Submit your Article

Romantic Drama

DHADAK

CAST: Ishaan Khatter, Janhvi Kapoor, Ashutosh Rana

DIRECTION: Shashank Khaitan

1 and half stars

In the small town of Udaipur, India, a boy falls in love with a girl. Madhukar (Ishaan Khatter) is the only son of a family that run a modest eatery while Parthavi (Jan­hvi Kapoor) comes from a high caste Rajput family led by her patriarch father (Ashutosh Rana) with political ambitions. It’s easy to guess where the story goes from here. ‘Dhadak’ is pitched as the tradi­tional Romeo-Juliet love story where doomed lovers Madhukar and Par­thavi have to battle great odds to save their love. The only reason for a conventional ‘Dhadak’ to exist when off-beat small town romantic dramas like ‘Barielly ki Barfi’, ‘Dum Lagake Haisa’ and ‘Subh Mangal Savadhan’ are working their magic is that it’s a remake of the highly suc­cessful Marathi film ‘Sairat’, which is just two years old.

Unlike writer/director Nagraj Man­jule’s ‘Sairat’ that was made on a low budget of 4 crores and cast first time actors with no film industry connec­tions, ‘Dhadak’ is produced by Bol­lywood’s leading film studio Dharma Production, owned by Karan Johar, on a reported budget of 75 crores. And the film comes at a time when Bollywood’s A-list makers like Johar have been accused of favoring star kids over outsiders. ‘Dhadak’ too has been deemed as a launch pad for the late Bollywood diva Sridevi’s daughter (Janhvi Kapoor) and Sha­hid Kapoor’s younger step brother (Ishaan Khatter).

This needs to be highlighted to understand why the run-of-the-mill romantic plot felt refreshing in ‘Sairat’ and why it feels synthetic in ‘Dhadak’ even with big names and a mammoth budget. Nagraj Manjule, himself a dalit, crafted the original film’s caste conflict with devastating intimacy. The story might have been a tad clichéd but Manjule was able to engineer many tensed and heartfelt moments in the story that seam­lessly threaded together adolescent romance and vicious world of caste-based violence.

Shashank Khaitan, who directs the remake, gives us a sanitized world with lush production design and actors putting on fake Rajasthani accents. He’s reluctant to critique the Indian caste system and makes do with a parallel subplot of regional politics.

He paints the young Madhukar and Parthavi with such sketchy details that their romance seems like shallow puppy love, not something that has viewers fidgeting, praying for their budding love to survive the bone dry societal climate. Khaitan’s work is too breezy to evoke anything close to that feeling.

Much of the success of the orig­inal film has been credited to the majestic orchestra-driven musi­cal score and pulsating songs of composers Ajay-Atul. Their music has been reused in ‘Dhadak’ but Khaitan falters under the weight of his film’s grand visual look and frolicking touristy landscape that leave no space for the music to inject soul.

There’s nothing noteworthy in the young lead actors’ perfor­mances. Khatter is mawkish and impresses sparingly with his ever-ex­panding grin in the film’s lighter moments. He definitely shows range when the story shifts, as he easily grows broodier and less gooey-eyed. But his counterpart Janhvi Kapoor remains one note for most of the film. To look headstrong and bratty, Kapoor rigs up a stiff facial expression that doesn’t look one bit comfortable.

‘Dhadak’ is a flossy and less poetic version of ‘Sairat’. It gives no sign of cinematic ambition and looks like a quick cash grab marketing strategy of a big Indian film studio.

Over the past three decades economic growth has averaged under five percent. The increasing imports and declining exports has badly hampered our balance of pay­ment. The class structure of the society is changing and the role of the middle class growing. Yet we have been unable to use this fact to draft our economic policies. In every area, we are more and more dependent on outsiders, especially India.

We have been unable to make electricity a base for national prosperity. With a history of over 100 years of hydropower, we have been able to generate only around 1,000 MW in this time. We still consider agriculture a foundation of our economy and yet its share in overall economy is steadily declining and agricultural imports are increasing. There is a fundamental contradiction here.

On the one hand, we say that agriculture is the foundation of our economy and on the other, we have been unable to rise above subsistence agriculture. The economy is com­pletely dependent on foreign employment and remittance and the country is becoming a big hub for constant consumption. Corruption is increasing, as is evident in the country’s steady decline in the Corruption Perception Index, and the country is slowly going into the hands of crony capitalists.

To take the country out of this morass and to achieve the desired development and pros­perity we first need a clear framework for national prosperity. What kind of prosperity are we aiming for? How can we get there? What are the main hurdles and conditions? We need clarity on these fronts. The main deter­minants of prosperity are infrastructure devel­opment, increase in industrial output and its judicious distribution, sustainable harnessing of resources, people’s emotional satisfaction, etc. Prosperity is basically economic develop­ment that makes people happy.

This happiness comes not just from an increase in incomes but also from quality edu­cation, health, and a betterment in a person’s lifestyle and social standing. Here it becomes relevant to discuss Naya Shakti party’s political and procedural course. Our ulti­mate goal is ‘developed socialism’, to achieve which we need ‘inclusive prosperity’. And in order to arrive at this kind of prosperity we believe there has to be ‘inclusive, proportional and participatory democracy’, which in turn calls for ‘sovereignty’ and ‘good governance’ and ‘high ethics’.

Governance is basically a way to run state affairs, and a system that is both answerable and within legal bounds. But how does the government get these rights and how does it exercise them? These are important questions. In a democracy, such rights can be earned and exercised only with mass approval.

According to American political scientist Francis Fukuyama, governance is the ability to draft and implement laws and to work in pub­lic interest, whether or not the government is democratic. This also determines whether there is good or bad governance. Hence, for there to be good governance, it is vital that all organs of the state are transparent and work according to democrat­ic principles, and that all these organs are directly answerable to the people.

The quality of governance hinges on whether a govern­ment is ready to meet the expectations of the common folks rather than only work for a particular interest group. This is why democracy and good governance are related and help each other.

At the 2005 UN World Summit, world lead­ers recognized good governance as indispens­able for economic growth, poverty reduction and sustainable development. Also, without good governance there can be no inclusive­ness. Unless common people’s access to infor­mation is guaranteed by making them part of decision-making, Nepal will never be able to achieve the kind of prosperity it desires.

Good governance and prosperity are also closely linked. The reason Nepal has not been able to make rapid economic progress is largely due to lack of good governance. A government is an indispensable unit that has to maintain relations with market, citizens, public institutions, peoples’ representatives, civil society and private sector. The more these relations are cooperative and transparent, the higher the chances of prosperity. Yet these relations in Nepal have always been iffy.

This is why, no matter how much we discuss development and prosperity, unless we can work out its determinants and frameworks, there can never be real prosperity. When speaking about prosperity, we should at the same time address the questions of good governance, inclusiveness and sovereignty. It is our corrupt governing system that is the main impediment to prosperity. But how do we improve upon this system ?

The author is Naya Shakti central committee member and an economic analyst

Disability is back on the global development agenda. Hope­fully, rights of people with disabilities will now enter national development plans of developing and emerging countries. This hope stems from a major ini­tiative being undertaken by the Brit­ish Government through its over­seas aid agency, the Government of Kenya and the International Dis­ability Alliance. Disability activists around the world are set to gather in London on July 24 for the Global Disability Summit.

Disability has unfortunately never been the main focus in the overall developmental agenda. Even though experts acknowledge it as import­ant, it has always been considered an “add on”, secondary or in worst cases, not given any attention.

The Summit, with a Civil Society Forum taking place a day earlier, is an opportunity to reset the global development agenda, so that rights of people with disabilities are given priority in the sustainable develop­ment agenda. It will be cohosted by an interesting triad: a govern­ment development agency from the North, a government of the South representing an emerging region like eastern Africa and the global alliance of networks and agencies focused on disabilities.

Nepal will be represented by the Minister for Women, Children & Social Welfare and a group of select activists. They were instrumental last year in ensuring the enactment of the new Disability Rights Act, a groundbreaking document that aligns the country to the Interna­tional Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and makes Nepal a progressive nation on social inclusion, at least on paper.

In preparation of the global sum­mit, a stakeholder summit was recently organized in Kathmandu. Dozens of activists showcased their achievements and shared their sto­ries. Rarely has such an event been organized in Nepal where social inclusion and disability activists meet. As Shudarson Subedi, the President of the National Federation of Disabled Nepal, highlighted in his opening speech, disability agenda is rarely linked to overall national development agenda. There are pos­itive changes in terms of social inclu­sion in Nepal but disability issues are still neglected. Mainstreaming complex issues like social inclusion of marginalized groups, including people with disabilities, is hard.

Independent, full-fledged pro­grams focusing on disability rights are rare. Even though explanation of such misery is found in the “main­streaming” principle, it is hard to justify it from a practical point of view especially if nothing else hap­pens for the cause.

The national event in Nepal made it clear that there is an incredible group of activists and experts, with tremendous passion and determination working to bring positive changes.

Other positive things are happen­ing too. The Ministry of Education with the support of external devel­opment partners are working on a more inclusive education system. This long term plan, if implemented properly, will allow children with disabilities in integrated schools.

However, more effort is required to make Nepal an inclusive and open society for the disabled. Resources are required to scale up and bold partnerships called for to pro­mote best practices and innovative approaches. Organizations working for the cause of disability must be able to work together, sharing prac­tices and promoting joint initiatives.

Thematic clusters on single issues related to disability and social inclu­sion could be rolled together to create more synergies and achieve scale. It should also promote sus­tainable initiatives to break the usual dependency trap.

If businesses and citizens consider improving lives of the disabled as a personal responsibility, it would play a crucial role in making Nepal a better place for all. External devel­opment partners could play an important role in supporting such an eco-system, rewarding actors who bring tangible results.

The state at all levels have the duty to act and promote the imple­mentation of the new Act, starting with a massive capacity building of local bodies. Elected officers must be considerate of people with dis­abilities and other disadvantaged groups. They must be responsive and accountable to them, as they constitute a considerable voting bloc. Helping the disabled should always be a part of the broader agenda of developing Nepal, where marginalized and vulnerable groups also have a role to play.

Hopefully the Global Disability Summit will help create momentum both internationally and locally.

The author is co-founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities.

[email protected]

When the current govern­ment took office in Feb­ruary this year, there was excitement over the prospect of stability and a new era of ‘pros­perity.’ Five months later, even though it is too early to give a definitive judgment, much of the excitement has evaporated. The promise of an end to ‘business as usual’ has failed to materialize; the tough talk of ending ‘syndi­cates’ in transport sector died down. Instead there are whis­pers of allowing the status quo to remain until a new arrangement, and outsourcing of public poli­cy to interest groups. Likewise, the talk of overhauling the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has been limited to just that and the idea of forming think-tanks within the PMO to generate policy options hasn’t left the drawing board.Much of this chaos and criti­cism stems from lack of adequate decision-making structure and absence of institutionalized deci­sion-making culture. Ad-hocism may sometimes have its merit, but in general it does more harm than good. The first priority for this government should have been putting together a structure to streamline decision-making as well as implementation process­es. Instead ministers and Nepal Communist Party officials have been busy unraveling the exist­ing structure without ensuring a proper replacement.

It isn’t too late to undo some of the early missteps provided that the members of the govern­ment have the humility to review and reflect on their actions so far. Instead of seeing this sudden surge in protests as a grand con­spiracy, they should ask them­selves: where have we failed?

The solution is still the same: putting together a proper struc­ture. This should start at all levels simultaneously but most impor­tantly at the nerve center of the government: the PMO. Currently the PMO has too many cooks—both political appointees and civil servants—working at cross-pur­pose with no integration of their services and accountability.

While the political appointees have may the prime minister’s ears, it is the career civil servants who have authority to get things done. And there has historically been mutual hostility between the two sets of staff—affecting the efficacy of the PMO, as well other ministries and departments.

The reporting and accountabil­ity structure in the PMO and oth­er ministries and departments should be streamlined. There should be a clearly designated Chief of Staff or Head of Staff who acts as a buffer between the exec­utive and the entire team. This allows for structured flow of infor­mation, inputs and decisions.

Such a structure will make the entire team responsible—lead­ing to increased likelihood that any announcements the prime minister or the executive makes is backed by due-diligence and homework, thus ensuring its success. It will also minimize the risk of party officials leveraging associations with the prime min­ister for personal gains. Such a structure will also lend credence and status to prime minister’s numerous advisors while deal­ing with foreign government and their entities—providing a clear pecking order for others to see and interact with.

In the United States, almost all executive-level offices have a designated chief of staff, includ­ing Congressmen. The position combines functions of private secretary, confidante and advi­sor—giving the office bearer broad authority to decide who gets to see the executive or what informa­tion reaches his or her desk.

There is an urgent need to streamline the PMO and oth­er executive offices through a Cabinet decision—laying down the standard operating proce­dures and hierarchy—integrat­ing the roles and responsibilities of both career civil servants and political appointees. In the long run, this should be institutionalized through a parliamentary act.