Written by: JBR
Mani Ratnam is rated as one of the greatest directors of Indian cinema. Transcending individual's problems and treating national issues, particularly after 'Roja' he is recognized as a bright director at a national level. His latest offering 'Guru' again crosses over regional borders and deals with a giant sized business leader.
Gurukant Desai generally referred to as Gurubhai has been nurturing a dream to become a big industrialist even as he was young. The money he earned by working in Turkey was not enough as an investment. To earn a dowry he gets married to Sujata (Aishwarya Rai). Soon after marriage, he shifts to Bombay along with his wife and brother in law. There he turns, twists, and transforms the laws and regulations that stood as hurdles, by his ingenuity, his money power and journalistic connections and realizes his dream. The newspaper magnate who helps Gurubhai in realizing his dream, knowing fully well the wrong methods adopted by Gurubhai amasses evidences against him and tries to contain his growing economic power. Contesting even such opposition, Gurubhai raises the exhilarating question with his shareholders, “Is it enough to be the largest company in India, should we not become No.1 in the world?” and there ends the film.
Velu Naicker, the hero of 'Nayakan' is similar to Gurubhai. Both came to Bombay from their villages. Both violated the law. They had the muscle power to control the Government. But there is one fundamental difference. Unlike Gurubhai, Velu Naicker did not choose to have a life like that. Indeed, Velu Naicker's violation of the law was not chosen by him, but imposed on him by the circumstances. On the contrary, what all violations of the law that Gurubhai chose to undertake was in pursuit of his personal dream.
The hero of 'Nayakan' loses his wife and friends as a penalty of his illegal activities. He had to sacrifice his son and his wife. He was suffering from a dilemma if he was a good or a bad man. Finally he was shot dead.
For the same violations of law, except for murders, Gurubhai was never penalized. More importantly, he was able to justify every act of his – leaving no guilt feeling at all.
What was the reason that Velu Naicker got death for his violations and Gurubhai got red carpet welcome? Are the laws of the land and social justice different in their periods?
No. Velu Naicker for all his good deeds was considered a criminal both by the Government and the society. But the Government and the society saw Gurubhai as an industrialist ignoring all his violations of the law. It is crime only when ordinary citizens violate the law. The same crime committed by an industrialist is seen as a business strategy and a proactive national initiative. This partiality has spread its tentacles into the Indian society.
As a creative director, has Mani Ratnam questioned this contradiction? The answer is 'No.' In fact the scenes, dialogues and characters were written to justify this contradiction. Not stopping with that, Gurubhai has been projected as an example for the nation. In an effort to dilute his violations of the law, his family affairs have been brought to the fore.
By cheating the customs, Gurubhai imports more machinery than six and stating they were spare parts. The man on the street may think that after all it is an effort to increase production. But it is a violation! That would create economic imbalance. Government has allowed unlimited fishing for fishermen with ordinary boats but only 24 hours for mechanized boats. This is done with the idea that ordinary fishermen's livelihood should not be eaten away by the holders of the mechanized boats. Allowing an individual to unlimited production would affect the competition and economically weak players in the field. How would it be if the body is shrinking and the head alone is bloating? Gurubhai's violation of the law was similar to that.
For cheating the custom's department, Gurubhai's factory was sealed and Gurubhai's friend, who was responsible for such a violation, tries to commit suicide by cutting his wrists. Gurubhai comes to visit him in the hospital. After admonishing him for being responsible for the closure of this factory, he becomes emotional on his friend trying to commit suicide when he says, “For a man who never cried even on the death of his father, you have made me cry. You want me to die along with you?”
The director succeeds in washing away all the sins of Gurubhai by projecting his emotional attachment for a dying friend.
Back to the poinThe director engages himself in cleaning up all the dirt off Gurubhai by showing his love for the family and his affection for Nanaji's disabled granddaughter.
This is evident in the characterizations too. Gurubhai is suffering from paralysis. The guilt feeling plagues Nanaji the journalist who publishes only truth, if his own actions were responsible for that. On the contrary no guilt feeling ever came near Gurubhai. He justifies all his mistakes before the Commission.
The character that always stayed with the truth who feels guilty and the character who walks head above shoulders after making volumes of mistakes – it is a thought provoking characterization.
Gurubhai collects documents to demolish his opponents. He never inflicts body wounds with sword and other weapons like Velu Naicker. This also matters in seeing Velu Naicker as a criminal and Gurubhai as an industrialist.
But document violence is more painful than inflicting pain to the body. Because inflicting pain only affects the individual and his cronies. But when people like Gurubhai spread lies in the newspapers, it confuses millions of newspaper readers besides targeting the people who are directly affected. Raising and pulling down the share prices to benefit some friends and such acts to create a world of false well-being and make people believe it.
Nowhere in the film was there any discussion on such violence. On the contrary, Nanaji who opposes is troubled. The man who indulges in such violence is celebrated as a national example.
Gurubhai is arguing passionately in front of the Commission in the final phase of the film. He argues and indirectly indicates that all his violations of law have benefited the country. Two words that frequently find place in his argument: you and us. 'Us' refers to Gurubhai and millions of his shareholders. But then who are the 'you'? The farmers, workers and all those who are not part of his business interest.
Gurubhai's arguments amount to removing all the laws like customs duty and income tax that stand in the way of his business interest. In short he wants to be a king unfettered by any of the laws. Anything that stops it, Gurubhai would destroy by overcoming it or by becoming meek. No commission should examine his ways of doing business. On the contrary, he expects limitless subsidies and concessions. Because, Gurubhai wants to fly. He had to fly to the top of the world carrying his shareholders.
Is it right to bend the laws to suit some industrialists? Would it not be an injustice to those millions who have nothing to do with him?
No. It was Gurubhai's misfortune that it took place in 1980s. If it were to be today, the Government itself would have created 'Special Economic Zone' and delivered it to him.
|
Feedback!
|
|
-10.01.2007
