers in theatres in India in partnership with Mr Manmohan Shetty/Adlabs. Hrithik Roshan had invited you and other film personalities for a premiere at Adlabs. I was in that theatre, watching you all from a balcony right above your heads, along with another friend (at one point, Hrithik Roshan looked up, and must have wondered who this guy is or what is he doing here). The friend with me was saying, ‘Ab dekhna. Aise gale milenge jaise bachpan se langotia yaar ho. Peeth peeche burai karenge.’ Not sure about that, but what I noticed was the way you all met was just what happens in any of the parties I’ve attended or any youngster attends today…normal Hi’s and hugs. Yes, majority are social acquaintances, some close friends perhaps. Something which struck me about you was your sense of punctuality. You came in and sat on a chair towards the back when the theatre was empty - the first person to come in. If I remember correctly, you were wearing long kurta-pyjamas. You stood up and greeted graciously, the people who came to meet you. Bipasha Basu came and introduced her mother to you. She mentioned how she’s a big fan of yours. There was Rani, Perizad Zorabien, Aamir Khan with a big moustache for Mangal Pandey, and various others.

In recent years, I have felt that celebrities don’t do enough to make a difference to the society around them, given the amount of adulation and reach you people have. Yes, there are the charity functions and endorsement to campaigns. But it usually ends there (Lata Mangeshkar’s hospital, your starting a school in UP, Sanjay Dutt’s work for charities, Sushmita Sen’s adopting a child and Shabana Azmi’s unrelenting fights, among others, are welcome exceptions). Celebrities are too busy doing their jobs (getting films and acting in them, struggling with the press for the quotes and the misquotes, zealously guarding your family from prying eyes, and, at the end of the day, just trying to lead a normal life). It takes courage for a Bhaichung Bhutia to stand up and say that he won’t run with the Olympic torch in support of the Tibetans, or for an Aamir Khan to take a stand against attending Award Functions. Your biggest act of courage, I feel, has been the way you quietly fought back and resurrected yourself after everyone was raving to pull you down since your first stint as superstar. You’re open to learning new methods and from youngsters. This openness is what keeps you in the news and the public memory - that you were willing to still compete and not just bask in your past glory. Your presence in this blog today is testimony to that.

Coming to the politics over your contribution to Maharashtra, here are my thoughts. We all know the whole issue is political and nothing else. Politicians are ready to trade the essential values of our country and constitution just to establish their hold on power. Our anthemma is that our regional and caste identities are stronger than our national identiy. That said, immigration is always a major issue with countries. In our case, with Mumbai and Delhi, its happening within the same country and cannot be termed immigration. Our constitution provides every Indian a right to move, work and settle anywhere in the country. What Mumbaikars need to understand is that however difficult it may seem, the countries that have done exceedingly well in the long run are those that have welcomed immigration - case in point Singapore and the United States. Singapore has done so well, and was able to move from the third world to the first world, was because it welcomed foreign talent from all over - from India, China, and other countries (even though it meant more competition for jobs for the local population). In the long run, it helped in creating more jobs for the local population, and helped increased their skill levels. Mumbai is what it is today because of its assimilation of people from all over and of all kinds. This is the idea of India, of Hinduism, and of democracy. Anybody who doesn’t understand is living in a fool’s world, and is a person who doesn’t believe in his or her own abilities and in God. S/he is just seeking an easy way out and doesn’t want to earn his/her bread.

The big question! Has Amitabh Bachchan done enough for Maharashtra? Has Amitabh Bachchan done enough for any other parts of India..for India as a whole..or for humanity? In his own way, Yes! By being himself, Yes! Did it have a big impact - Yes! Has he done enough in the way other people would have liked - Perhaps No. But 1) why should he? As he himself says, he’s a public figure, not a public official. 2) Why should he be singled out..if he’s not done enough..celebrities as a whole perhaps have not done enough..perhaps a Sachin Tendulkar, a Shah Rukh Khan, perhaps even a Lata Mangeshkar..How much has Madhuri Dikshit, a Marathi/Maharashtrian done for Maharashtra? Should she be doing more? May be/May be not. 3) And why single out celebrities? What about the politicians? How much has Raj Thackrey done for Maharashtra? What about people from other professions? The so called ‘aam-aadmi’ or the ‘common’ man.

Before anybody in Maharashtra gets the right to demand, ‘How much has Amitabh Bachchan done for Maharashtra?’ a question every Maharashtran must be asking is, ‘How much have ‘I’ done for Maharashtra?’ ‘How much have ‘I’ done for India?’ If the aam-aadmi is struggling in his day to day life, so is Amitabh Bachchan, in his own way. That’s because it is the way life is, difficult by its very nature. It doesn’t differentiate between an Amitabh Bachchan, a Raj Thakarey, a Mahatma Gandhi, a Lata Mangeshkar, a Mayawati, or an aam-aadmi in giving his/her share of difficulties. While we don’t have choice over our circumstances or conditions, we do have the choice over how we react to our circumstances. And this is what makes all the difference. This is what made Mohandas into Mahatma Gandhi - not because he was any more privileged than the rest or life was any easier for him.

Regarding the construction of your school in UP…If Maharashtrians feel that that uneducated people from Uttar Pradesh flocking into Maharashtra are doing harm to the State, then the biggest service anyone can do to Maharashtra is by creating conditions in Uttar Pradesh whereby poor people don’t need to leave the state in the first place. A prerequisite is education. Amitabh Bachchan, by starting a school in Uttar Pradesh, has thus, done the biggest service to Maharashtra. If more and more good quality schools are constructed in UP and Bihar, it will do Mumbai and Maharashtra good in the long run. If this doesn’t make sense to a reader, he should try and think why our Central Government, despite our difficult relations with Pakistan, says that a happy and prosperous Pakistan is in the best interests of India.

I’m sure you didn’t really need to know all my thoughts..they may or may not have any importance..I may not appear to be an adulating fan (though I respect your body of work and enjoy a lot of your movies; you’re the best of what we have in any case)..but now that you’ve decided to reach out directly to people, I thought it was time for me to reach out directly to you.

I’d be glad if you let me know your thoughts on what I’ve said. You may reply either through this blog or directly to me on my email.

Warm regards,

A fellow Indian,
Naresh Agarwal

Wesbite: http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~naresh
Blog: http://naresh.blogsome.com

On 10 April 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld a law which provides for 27 percent reservation for the Socially and Educationally backward ‘castes’ of India (many communities have fought and are fighting to get their surname recognized as an OBC surname), termed OBCs, in premier educational institutions supported by Central Government, which includes the IITs, IIMs and AIIMS. This ruling takes the quota of reserved seats in India’s premier higher education institutes to 49.5%. In a balanced judgment, the creamy layer (or the rich) among the OBCs were excluded from the reservation. Government jobs already have had quotas implemented. Many political parties want to extend the quota and reservation to the private sector as well - which could mean that all MNCs coming to India may be expected to provide reservations based on the family name of the applicant.

Indian society, since ages, had been divided into 4 major ‘varnas’ or classes. These included, from the higest to the lowest - the Brahmin (the priest or the teacher or the scholar or the advisor), the Kshatriya (the warrior or the ruler or the king), the Vaishya (the trader, the businessman, the professional) and the Shudra (the lowest caste - service-providing groups, some artisan groups).

"The Manu Smriti claims that by the time it was written, Hindu society included another class (untouchables) of people without a position in any of the four Varnas and therefore associated with the lowest of the jobs. The upper classes, who were supposed to maintain ritual and corporal purity, came to regard them as untouchables. The people of this "fifth varna" are now called Dalits (the oppressed) or Harijans; they were formerly known as "untouchables" or "pariahs". However, this last addition social strata is not a part of the religion of Hinduism. Hinduism only categorizes occupations in to four categories" (Wikipedia - Varna in Hinduism).

The caste system was first introduced in India to promote division of labour as per one’s expertise. It was not supposed to be hereditary.

‘It is very clear that in the early Vedic times, the Varna system (if at all it existed) meant classes with free mobility of jobs and intermarriage’ (Wikipedia - Varna in Hinduism). One hymn of the Rig Veda states:

कारुरहं ततो भिषगुपलप्रक्षिणी नना । (RV 9.112.3)
"I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother’s job is to grind the corn……"

The highest classes, in order to protect their status and their children, refused to let go and slowly people started identifying castes with their family name. The thousands of surnames attached to people’s names in India can roughly be slotted into any of the four varnas. ‘Offsprings of differnent ‘varnas’ belong to different ‘Jatis’ [or castes]’ (Wikipedia - Caste System in India). With independence in 1947, and a constitution providing equality for all, people started growing and developing irrespective of their castes. In KR Narayanan, India had its first Dalit president - a person of the lowest caste occupying the highest office of the land. Still social injustice prevails at various levels, especially in the villages. The rich and the poor in modern India can no longer be classified on the basis of the castes. There are rich Brahmins, and the poorest of Brahmins (no better than beggars, hoping for every person to give them 1-rupee for appying ’tilak’ or a red dot on a person’s forehead), the rich Kshatriyas and the poor Kshatriyas (in a democracy, monarchs anyways lost their traditional rights to rule on the basis of birth), the rich Vaishyas and the poor Vaishyas, and also the rich Shudras and the poor Shudras.

In 1947, reservation was provided to the lowest classes, to help in their social upliftment. It was intended to be for a period of 10 years, and slowly done away with. The vote bank politics of a democracy ensured that successive governments only increased the quantum of quota and spread the reservation/quota net far and wide (with more and more people clamouring for quota and reservation). Now, after 60 years of India’s independence, this reservation has increased to close to 50%.

The justification is a politics of revenge. It is way of fighting historical inequality not be providing equal opportunity to all or affirmative action on the basis of one’s financial condition (but making surname a criterion for admission into universities). It is like trying to fight dowry not by making it illegal, but by making it mandatory for the groom’s family to pay hefty amounts to the bride’s family (as a means to avenge historical wrongs where the bride’s family has to suffer due to demands from the groom’s family).

So looking to the future in a 21st century India (the largest democracy in the world and one of its fastest growing economies), the caste system of India has been hailed. The division in society has been kept, maintained, solidified and institutionalized. Only the order has been reversed. This is the new order:

1) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs) - highest caste (The new Brahmins)

2) The Other Backward Classes (OBCs) (without creamy layer) - the ruling class (The new Kshatriyas)

3) OBCs with creamy layer - the new Vaishyas (they may fight to be counted amongst the ruling class)

4) The General or Forward Class (people in India having surnames signifying higher caste) - the new Shudras (they will either suffer or flee to foreign lands and foreign Universities).

Their is no point lamenting over ‘brain drain’. It has been institutionalized!