#India – has Yo Yo Honey Singh already won ? #Rap #Vaw

Garga Chatterjee | Agency: DNA

A song that celebrates rape and sung allegedly by Honey Singh has been ‘discovered’. The tragedy in Delhi created the ground for this. If the discovery was supposed to raise awareness against the contents of the songs, that scheme has failed miserably. The number of online views of the said song has shot up steeply ever since the free publicity. Honey has denied singing the ‘Balatkari’ song.

Many people and groups, who, till yesterday had hardly heard of Honey Singh or this song, have assembled his paper and cloth idols to consign them to flames in public amidst much supportive sloganeering. This speedy move from relative ignorance to active denunciation, however heartfelt, is all too familiar. This has also given a good cover to misogynists to peddle high-decibel righteousness. If morality-fired censorship riding high on the back of a human tragedy is not immoral and cynical, I do not know what is. Even more cynical is how some such groups stand side-by-side folks who have devoted decades working at the grassroots – Honey has provided a strange equalizing opportunity, a short-cut.

Many patriotic songs are full of exhortation of death and killing of name-less ‘enemies’. ‘Religious songs’ have elements of killing demons (considered by many as euphemism for Dalits) and infidels. Most of the folks who want to stop watching Anurag Kashyap’s movies for his association with Honey, will not stop using products that are advertised using advertisements that ‘objectify’ women or boycott filmstars who publicly endorse such products. Walking the talk requires a different culture than consumer culture. We are like this only.

Honey Singh has put to tune fantasies that are known and liked widely — what many draw on bathroom walls. Some argue that the free distribution of such material creates an ambience that facilitates viewing women in a certain way – rape is a part of that way of viewing. The individual, in such a milieu, has a greater propensity to rape. The problem with such conjectures is that they do not have a clear causal relationship with criminal action. In the absence of that crucial strict causal link between action and crime, to criminalise human behaviour, however reprehensible it may be to some, leads all of us down an extremely slippery path. Theories of broad propensity are good enough. Consider the implications of this for the ‘single, migrant, underclass, male’ theory.

We should strive towards a fuller understanding of the popularity of songs such as these. The sad use of ‘impressionable children’ to grind their own axe has to stop. There is no evidence that grandfathers from ‘purer’ times are any less likely to grope. And why should everything be ‘family friendly’ anyways? Media ‘explicitness’ as a cause for sexual violence also tacitly legitimizes the ‘titilation’ theory. The less said about that, the better. We have more to lose by sacrificing free expression than the supposed gains of censoring Honey Singh.

There is an anxiety that unless there are curbs, Honeys will take all. There is a tacit acknowledgement that there is no robust alternative on offer. And there is the rub. There is a secret fear that there is no cultural repertoire that is up-to-date and ‘presentable’ as alternative to ‘the youth’. Beyond religion and sex, the relationship of the market with non-sexual elements of ‘Lok-sanskriti’ is faint. Real ‘Lok’ is important in production, consumption and propagation. When profiteers limit ‘Lok’ only to consumption, we have a problem. Organised industry has a certain idiom it is comfortable with. Socially rooted cultural produce without corporate intermediaries, say, the Baul-shahajiya minstrels, thrive in a supportive ecology. One cannot take away the ecology and then expect that it will continue its own evolution, as if nothing changed.

No number of ‘folk-music’ festivals in Delhi can provide alternatives in the backdropwhere ‘folk’ are systematically displaced and brutalized on a daily basis. Music and art, in their many shades, spring forth from life. Without it, it is simply a plant without roots — destined to die sooner or later. The new world selectively cuts roots. Hence Honey lives. After the destruction of rooted cultural idioms and ways of life, from where does one expect songs of life to spring? What will the songs be about – since sadness and pain are ‘unfit’ for modern consumption? Even the idea of songs from struggles of the displaced is met with the some kind of mental cringe, if not a mental block. Consumption is the basic framework in the new world. And there are no holy hills, groves, cultures, homelands, people. Honey Singh has sung the allegorical anthem of the new world. He may have sung it a bit too loudly, at an inopportune time.

Garga Chatterjee is a postdoctoral scholar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


Pakistani band upset with Anurag for wrongly crediting song -Balatkari by Honey Singh ? #hiphop

By , TNN | Jan 9, 2013, 12.00 AM IST

Singer Honey Singh got a lot of flak recently when the song Balatkari was credited to him. People on social networking sites and artistes from the music fraternity had vented their anger on the issue. However, the singer denied that the song was his. There were some who chose to defend the singer, one of them being director Anurag Kashyap. The director’s tweet on a microblogging site read: ‘@ankash1009: Balatkari song is by Zeest.’

Zeest, a Pakistani rock band spearheaded by Saqib Abdullah aka Skip, is known for its songs like Sutta and 100 Rupai. Upset with the comment made by Anurag, the band’s communication manager, Sohail Abdullah, said, “I don’t know why he said it was our song. I would like to clarify that Zeest has never composed such a song and we have nothing to do with it. Moreover, we don’t even know who had composed it. Zeest has so far released only two songs, Sutta (Sutta Na Mila) and 100 Rupai.”

He also went on to clarify that in 2008, Saqib posted on his blog that ‘Songs like GMD, XL Ki Kudiyan or Balatkari don’t belong to us. Kindly give credit to the actual artistes.’ Anurag remained unavailable for comment.


Anurag Kashyap joins hands with HIP HOP #Rapist Yo Yo #HoneySingh #Wtfnews #bollywood

, http://www.bollywoodlife.com/

Anurag Kashyap joins hands with singer Yo Yo Honey Singh for his album Satan!

Yogen Shah
 The Gangs of Wasseypur Director was so fascinated by the popular singer’s rebellious persona that he actually went on to produce a film for him

We could not believe our eyes when we saw filmmaker Anurag Kashyap sharing stage with popular singer Yo Yo Honey Singh at the launch party of the latter’s recently released album SatanKashyap is known for making intense films and hardly does he attend music concerts and shows which happen in the city quite regularly. So we were taken by surprise when we saw the Dev D director chatting away with Singh. But then, we quickly realised that Anurag actually produced the album (Satan) and he even went on to make a film with Yo Yo Honey Singh to promote the album.

The film is directed by David Zennie who had earlier directed the singer’s popular music videoInternational Villager. And now Kashyap has produced the recent video that got nearly 300,000 hits in just one day.

We all know Kashyap’s penchant for dark cinema. Right from Black Friday to Dev D and from Gulal toGangs Of Wasseypur, the intelligent filmmaker has explored the dark side of human psyche and life in general. No wonder then that he took a special interest in producing Honey Singh’s recent album which too has dark shades in it.

Looks like Kashyap and Singh have a lot of dark matter to share and the duo want to stimulate some grey cells with their ‘demonic’ creations!

Honey Singh’s brazenly pornographic and abusive anti-women songs glorifying rape and violence against women 


Raat ko nikali naari 

hui gadi pe savaari 

par voh raat usko pad gayi bhari. 

Peeche se aaya main 

utari uski saari 

kachchi phadi 

lungi gaadi 

aur g***d maari. 

Kyunki main………. 

Kyunki main………. 

Kyunki main hoon ek balatkari 

Kyunki main………. 

Kyunki main………. 

Kyunki main hoon balatkari


Chronology of Communication- Anurag Kashyap and Shilpa Munikempanna on 12.12.12 #kracktivism


Pic courtesy- R ajeev bhatt

The email exchange between Shilpa Munikempanna, Anurag Kashyap and representatives of Large Short Films and Showhouse can be consulted here  Email, the email exhanges are from September 5th 2012, Nov 23rd 2012 . According to  Shilpa  Munikempanna, a  legal notice was sent to Omer Haider, MD Showhouse and Abhijit Das, CH Large short films invoking arbitration based on unfair dismissal, unpaid dues and questioning the legal ground of the agreement signed, on 3rd December 2012 through her lawyer. A petition was also filed in the Mysore High Court on 5th December but due to the boycott by lawyers, Bandh in Mysore she was  unable to proceed any further and stop them from using her  film and paying her dues.The petition  is posted for hearing on December 15th, 2012 .

Shilpa Munikempanna says 

The open letter was the last resort otherwise I would have very much liked to have done this quietly, this ugliness is not something that provides jouissance.

Kracktivist clarifies 

 Shilpa did not get her dues before the letter was posted, the open letter to Anurag Kashyap  on project 12.12.12. was posted at 10.40am ,Dec 11th, 2012 here, Shilpa got her money at 1230 pm .Dec 11, 2012 

Anurag Kashyap sent the reply to me by email here it is –

The Last Act: To the 12th director who chose to disappear

In the light of all the accusations that Shilpa has chosen to make in the “Open Letter”, we would like to state the process we went through in this journey to The Last Act.

We had opened a “Contest” for Project 121212. It was not a commission made to anybody. Everybody was working for the brand Royal Stag Mega Movies. We created this platform for Large Short Films. We have showcased and promoted more than 80 short filmmakers in the past 3 months. We have premiered their films, produced independent films and promoted them on our site, with the brand’s promotional budget without any revenue stream from these films whatsoever. Anurag Kashyap, Sudhir Mishra and Showhouse had been commissioned a job to create and promote independent short films.

When we announced Project 121212, we got more than 600 showreels from across India. Anurag, Sudhir and Chakri chose 52 film makers from that list. Finally the 12 were chosen from there. Shilpa was the only one woman to be chosen in the final 12. So what is her grudge? Should we have a quota in such contests? Or should we apologise for choosing her? Or she is upset that she was chosen in the first place amongst all the men? We don’t understand the point.

Then the 12 filmmakers were sent a plot written by Anurag Kashyap. This seed plot was sent to all the 12 filmmakers with the contract. Yes… the contract stated that the filmmakers could not coordinate with each other. Shilpa has a grudge with that too. But if she did have a problem with that, why didn’t she voice that, when she signed the contract?

We promised Rs 75,000 to all the filmmakers for making a 10 minute film. Isn’t it fair that an advance is paid and the balance is paid on delivery? Isn’t that how the whole industry works? Or any industry for that matter? So we paid Rs 30000 to each filmmaker as an advance. The balance to be paid after the film was delivered to our satisfaction… because this is a contest. And we haven’t commissioned an independent individual short film. It has to fit into the larger story.

Each filmmaker, including Shilpa had signed a contract, which categorically mentioned all these terms and conditions. A filmmaker from Bengaluru was shortlisted as the top 12 but opted out on day 1 as he felt he could not participate under such conditions. We accepted his resignation and appointed the next in the shortlist. If she had a problem with the terms and conditions of payment, why didn’t she choose to opt out? Why did she sign the contract? What was the carrot? We were transparent from the beginning.

Once the scripts came to us, we had to make changes in all the scripts to match it to the climax, which Asmit was directing. These changes were sent to all the filmmakers with the entire script. So Shilpa knew the changes she had to make to fit into the larger picture, because this wasn’t a stand-alone short film.

When we received the films after the shoot and edit, we matched it to the shooting script. 3 scripts had deviated from the original script. Shilpa’s was one of them.

On 21st November:

We wrote to all the 3 filmmakers about the changes that need to be made to be part of the collaborative project. Apart from Shilpa, both the other filmmakers agreed to the changes, we discussed and finally added some portions to the film. They got the same time to make the changes that the others got. But she got back and said that she didn’t have time to shoot the additional portions.

On 22nd November:

We offered to shoot her portions that were required to complete the film.

On 23rd November 2012:

Shilpa got back to us through an SMS where she sent her actor’s number and the contact for the location in Bangalore where she shot, and gave us the permission to shoot. Interestingly, all the filmmakers were supposed to base their stories in the city they were chosen from. Varun Chowdhury shot in Hisar. Kabir shot in Chandigarh. Anurag Goswami shot in Lucknow. Tathagata shot in Kolkata. But guess what? Shilpa is from Mysore but shot her film in Bengaluru. But then there was no legal binding so we couldn’t say anything.

On 22nd November:

As per our discussion with Shilpa, we spoke to her actor and her location to organize a shoot in Bengaluru.

On 23rd November:

A day later we got a mail from Shilpa telling us that she didn’t want to be part of this project as we were making changes in her script. But even in her mail, she asked if she would get paid even if we didn’t use her film. Obviously, the contract didn’t allow us to pay her if she didn’t complete the film. So is it wrong a reject a film based on quality in a competition? Or even after signing the agreement are we supposed to accept the film even if it doesn’t fit into the larger picture? No one is acting God in this. We are just playing by the rules. Everybody was doing that, including the other 11 film makers.

Here is an excerpt from her mail:

“If you want to reject my work please let me know.

If you want to shoot and add a prelude to my work please let me know.

If you want to not pay me or pay me please let me know.”

While we went ahead and changed our plan to get in the 12th director, everything went on peacefully till Shilpa sent is a legal letter to invoke the arbitration clause.

The legal letter reached us on: December 1st, 2012

She waited for almost a week before she us the letter. Surprisingly, it was the same time when we announced the theatrical release of “The Last Act”.

We took a couple of days to consult our lawyers and got back to her yesterday with an offer to pay her the balance Rs 45000 and end the matter as we had already gone ahead with the film without using her segment.

We spoke to her lawyers on 10th December afternoon and decided that we would pay Rs 45000 and waive off any rights on our copyrights to her film. It was silly on our part… why would we pay her the full amount and still not acquire the rights? Then what are we paying her for? Secondly, she wrote in her legal notice that she spent more than 1 lac for the production of her film. She knew from day 1 and she had only Rs 75000 to work with. If she over shoots her own budget, who should be penalized for it? The producers or the director? Or is that also our fault?

We spoke to her lawyer and they said we should increase our payment to her by Rs 5000. To cover her legal expenses. So she “threatens” to sue us. A day before the release (haven’t we heard that before?) and then wants us to pay for her expenses. And again, we complied. This morning, we paid her Rs 45000 (after TDS) and Rs 5000 (For her lawyers… who does that?) Her lawyers sent us a letter last night, stating that if we pay them before 12 noon, they won’t sue us!! We paid her this morning. Then she posted the “Open Letter to Anurag Kashyap”. After getting paid. Is that legal?

An excerpt from her lawyer’s last mail to us after we have paid Shilpa in full despite not using her film in “The Last Act”. So we have paid. We hand over the copyright. What else now?

Dear Mr.Das,


Thank you and Showhouse for your cooperation and reimbursing the expenses.


However in furtherance of the legal communication sent to you yesterday, kindly acknowledge that Showhouse has no copyright on the film “Sleep” directed by Shilpa. Pls also dispatch a hard copy of this letter to Ms.Shilpa’s postal address. 


Only once you do the same we will be in a position to withdraw our application before the courts in Karnataka. 


After withdrawing the same, we will send you a scanned copy of the order sheet. 


Best Regards



Now she is mocking Royal Stag Mega Movies LSF, Showhouse, Anurag Kashyap, Abhijit Das and Asmit Pathare.

She is mocking Anurag who was generous enough to offer her something this morning. He told her (through Abhijit) that though her film can’t be part of the collaborative feature film, LSF will release her film individually. We offered to fly her down tomorrow for the premiere and make that announcement to the media. We wanted to appreciate her film even before she posted the “Open Letter”… No Shilpa, we were trying to be fair. Unlike what you said in your last mail… we didn’t malign you one bit. You did that. We didn’t even announce that your film wasn’t accepted. We graciously moved on.

Shilpa asked Abhijit not to call her directly. We should speak to her lawyers. And that she doesn’t want anything to do with LSF or Anurag Kashyap. So we spoke to her lawyers and informed them about the “Open Letter”.

So here we are:

–          We paid Shilpa her entire amount and some more for her legal expenses. For a product she didn’t deliver.

–          She has also retained the copyright for her film after graciously accepting the payment (she has stated this in her blog herself. Guess that’s legal.)

–          She has breached a contract by announcing in public before the release.

This is her mail to us, after she had already published her “Open Letter” on the internet. And hoped that nobody would read it? So what was the point? She just wanted money for work she hadn’t delivered? So she withdrew the case on the payment? So she doesn’t feel so strongly about the female inequality anymore? Or that got solved the moment we paid up? What about the integrity of not being part of an unfair project? It becomes ethical on a payment of Rs 75000? That’s a pretty flimsy stand to take after writing an “Open Letter to Anurag Kashyap”. One could have just asked for the money.


———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Shilpa Munikempanna ‪<shilpa.munikempanna@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Subject: Re: Open letter to Anurag Kashyap

To: letters@thehindu.co.in, editor@openmedianetwork.in, editor@tehelka.com, editor@expressindia.com, ttedit@abpmail.com, letters@hindustantimes.com, ratnam@intoday.com, submissions@outlookindia.com, toieditorial@timesgroup.com, editor@deccanmail.com, editor@the-week.com, editor.thecaravan@delhipress.in



Dear Sir/ Madam, 


Today morning the Large Short films and Showhouse have approached me and agreed to reimburse the expenses. They have paid the reimbursement today and also have agreed to assign all the copyrights to me.


Thus I do not want you to publish the attachment “open letter to Anurag Kashyap” as the Mr.Anurag Kashyap and LSF along with Showhouse has already reimbursed me today and has agreed to assign the copyrights. Though I am yet to receive a confirmation email, I do not want this letter to be published any more.





Below is the petition in court


ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.                            OF 2012

Shilpa Munikempana                                                   )

Mysore                                                     )

Karnataka                                                                   )      … APPLICANT


1. Showhouse Event Management Private Limited     )

a Company incorporated under the                          )

laws of India, having its registered office at            )

Dettinners Compound 126, SV Road                      )

Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102                          )

Represented by its Managing Director                     )

2. Largeshortfilms                                                         )

Having office at Detinners Compound                     )

126, SV Road                                                            )

Jogeshwari (W)                                                         )

Mumbai – 400102                                                     )

Represented by Managing Director                          )

Mr.Abhijeet Das                                                        )…RESPONDENTS


The Applicant most respectfully submits as follows

  1.  The address of the Applicant and Respondents are as mentioned in the causetitle above. The Applicant may also be served with all communications, summons etc through their counsels M/s Common Law Chambers and Shri Umesh Advocate having its office at ________________________________________________.
  2. Applicant is a film maker focusing mostly on short filmmaking. Respondent No.1 is a company engaged in organizing events and shows. Respondent No.2 is an initiative of Respondent No.1 who has prestigious directors in their core team and was founded and managed by Shri Abhijit Das to provide a platform to short film makers to release their films.
  3. The Applicant has several works amongst which one famous work of the Applicant is her film “Kaveri” which won the best short film award in (IDSFFR 2011) and thereafter won the best Asian Short Film at Aguilar Film Festival, Spain. The said film was also premiered in Kiev International Film Festival, Ukraine. She is currently actively working with IAWRT in their festival “our lives to live..” by women film makers about gender and violence.
  4.  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were desirous of making a film 12.12.12 which is a collaboration of 12 short films. The Respondents invited film directors to participate in the selection process which commenced on 29th July 2012 and ended on 16th August 2012 with the submission of showreels of each film maker. The Respondents have Royal Stag Mega Movies as their chief sponsor as well as most eminent film directors viz Shri. Anurag Kashyap, Asmith Pathare, Sudhir Chakri in its core team to ensure visibility, publicity and ensure a steady revenue stream for the production of 12.12.12 a collaboration of 12 short films. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “A” is a copy of the press clipping of the proposed production of the short film series.
  5. The Applicant was first shortlisted for the 50 best Directors in August and thereafter on 5th September, 2012 the Applicant qualified as one of the 12 best directors who was chosen to contribute one short film to the collaborative films venture 12.12.12. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “B” is a copy of the snap shot of the 50 shortlisted names of directors including the Applicant’s name on Respondent No.2’s website largeshortfilms.com.  The Applicant states that the collaborative film initiative 12.12.12’s exact submission deadline details were available on Respondent No.2’s website www.largeshortfilms.com Hereto annexed and  Annexure “C” is a true copy of details of the collaboration from the website of Respondent No.2.
  6. Thereafter the Applicant received a confirmation email congratulating the Applicant for being chosen one among the 12 directors from Shri Anurag Kashyap on behalf of Large Short Films. The said email also mentioned about the premier of 12.12.12 events and also made a mention that Shri Kashyap would be  meeting the Applicant. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “D” is a copy of the email dated 5th September from Shri Kashyap to the Applicant.
  7. It is submitted that the Applicant was overwhelmed and extremely enthusiastic to receive this opportunity and commenced the next stage of contributing the script before 24th September, 2012. The Applicant sent two scripts one for the movie “Sleep” and the other for the film “Ashes”. The Respondents accepted the script for the movie “Sleep” and gave the Applicant specific dates of delivery and deadlines, asking the Applicant to finally shoot the movie based on the said script. The emails dated _______ wherein the said scripts were submitted and thereafter accepted by the Respondents are produced as Annexure “E”, “E1” “E2”, collectively.
  1. The Respondents also issued a letter of participation to the Applicant dated 5th October, 2012 wherein the Respondents clearly stated that

we promise to pay you Rs.75,000/- immediately after you deliver your segment of the film. So you will be paid the full amount much before the release of the film.”

Further the Respondent No.1 and the Applicant entered into an Agreement dated 2nd October, 2012 stipulating the exact terms and conditions on which the Applicant was to shoot the film specifically for the Respondent’s collaboration. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “F” is a copy of the Agreement dated 2nd October 2012 and  and annexed as Annexure “G” is a copy of the email dated 5th October 2012 confirming the Applicant’s participation in the Respondent’s collaboration.

8.         On the basis of the Agreement entered into between parties and the confirmation by email dated 5th October 2012, the Applicant went ahead with the film shooting preparation and incurred substantial expenditure of approximately Rs.1 lakh on shooting the film. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “H” is a breakup of the production expenses incurred by the Applicant and  and annexed as Annexure ‘I” are details of hours spent at different sites by Applicant to shoot the film.  The Applicant states that she received an advance of Rs.30,000/- from the Respondents towards the making of the film “Sleep” and the same was given as an exception as the Respondent clearly stated in its email that they liked the Plaintiff’s work.

9.         The Applicant completed the shooting by 30th October, 2012 in accordance with the timeline provided by the Respondents and thereafter sent the footage and the final film to the Respondents on 3rd  November, 2012. As required by the Respondent, the Applicant also sent the invoice for the balance production expense along with the final film DVD on 3rd November, 2012. The final film “Sleep” had reached the Respondents within the deadline specified by them. The Applicant did not receive any communication from the Respondents till 12th November, 2012 which was the deadline for final edit of each film maker mentioned hereinabove. Thus the Applicant was under the bonafide and honest impression that her film was accepted and requested the Respondent to disburse the balance payment of Rs.45,000/- on 16th  November, 2012.  The Respondents confirmed on the same day that the payments are being processed. An extract of the email dated 16th November 2012 is produced herein below:

            “invoices just got signed today as signing authorities were travelling. Will take a week I am guessing. Will be presenting the invoices tomorrow to the accounts for processing.”

A copy of the email dated 3rd November 2012 along with final invoice dispatched on 3rd November 2012 and the correspondence on 16th November  2012 is produced as Annexure “J”.

  1. The Applicant was shocked and surprised to learn from the actor whom she had engaged to shoot the film “Sleep” that the Respondents are re-shooting some scenes of the movie.  The Applicant at this time sought a clarification from the Respondents as to the final status of the film and if the balance invoiced amount will be cleared as the Applicant had borrowed money to meet the expenses of the production of the film as contracted with the Respondents.
  2. The Applicant states that the Respondent sent an email asking the Applicant to re-shoot 6-7 scenes of the film  on 21st November 2012 night, this requirement of the Respondent at this stage of the collaboration wherein the script would substantially be modified came as a surprise to the Applicant.  The Applicant states that the script sent by the Applicant on 24 September, 2012 was approved by the Respondent’s on 3rd October, 2012 jointly. The Applicant had certain ideas and emotions about euthanasia which she clearly manifested in the script sent on 24 September and thereafter in the shootings. The revision suggested by the Respondents completely diluted the script shared by the Applicant which was already approved by the Respondents themselves. Further, this time for modification of the script and re-shooting the scenes was at an extremely short notice. The Applicant states that logistically the Respondent’s requirement for further shootings vide email sent on the night of 21st November, 2012 involved reserving a specific location which was at a great expense, recalling the actor and actresses who are not available for long periods and arranging the entire crew once again and getting the specific camera on which the Applicant would have to pay a large deposit and rent. The Applicant states that without receiving the amounts raised on the Respondents by her in her balance invoice issued on 3rd November, 2012, the Applicant was not in a position to shoot and deliver the 7 scenes as requested in a span of 3 days.
  3. The Applicant provided the Respondent with certain alternate ideas to link the short film “Sleep” with the larger collaborative venture. A copy of the emails in connection with these suggestions is annexed collectively as Annexure “ K”.
  4. On 20th November, 2012, the Applicant learnt that the Respondents are using the video “Sleep” but changing few important scenes which complete dilutes the script sent by the Applicant to the Respondent’s on 24th September 2012 and was deeply hurt to learn that her creative work was being tampered without even informing her that changes were being made or giving her sufficient time or resources to re-shoot the scenes herself. The Applicant immediately wrote to the Respondent opposing use of the scenes of the film shot by her. Hereto annexed Annexure “L” is a copy of the email dated 23rd November, 2012 addressed by the Applicant to the Respondent.
  5. The Applicant was shocked to receive an email dated 24th November 2012 from the Respondent severing all relations with the Applicant and stated that on 24th November 2012 night they have rejected the movie “Sleep”. An extract of the said email is as follows:

we will not use your story or film in this project…we will not be paying the balance production money to you. It is unfortunate this collaboration could not work out.”

  1. The Applicant states that this action of the Respondent has shocked the Applicant, caused mental agony and loss of dignity to the Applicant among her peers in the industry. The Applicant states that the Respondents have turned a complete blind eye to the Applicant’s plight both financially as well as professionally. The Applicant has taken a loan to invest in the making of the film and completed the film within the stipulated time line.  Hereto annexed and  Annexure “M” is a copy of the email dated 24th November, 2012 addressed by the Respondents to the Applicant. The Applicant has invoked the arbitration clause 29 of the Agreement and sent an invocation of arbitration dated 3rd December, 2012. A copy of the letter along with dispatch receipt is produced as Annexure “M1”.
  2. The Applicant states that the Respondents have individually and collectively displayed the images of the film “Sleep” in their promotional materials for the collaboration 12.12.12. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “N” is a  copy of the print out from the Respondents website still showing the Applicant’s film as a part of their promotional materials for the 12.12.12 collaborative film venture
  3. The Applicant is deeply agonized and shocked that the Respondents continue to use a few snapshots of the video “Sleep” which are still posted on the Respondent’s promotional websites. Further, the Applicant has reliably learnt that the Respondents are using the contents of the film “Sleep” to make another film by tampering with the original story line and thereby causing loss to the Applicant’s creative work and originality of the work which was sent to them for launch in the 12.12.12 collaboration.
  4. The Applicant states that these actions of the Respondents are a gross violation of the Applicant’s moral right, her rights to protect the integrity of her creative work and to acknowledge the real creator of the film in whom copyright in the said film vests. The Applicant is an upcoming film maker in South India and has received several international recognition for her previous films and is presently involved in several documentary productions taking a pro-human rights stance.
  5. The Applicant states that the actions of the Respondents are deliberate and done in a manner to cause professional harm and mental harassment to the Applicant as well as loss of reputation. The Applicant had since 2nd October, 2012 when her script was approved has spent more than 4 days in reviewing the location, 1 week in identifying the actors and actress and doing an audition in connection to the same another 1 week in developing the story board, and 3 days conducting the rehearsals. Thereafter on 25th and 26th October, 2012 she was engaged with shooting the film from 6 am in the morning to 8 pm at night. Post the shooting, the Applicant since 27th October, 2012 dedicated time to post production editing till 3rd November, 2012. In addition to the above the Applicant has borrowed money and incurred the expenses on the making of the film after being shortlisted as one of the 12 Directors invited to contribute to the Short Film collaboration. The Applicant states that the Respondent has sought to reject her film without any valid basis on mid night of 24 November, 2012 without any prior intimation or justifiable reasons.
  6. The Applicant submits that there is genuine belief that the Respondents are using shots from her film “Sleep” and adding scenes or deleting scenes without informing her. Further the Respondents are going on full swing to make these changes to the film “Sleep” without the Applicant’s prior permission and is going to release the same in their international premier and film release of 12.12.12 on 12 December, 2012 in Mumbai.
  7. It is submitted that the Respondents are not entitled to utilize the copyrightable material of the Applicant without her permission and without having made complete payment towards production cost for the same to the Applicant. The Applicant states that these actions of the Respondent clearly indicates that the Respondents are attempting to extract unlawful gain from the ground work and creative output of the Applicant. The alleged requirement for shooting further sequences is clearly an afterthought and has been communicated to the Applicant after having confirmed that she would receive payment. The aforesaid sequence of events clearly indicates that the Respondents were satisfied with the movie produced by the Applicant and that, upon being so satisfied, had agreed to make payments to her. Additionally, the deadline for final edits of each film was set at 12th November, 2012. The Respondents approached the Applicant for further shooting at a belated stage on or about 22nd November, 2012, i.e. much after November 12 and without any prior notice or intimation whatsoever, which clearly indicates that the Respondents have acted beyond the terms of the contract.  The Respondents have acted in an arbitrary, highhanded and illegal manner and have clearly attempted to resile from their contractual obligations. The Respondents ought not to be permitted to misuse the Applicant’s copyrighted works, especially without making payment to her. The Respondents have not acted in terms of the agreement and are consequently, not entitled to any rights and benefits thereunder.
  8. The Applicant has received an email dated November 24, 2012 that her movie ‘Sleep’ will not be utilized by the Respondents. However, the Respondents have, even thereafter, continued to use the parts of ‘Sleep’ in their website and promotional materials and initiatives. The Respondents ought to be restrained from making any use of the copyrighted works of the Applicant.
  9. The Applicant has a good prima facie case. The Applicant will be put to enormous prejudice if the interim reliefs as prayed for are not granted. Whereas the Respondents will not suffer similar prejudice or hardship. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Applicant. The reliefs prayed for herein are in aid of arbitration that will be initiated by the Applicant against the Respondents.
    1. It is submitted that no loss or inconvenience will be caused to the Respondents if an order of injunction is passed restraining the Respondent from using any part of the script or the videos already shot by the Applicant in her film “Sleep” till the adjudication of the dispute.
    2. The Applicant states that she has invoked arbitration under Clause 29 of the Agreement between the Respondent and the Applicant. Clause 29 of the Agreement is extracted as follows:

            “Any dispute or differences arising out of or pertaining to this Agreement shall be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Producer. Such arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English at Delhi and/or Mumbai.”

24.       It is submitted that there are no suits or proceedings pending between the Applicant and Respondent in respect of the film “Sleep” and its script and on the same cause of action before any other forum or courts. The Applicants state that the balance of convenience for the grant of interim reliefs lies heavily in favour of the Applicants.

25.       Cause of Action: The entire cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner is residing in Mysore and have signed and sent the agreement dated 3 October, 2012 from Mysore by courier and was executed in couterparts. The Respondent have their Branch office in Bangalore. The agreement was terminated by an email received in Mysore. Further, the 12.12.12 collaborative project is to be released by way of an “online premier” where the movie will be uploaded in the website and all collaborating websites with Respondent and can be viewed by any one from any part of the country (including Karnataka). Thus this Court has the jurisdiction from restraining the Respondent from doing the uploading Applicant’s video in the website.  Section 2 (e) read with Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain this Petition.

26.       Limitation: The Applicant states that there is no delay in filing the present Application and same is within the limitation period.

27.       Valuation: The Applicants have paid fixed Court fees of Rs.__00/-. In view of the above, the Applicants humbly pray that:

(a)       a temporary order of injuction restrainin Respondent No.1 and No.2 and its servants officers or agents from using in any manner whatsoever including altering, displaying, transferring, telecasting or uploading in any manner the script of the film “Sleep” and the video of the movie “Sleep” including all the footages and shots ancillary to main film.

(b)       restrain the Respondents collectively from interfering with or obstructing the use of the name of the Applicant with her film “Sleep”

(c)     ad interim exparte relief in terms of prayer (a). (d) For costs arising in connection to filing the present application.

(e)       for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

Date     / December, 2012                                                    Advocate for Applicant

                   V  E  R  I  F  I  C  A  T  I  O  N

           I, Shilpa Munikempana, the Applicant, abovenamed do hereby solemnly state and declare that what is stated in paragraphs Nos.  to    of the above petition is true to my own knowledge, and what is stated in paragraphs Nos.    to   is based on information, belief and legal advice, which I believe to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mysore,    )

This      day of December, 2012                    )



Advocates for the Applicant

An Open Letter to Anurag Kashyap and his 12.12.12 project. #kractivism




( Within 3 hours after putting this post- picture abhi baak hai dost :-P)

“Shilpa has been refunded the expenses she incurred on making the film and Showhouse’s Large Short Films has promised to give her copyright over her work soon subsequent to the circulation of the open letter. She is waiting for it in writing. She stands by the issues she raised and thanks everyone for the immense kind support” Thanks Kamayani this would not have been possible without you. You are really awesome!

I am a Mysore based woman filmmaker who was chosen by you to be part of the Mega Movies project 12.12.12 executed by Showhouse Entertainment’s Large Short Films Wing. I am writing this open letter because I think public discourse is important given that over the years you have come to occupy such an important space within what you call ‘independent cinema’.

Also no one from the company that you endorse, as well as you, thinks it is important to have a dialogue with me about unpaid wages, disrespect and unfair dismissal which has caused me tremendous amount of financial, emotional stress. There is also a much touted save indie cinema doing the rounds and what it fails to add to the discourse (not surprising going by the kind of signatories it claims) is what I want to talk about. Changing the look of how you produce cinema and being backed by big studio capital isn’t really independent. I think it is important to bring this into the public domain as the silences around working practices result in the perpetuation of exploitative systems and weed out filmmakers based on their class, caste, gender, religion and language.

It was absolutely no surprise when I saw that the list of 12 directors included no woman. So apparently out of 600 entries only I, the sole woman, made it to the shortlist and because I decided to speak up and not be quiet about how my film was going to tortured and beaten into becoming the kind of objects that you seem to grant your blessings to, 12.12.12 is now officially an all male production.

I bring your notice to this because the tone of the company with regard to objections I raised has been patronising, condescending and dismissive. Well meaning friends and critics will tell me that’s how it works, that’s the industry,
the industry that works on free labour, meant for those who have the money to afford the time to chase dreams. It’s not meant for women like me who have no big daddies or brothers or husbands supporting them. It isn’t meant for women
like me who choose to work in a language other than Hindi and it definitely isn’t meant for women like me who don’t know how to waddle along consenting to practices that make people like you and the companies you endorse just richer
on the back of such exploitative practices.

You sent me an email stipulating that I would not be in touch with any of the other 11 directors (an effective way I must say to curb dissent and this goes by the name of being collaborative!) The contract also stipulated that I would be paid once I handed over the film contrary to what the rules on the contest page initially stated wherein I was supposed to have been given the money before Ivmade the film. This I was informed after having worked a full month on the project. I did sign it and I take full responsibility for that sign because you were the carrot dangled to me, the one ruling the roost in the film festival circuit and of course the Indian public funding circuit, what seemed like the only way to make one’s film. And since you must have been paid handsomely to be the carrot, I only ask that you own up to the full responsibility of it and be accountable to the carrot desirers you create.

After insisting that I get paid at least half I went ahead, after funds were released, and borrowed money to complete it. I hand over the film and fulfil my contractual obligations and then am bullied into changing and reshooting it for a mistake made by Asmit Pathare (Project director not the 12th discovery – check the shortlist!) and Abhijit Das (the godfather of short films in the making). So I naturally said no. You must understand how difficult it is for a director to hurt their stories? It’s kind of like being okay with Abhijit Das (Creative head of Largeshortfilms) adding on a scene where Manoj Bajpai spouts Feminist Marxist dialogues in Gangs of Wasseypur and without telling you! Wouldn’t really fit with the ethos of the film no? Your company even told me that since I do not have the resources I cannot be involved in the reshoot. At such a juncture I asked you not to use my film if I was not being reimbursed and no, you go ahead and use it. The matchbox still from my film is still up on the company’s website.

In a country with absolutely zilch funding for independent films you exploit the hopes of thousands of aspirants. You reiterate a certain way of working which accommodates only a certain type of filmmaker. This in my world is called cheating, it’s called immoral and it’s called unfair. In your world all this is grey, this hijacking that you do of a space that has seen so much struggle and such amazing cinema, this hijacking of language – calling it collaborative when it’s more dictatorial, this hijacking of image, of new film waves, of new ways of working. One of the most exciting things about globalised capitalism’s current avatar (as Hardt and Negri will tell you) is that even though it creates systems like you it also provides for ruptures like me.

Before you come back with a reply to this I ask you to re‐look at emails that you sent me and words you relayed to me through the company about my filmmaking. Everything that I have said is backed by evidence (I know too well
how important that is) I know this open dissent will cost me. I’m not naïve not to understand as to how you rule visibilities around distribution and production but I will walk away knowing that I have spoken and that this is just the beginning not the end of the road for me. For those of you reading this I understand that within the larger framework of what we call injustice in this country this is nothing but when we start to look at continuums everything does matter and support for this would really help not just me but for all those who are engaged in changing the way images speak.

From the 12th director who so mysteriously disappeared
Shilpa Munikempanna

contact- 9611843981

Gangs of Wasseypur, Reality v/s Movie #sundayreading #mustshare


The Unreality of Wasseypur- by JAVED IQBAL ( unedited version with pics courtesy javed iqbal )

The ending of the film was shown properly,’ Speak unanimous voices, the well-known folklore of Wasseypur, Dhanbad, ‘Gangster Shafiq Khan was really gunned down at the Topchachi petrol pump like it was shown in the first part of the film.’

‘That’s how it’s done in Dhanbad.’

And there are long lists of assassinations and murders in Dhanbad. MLA Gurdas Chaterjee of the Marxist Co-ordination Committee was gunned down on the highway. Superintendent of Police Randhir Verma was murdered by dacoits during a botched bank robbery. Santosen Gupta of the Forward Bloc was gunned down. Mukul Dev of the RJD was murdered. S K Rai, a union leader is murdered. Samin Khan, a gangster, gets bail and leaves court and is shot to death, while still in the custody of the police. Sakel Dev Singh, of the coal mafia is killed at the bypass, his brother who works with him, is killed at Shakti chowk, gunned down by an AK47. Manoj Singh alias Dabloo from Matkuria village, who allegedly terrorized the muslims of Wasseypur was gunned down. Chottna Khan, 18 years old, the son of Shafiq Khan was gunned down. Mohd Irfan a railway contractor was killed by a gang. Najeer Ahmed, a ward commissioner, is murdered. A woman home guard who once shared a love with a police officer, who would eventually take him on after their affair turned bitter, would find the dead body of her cut-up nephew in a well at the Dhanbad Polytechnic.

These are just a few high profile murder cases, say the locals, who on one level shy away from the violence that represented their city and on another level take pride in the knowledge of who was gunning down who at what point.

Wasseypur, now a part of Dhanbad district in Jharkhand, has grown, over the decades from a culture of violence and gang warfare, parts of which are depicted in the film.

The film tells the story of three generations of a family, starting with a backdrop to mining in Dhanbad, with the murder of Shahid Khan in the hands of coal mafia leader Ramadhir Singh, and the revenge promised by his son Sardar Khan (in reality Shafiq Khan), and his sons Faisal Khan (in reality Faheem Khan).

‘There was never any revenge story,’ Said Iqbal (24), the son of Faheem Khan (50), grandson of (Shafiq), sitting in the very room where a rival gang had attacked late at night, and even fired onto a police check post as shown in the opening sequence of the film, ‘My great grandfather died of natural causes, he was never murdered by any Singh. And there was another thing, a twist. I had a grand uncle Hanif, who had wanted my father Faheem dead and who had hired a man called Sagir.’

‘And it’s for the murder of Sagir that my father is in Hazaribagh jail now.’

‘None of this is in the film.’ Continued Iqbal, who adds that the sequence where Sardar Khan would call for the rescue of an abducted woman, fictitious, as well as one-time affair of Sardar Khan’s wife, or the Romeo-Juliet type inter-gang marriages, or the arbitrariness of names of characters such as ‘Perpendicular’ and ‘Definite’. There are instead, Prince Khans and Goodwin Khans.

‘There are two kinds of laws in Dhanbad. There’s the law to arrest for the Faheem Khan Family and there’s the law to investigate for the Singh Mansion.’ Says Iqbal, himself just released on bail for murder, referring to the fact that the Singh family is still at large.

The Violent Landscape of Dhanbad

Dhanbad is an unreal place. A small mining town with extreme poverty and a rich labour history. A small town with a bustling middle class bursting through the one main road. You can expect to be stuck in an hour long traffic jam in Dhanbad over Wasseypur, you can find shopping complexes, or remnants of a burnt truck where four people were killed in police firing last year on the 27th of April, or you can find the dead body of a lawaris young man in a seedy hotel near the bus stop. It’s a city of myths, half-truths, and blatant lies. A city where a man called Suraj Deo Singh is also Suryadev Singh, or A K Rai, is also A K Roy. Now an old mansion of a private mine owner who owned 85 mines lay in ruin while the police still continues to extort money from the poorest who pick off scraps of coal to sell. A district partially affected by Maoists, two blocks – Topchachi and Tundi, have been sights of arrests and ambushes. It’s a town with massive migration, massive amounts of pollution owing to the coal mines, many left abandoned and unfilled, other’s now open-cast, and massive amounts of exploitation by the mafia that literally sells labour across the district border.

Dhanbad is where the Chasnala mining accident took place in December 1975 that claimed over 380 lives. A lake vanished into the mines. No one survived. Kala Patthar was made and still remembered. And in September of 1995, the Gazlitang mining accident claimed 96 lives.

Yet what also followed the mining, were the mafias.

‘There are many gangs here.’ Says a lawyer, ‘If you want to tell the story of Dhanbad, you’d need to spend three months here.’

A lot of gangs simply fight over scraps of urbanization: ‘Agenty’ the term for extortion from private bus services was apparently a cause of conflict between the son of Sardar/Shafiq Khan and another gangster called Babla (this was all denied by the home of Sardar/Shafiq/Faheem Khan). Eventually, Faheem Khan, the son of Sardar/Shafiq Khan allegedly instigated a conflict with a businessman Shabir who refused to be extorted and Shabir found himself, on common ground with Babla. Faheem, however struck, allegedly murdering Wahid Alam, Shabir’s brother, a while after Wahid had organized an attack on his home that left one dead and another injured. And Shabir was allegedly responsible, convicted and now out on bail for the murders of Faheem Khan’s mother, or Shafiq Khan’s widow, the aged Nazama Khatoon, who at one point was a known leader at Wasseypur.

‘The rivalry of Shafiq Khan and Faheem Khan with the ‘Singh Mansion’ is not so much,’ Said the Superintendent of Police RK Dhan, ‘It’s really them fighting themselves.’

The ‘Singh Mansion’ is really a collection of different Singhs who often share public office, especially standing on BJP tickets in contemporary times. They include Suryadev Singh (apparently Ramadhir Singh in the film), Baccha Singh, Ramadhin Singh, Shashi Singh and Khunti Singh. Suryadev was alleged responsible for the murder of one of the biggest mine owners V P Sinha decades ago and he died of natural causes in 1991. The Mansion had called for the banning of the film due to the negative portrayal they had received. Yet it is commonly known that the Singh Mansion had their own conflict with Suresh Singh who was murdered in December last year. The conflict between the Singhs was over the coal mines while it is generally known in Dhanbad that Shafiq Khan and his sons were never involved in the mines.

‘Shashi Singh murdered Suresh Singh, according to many witnesses’ Continues the Superintendent of Police.

Yet at the home of Faheem Khan, in Wasseypur, antagonism against the Singh Mansion exists, as it had become no secret that they were involved in providing assistance to the enemies of the family. Sultan, who lived close to Naya Bazaar was in open conflict with Shafiq and had the support of the Singh Mansion. Shabir who lived a mere ten seconds from Faheem Khan, had the support of the Singh Mansion. And spoken in whispers, the ambition of the Khans, led them onto a direct conflict course with the Singh Mansion.

A Dissenter Amongst The Violence

‘When I was young, a man was hacked up in front of us.’ Says W, a family member of one of the gangs of Dhanbad.

‘In front of you?’

‘Not really in front of me, but we saw the body parts in different bags.’


‘After that all of us were called later to talk to uncle. And uncle, was talking to us about something else, we never gave eye contact, and somehow we pretended nothing had happened. The thing is, Javed Bhai, we really like to keep ourselves different from them, we know how they might use us, for this or that.’

The Man Who Wore Recycled Tires

A frail old man with glasses, sits quietly holding his arms at the ICU in Dhanbad Central Hospital – he can barely speak yet there was a time that his name was synonymous with the name of Dhanbad. A K Rai, was a chemical engineer, turned trade unionist who helped organize a majority of the mine workers on private mines in Dhanbad, who would be elected three times to office – , and would be in open conflict with the state machinery, the coal mafia and the private mine owners who’d dismiss workers on the slightest hint of organizing, or would hire goons to deal violently with the organizers and strikes.

‘We must’ve lost around 25 to 30 comrades in the 70’s.’ Said Comrade Ramlal, once a miner, than an organizer. He sits back to recall a story that started long before liberalization, long before nationalization, long before Naxalbari and the thousands of days of violence.

‘Before 1962, there were two central government collieries that had some wage structure, but there were some 60-65 private collieries where there was no minimum wages system.’

‘Back then, the bosses never even gave money in some of the collieries, they just had booze shops and their own ration shops. The message to the workers was to just work, and take what you get. And the workers were kept in camps, so they won’t run away. And there was no safety, nothing. There were a lot of movements then also, but the workers were often beaten into submission and there were many murders.’

‘It was during this time that A K Rai had come as a chemical engineer in some company. By day he used to work, by night he would teach in a school in one of the nearby villages.’

Strike after strike, beatings after beatings, the workers would even find themselves in a war of attrition with the coal mafia, especially against Suryadev Singh, who had workers killed and would find that the workers could also defend themselves. At one point A K Rai was convinced by the mine workers to stand for election. He would win for the first time in 1967 on an Assembly seat, then in 1969 to the Vidhan Sabha, again in 1972, then in 1977 after being arrested during the Emergency and only started to lose after 1991. The status of the three-time MP and the MLA stayed intact as a minister would be seen around Dhanbad standing in line to pay his electricity bill, or travel by train, standing in general compartment. Even today miners speak of a time in the 1970’s during the apex of the power of the unions and there is a legacy of the work that was done. Just this year, a one-day strike had helped increase the wages for the miners from Rs.17,000 to Rs.21,000 – this from virtual slave labour before unionization. However there are still no signs of health benefits or for pensions.

‘A K Rai, was probably the only minister who said that ministers should not take pensions.’ Said Divan, a colleague, and it was well known that the battle for pensions amongst the miners was never won. Today, an older generation of unionists speak of failures and the inability to combat the cultural hegemony that came with liberalization. Their children work as managers or in the private sector, a growing middle class has controlled elections, and they’ve slowly seen the diminishing of the power of the unions due to mechanization and less prominence of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, who were the voting bank of A K Rai, who finally lost the elections in a landslide to the widow of a murdered Superintendent of Police in 1991.

There is even a well known story in Dhanbad of the assassins who had gone to kill A K Rai over a decade ago. They found a frail old man, who was elected to office three times, sweeping a party office early in the morning. They saw his shoes, made of recycled tire rubber, his meager demeanor and walked across a shop to confirm who is A K Rai. When they were sure they knew who it was, they entered the office, drank water, turned around and walked away.

‘Something about that man affected them,’ Said Divan, who also says that the board ‘Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union’ on their office, was the only thing about AK Rai and the labour movement visible in the film Gangs of Wasseypur. ‘I think the mind of this filmmaker was also globalized.’ He laughs.

The coal mafia was born the minute the coal started to leave earth with colliery after colliery owned by private individuals with their own private armies who’d all find themselves in conflict with the miners who began to organize themselves, and there seems to be a reason why every man above the age of forty who has lived in Dhanbad all his life seems to know the name of A K Rai, yet his name is even known amongst the youth.

‘There was probably no man who had done so much for the poor in Dhanbad.’ Said 24 year old Iqbal Khan, gangster or student, who would even say: ‘Krantikari.’

Yet the gang war seems to never end, as Shabir who was released from prison on bail still vows for revenge against the family of Faheem Khan, and local newspapers report that Iqbal, who had a ‘supari’ on his name when he was in the 12th, and is now merely 24, promising to continue the fight.

Meanwhile, a quiet old man who shook the earth is living the last of his days at Dhanbad Central Hospital, while the names of the miners who died in Chasnala fade from the memorial built for them.



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

  • 1,860,369 hits


September 2022
%d bloggers like this: