Dinesh Thakur created a space for hindi theatre in Mumbai


Dinesh Thakur

Sep 21,  Mumbai, Mid day

Veteran theatre and cinema stalwart Dinesh Thakur passed away after a prolonged illness, leaving behind a huge void in Hindi cinema and theatre

As recently as late August, Ank Productions, which Dinesh Thakur and wife Preeta had staged Ravindranjali, which brought alive the magic of Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore’s songs on stage with an artistic expression of some of the legend’s most beautiful creations, through music, drama and dance. Ank was close to the theatre and cinema veteran’s heart till the end. His oldest and still popular theatre production is Jis Lahore Nahi Dekhya.

Veteran theatre actor-director Dinesh Thakur, known for his character roles in Hindi films of the 70s, passed away here today after prolonged illness.

Dinesh Thakur was suffering from kidney ailments and died at a suburban Andheri hospital, family sources said. He was 65 and is survived by actor-wife Prita Mathur. Dinesh Thakur has several acclaimed films like Mere Apne, Rajanigandha and Ghar to his credit. He headed a theatre group called ANK Productions for the last three decades. His oldest and still popular theatre production is Jis Lahore Nahi Dekhya.

Dinesh Thakur had showcased his play Rang Bajrang at the Prithvi and Tata theatres in April last year. He was a noted Indian theatre director, actor in theatre, television and Hindi films, where most notably he appeared as one of the leads in Rajnigandha (1974) directed by Basu Chatterjee, which won both Filmfare Best Movie Award and the Filmfare Critics Award for Best Movie. He appeared in character roles in Hindi films and also was a screenwriter and story writer.

He is known for writing the story and screenplay of Ghar (1978), which won him the 1979 Filmfare Best Story Award.

Dinesh Thakur’s last rites will be conducted today at the Oshiwara crematorium around 4.30 pm.

Four contemporaries from cinema and theatre reflect on this immeasurable loss:

Rahul daCunha: Dinesh was a true doyen of Hindi theatre. A pioneer in his field, he went ahead and creditably made a living from it when no one else dared to.

Amol PalekarThough we worked with each other in Rajnigandha, we shared a bond before that. Both of us played the same character in the play Adhe Adhure, in two different productions, his was directed by Om Shivpuri, whereas I acted in the one directed by Satyadev Dubey. Another funny thing about the movie was that he being from Delhi, all his scenes were shot in Mumbai, and all my scenes were shot in Delhi. We all eventually had a reunion at the after party, at producer Suresh Jindal’s residence. Since the movie, we have shared a close friendship. Even when I learnt of his illness, I rushed to Mumbai but he was already in ICU.

Salim Arif: Dinesh Thakur was like family to me. My wife Lubna has also worked with him. I designed the costumes for his famous play, Jis Lahore Nahi Dekhya. That was nearly 10 to 12 years ago. He was very fond of all of us. With his demise, theatre has lost a very important soldier. He was committed to theatre for three decades. Though he initially did a few films, he made a conscious choice to be in theatre and devote his life to theatre, which I believe is remarkable. Many young and talented actors have worked with him. What many people don’t know about him is that he was also a very good teacher. He trained several artists too. Dineshji has been one of the people responsible for creating a space for Hindi theatre in a city like Mumbai.

Shabana Azmi: It’s a big loss to the theatre world. Ank (Thakur’s theatre group) has established themselves as serious players on the theatre scene. He was ailing for sometime but fought back and would come to all important theatre events in his immaculately starched kurtas. We mourn his loss and condolences to the family.

— Compiled by Surekha S and Dhara Vora , Mid day


Rajasthan tops failed sterilizations list #vaw #gender


TNN | Sep 21, 2012,

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan government may have gone on an overdrive sterilizing women to control population but the programme has had its fallout too. The state has booked the top slot in the country in terms of the number of failed sterilization cases in 2012 so far and also registered four deaths. In fact, the state government has also had to pay hefty amounts as compensation to those affected.As per the Centre’s figures, out of the total 2,700 failed sterilization cases reported so far in the country, 772 were registered just in Rajasthan this year. The Central government figures show that states like Madhya Pradesh, UP, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, and Odisharecorded 566, 420, 177, 125 and 102 cases of failed sterilization respectively.As many as four deaths have been registered in the state due to failed sterilization complications. Each death cost the state government Rs 2 lakh, which it gives to the relatives of the deceased.

Every year Rajasthan conducts sterilization of over 3 lakh women and men in the state, often offering Nano cars and free gas connections to lure people. But the state government, which has been promoting sterilization for years as the best family planning method, has ended up paying over Rs 10 crore as a compensation for failed sterilization in the last three years, shows an RTI filed by a resident of Jaipur, Yadunath Dashanan. The figures of failed sterilization in the last three years came into light when Dashanan filed an RTI to know the figures of compensation paid by the state government.

From the response to the RTI application it was found that from 2009 to 2011, there were 4200 failed sterilization cases in Rajasthan.

As per the Central government’s figures, in 2011, too, Rajasthan recorded 16 deaths due to failed sterilization complications. But, in terms of deaths in 2011, it is much behind states like TN, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, which recorded 44, 22 and 22 deaths respectively.

Even though Rajasthan is much behind in registering sterilization cases in comparison to Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Gujarat, it recorded maximum cases of failed sterilization in 2012 till date.


Standing in a woman’s shoes #gender #justice




The Madras High Court has played a stellar role in the evolution of gender justice in its 150 years of existence, setting the trend for social change through its rulings

Physical, social and economic vulnerability affect men and women differently. Social structures give automatic advantages to the male or result in undeserved disadvantages to the female. Unless there is a positive affirmation of a woman’s rights, her voice will not be heard. This affirmation must come from courts. The Madras High Court has played a stellar role in the evolution of gender justice. On its 150th anniversary, it is fitting to recall this contribution.


I have categorised the cases that the Court has dealt with in this regard into three groups — the pre-Constitution period, 1950-2000, and the 21st century — with the full awareness that any list of “my favourites” is liable to be criticised.

In the pre-Constitution period, when the right to equality and special provisions for women were not enshrined as law, we find in the Madras High Court a remarkable recognition of the woman’s right to property, to dignity and in fact a recognition of woman as just herself and not as an adjunct to man as father, husband or son.

As early as in 1864, in Chalakonda Alasani vs. Chalakonda Ratnachalam, the Court held that the rules applicable to a coparcenary for custody of the properties and the separate ownership of self-acquisitions were applicable to female members of a devadasi community living jointly. It was dealt with as if it was a family. Nowadays, the concept of what constitutes a family may no longer be based on marriage or heterosexual ties. From that perspective, this judgment is indeed very modern.

The right to dignity of a woman was seen as an indefeasible right by the Court. In Ramnath Zamindar and Anr vs. Doraiswami (1882), the claim to legitimacy by the son of a dancing girl was upheld. The Court empathised with her reluctance to expose herself to insensitive cross-examination. In Parvathi vs. Mannar (1884), the Bench held that the English law insisting upon proof of special damage in a case of libel against a married woman would not apply under the customs and social context of this country. In both cases, the Court looked at the issue “standing in her shoes.”

Does the husband have the right to beat his wife? Such a misconception is still prevalent. But in Emperor vs. Subbaiah Goundan (1936), the Court was clear that no husband had such a right, “… and wife-beating is not eo nomine one of the exceptions in the Chapter of ‘General Exceptions’ in the Indian Penal Code … We think it necessary to state in unmistakable terms that the learned sessions judge’s declaration of the rights of husbands in this regard has no foundation, so that no one may rely upon that in future as a justification for wife-beating.” Behind the wry humour, we can sense the Court’s pain.

In re Boya Chinnappa, our Court held that the prosecutrix in a rape case cannot be treated “as if she were an accomplice so far as her credibility is concerned.” Yet how often our Courts have even in later cases treated her exactly like that and she is repeatedly victimised during the trial!

In the 50-year period that covers the second group of cases, women were moving out of their homes to seek employment, and women were also moved out of their homes because of divorce or desertion. The courts had to deal with these issues.

But first, let us look at the right to dignity again. In re Ratnamala and Another(1962), the judge held “I must reiterate that the modesty of a prostitute is entitled to equal protection, with that of any other woman. The technique of such raids must be totally altered; otherwise, grave abuses of the law might enter into the very attempt to enforce the law.” Even today, this declaration that her right to dignity is non-negotiable needs to be reiterated!

In Srinivasa Padayachi v. Parvathiammal (1969), the question was whether the pre-nuptial settlement deed was valid. The Court said: “’Marriage may be a sacrament under Hindu Law, but that does not militate against the existence of a contract for the marriage.” The tone is so modern, affirming that the factum of marriage will not destroy the woman’s contractual rights.

Divorce undeniably renders a woman economically very vulnerable, and the Court set right the imbalance. In Soundarammal vs. Sundara Mahalinga Nadar(1980), the Court observed that the laws of divorce should not result in merely wrapping the wronged woman with decree copies of alimony but that the alimony awarded should compensate her for her loss and should be realised uninterruptedly and fully. In Ameer Amanullah vs Pedikkaru Mariam Beevi(1985), the Court held that the statutory obligation to provide maintenance to the wife and children transcends personal law and operates irrespective of caste, creed or religion.

By 1985, women in employment were commonplace, and views that a woman’s rightful place was in the hearth were no longer acceptable. But patriarchal bias still permeated public spaces. The Court held in Sivanarul v. State of Tamil Nadu that a woman cannot be removed from work because she was married. InRukmani vs. The Divisional Manager, Marapalam Tea Division, the Court held that it was obnoxious and arbitrary to ask a woman to produce a “no objection” certificate from her husband to get a job. In R. Vasantha v. Union of India, the woman insisted that she shall not be excluded from employment in the night shift. The Court agreed, “This social change must necessarily have its impact upon the traditional perspectives concerning woman’s role and that must call for change in our laws … to advance the constitutional guarantees…” A true trendsetter.

A minor girl asserted that her father had no right to terminate her pregnancy. And the Court agreed in V. Krishnan vs G. Rajan @ Madipu Rajan. It is a significant decision for its admirable prescience in recognising, though tacitly, a girl’s right over her body without being trapped by extraneous questions. It said that the Constitution does not distinguish between minors and adults when it concerns fundamental rights.

In the Chidambaram Padmini case and the Meera Nireshwalia case, the very spaces that ought to be safe for a woman victimised her. In the former, the complainant was raped in a police station; in the latter, her home became a hazard. The husband, in collusion with the person who had bought her property, had termed her insane and confined her in an asylum with the help of the police. In both cases, the court showed its stern disapproval and awarded compensation.

Facing or prosecuting a matrimonial case is not easy for the woman. In Janaki vs. V. Sundaram, reminding the Family Courts about their role, the High Court held: “A starving wife cannot be compelled to face the trial. The very purpose of establishing a Family Court is to have a different atmosphere in regard to settlement of family problems. Family Court must instil faith and confidence in parties.”

This is live equality, not pedantic equality that treats two unequal persons as equal.


Now we move to the 21st century when women are turning agents of change and the Court has facilitated the process. Two women claimed that they must be appointed as members of a public trust in Lalitha Sundari and another vs. Kedarnathan (2002). The Court relied on CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), to which India is a signatory and held that there can be no discrimination against women regarding appointment to public office, and upheld their claim.

The wife who was not allowed to enter her marital home contended that it was a shared household and in Vandana vs Srikanth (2007), the Court proactively construed the concept of a “shared household” and secured her space. It was a nascent Act, and a narrow interpretation would have defeated the purpose of the enactment. And in M. Palani vs Meenakshi (2008) the Court held that maintenance can be claimed by a woman in a domestic relationship, based on consensual sex regardless of its duration. The glass ceilings in the religious space are the hardest to shatter. In Pinniyakkal vs. District Collector and ors(2008), the woman said that she had the right to be a pujari (priest) in a temple and the High Court protected her right, observing “The altars of the God must be made free from gender bias.”

The Courts did not forget the homemaker either. In National Insurance Co. vs. Minor Deepika and others, the High Court put an economic value to the work done by the homemaker. It invoked the CEDAW principles affirming her right to dignity. Turning to working women in the workplace and her right to be free of sexual harassment, the Court, in Srinivas Rajan vs Director of Matriculation Schools, said, “The Special Committee which enquired into the allegations made by the women staff … had clearly forgotten the real import of the Vishakha case.” A woman who has been widowed is traditionally expected to retire from public space but in R. Malathy vs. Director-General of Police, the woman fought for her right to continue in police service, and she succeeded. This judgment traces the history of injustice inflicted on widows. One sees that in this period, the Court has looked at gender equality from many angles.

True, the woman has not always succeeded. But as we celebrate the 150th year of a great High Court, I wish only to record the triumphs (certainly not all of them) in this humble tribute. There have been failures, but the time to dissect them is not now.

(Prabha Sridevan, a former Judge of the Madras High Court, is Chairperson, Intellectual Property Appellate Board.)



Kractivism-Gonaimate Videos

Protest to Arrest

Faking Democracy- Free Irom Sharmila Now

Faking Democracy- Repression Anti- Nuke activists


Kamayaninumerouno – Youtube Channel


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,225 other followers

Top Rated

Blog Stats

  • 1,860,720 hits


September 2012
%d bloggers like this: