‘People have to say we have a stake, we claim the stake, and we give our share’

• It is a public-private partnership of a kind?

Yes, of a kind. When we look at Bombay and its state today, instead of getting together all these very decrepit areas that are now left, and saying all right they are very small but let’s start revitalising them, we have some big fancy project which will catch the attention of the world, but will not substantially change the lives of its citizens. The land from Bandstand to Carter Road—it’s a 4 km stretch. We kept the mangroves, we didn’t build anything fancy, we just planted trees. It has completely transformed the lives of its citizens.

• All the people that walk past it say thank you, Shabana?

They do, they do. One of the things I was very happy about….

• We could do with a little bit of that in Delhi, because we keep on building these bridges but there’s no water underneath.

That’s right. So I just believe that civil society has to reclaim centre- space. People have to stop watching from the sidelines. They have to say we have a stake, we claim the stake, and we give our share.

• Shabana, you talk about civil society. Let me talk about the creative classes…your classes, not mine. I’m a hack.

(Laughing) I didn’t say so.

• I’m saying so. All over the world, you find it is the creative classes that lead the banner of revolt, questioning, defiance. The latest and most successful example being Vaclav Havel in the Czech Republic. How come this doesn’t happen in India, independent India in particular? You find artists, dancers, playwrights, writers…

Being co-opted by the system?

• Not just getting co-opted by the system. You see them bending over backwards to ingratiate themselves with the system. Either it is for the Padma awards or…

No, no, no, that’s too facile. I won’t agree with that except that I think there is a conspiracy in which the system wants artists to give their clout to support soft issues. So it is support to cancer, support to eye-donations, polio vaccines drive. But the minute they take up an issue that has political ramifications, all hell breaks loose. Because that is what really bothers the powers-that-be. The vested interests don’t want celebrities to take centrestage in anything that has political ramifications, and the media goes into overdrive to try and intimidate the celebrity into drawing a position.

• (Laughing) That will have to be a very weak-kneed celebrity.

Well yes, but I would like to say, for instance, when I am at a demonstration, it makes a very pretty picture me saying inquilab zindabad…

• Well, anything you do makes for a pretty picture.

(Laughs) And I’m saying inquilab zindabad and it makes for a pretty picture. But for heaven’s sake also say where I am saying inquilab zindabad, what is the slum issue. When I started working with slums in 1986, I would shed great tears because it was nothing about the issue and only about my personality. The media has to give much more space to the issue.

• Is that what you think happened to Arundhati Roy and Medha Patkar? That when Arundhati first came, the media turned entirely to her and the cause got lost?

No. I can very well identify with Arundhati. Because they rubbished her, said what does she know about it, why doesn’t she stick to her writing, who is she, does she have political aspirations, all of that. The same thing happened to me 20 years ago when I went on a five-day hunger strike for Bombay’s slum-dwellers .

• You stayed hungry for five days?

Yes, I stayed hungry for five days.

• How does it feel? I know how it feels when I miss a meal. Five meals I cannot miss, whatever the cause.

I didn’t even think what it did to me. I was absolutely certain that if we stuck to our guns we’ll achieve what we were demanding.

• No news there of someone having bananas on the side…

No, mercifully they didn’t do that. But it drew me so much flak that many of my colleagues in the film industry who wanted to rally in our support, didn’t come forward. They felt ki bhaiyya, pehle to ye kaam karo phir khadde mein giro (First you get involved in the issue, then in the scandal), it’s better to give ten thousand rupees here, two lakhs there.

• Were they scared to get identified with you as causerati and…

Obviously, one of the reasons was also that, but they would have also felt why should we do something that will only get us flak. That’s why I’m saying there’s a conspiracy to say artists are fine as long as they stick to soft issues.

• The artists shouldn’t accept this?

The artists should not accept this.

• Tell me, during the Emergency how many artists stood up in revolt? How many top stars said Emergency sucks, we don’t want it?

No, you’ll be surprised to know, there were people like Dev Anand, Vijay Anand, Balraj Sahni and all these people were there.

• I was coming to that. But they were all people from the old leftist shake from Lahore, so to say.

Yes, but I have high regard for Balraj Sahni. When there was this riot in Bhiwandi, he went and parked himself there for 10 days.

• If people like Dilip Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Raj Kapoor had all come out against the Emergency it would have been impossible for Mrs Gandhi to lock all of them up. She could lock up Maharani Gayatri Devi, political opposition, journalists, but locking up half a dozen filmstars would have been very tough. That is the power of the creative community.

I think the creative community has a lot of power. They have the ability to shake the Goliaths because they are Goliaths in the same vein…There was a time in the West when people like, say, Vanessa Redgrave jeopardised their careers. But today you find almost all the big stars there are supporting issues that are really political.

• Because you can just shout a slogan against Bush and it’s fine. It’s a no-brainer.

No. Ye sahi baat nahi hai Shekhar, ye sahi baat nahi hai. (This isn’t right, this isn’t right.)

• So why not in India? You are there and a couple of others.

Now there’s Rahul Bose, there’s Javed Akhtar, Mahesh Bhatt….

• …Aamir Khan?

Aamir Khan has not taken a political position, but is doing something very important. There are attempts to rubbish him, saying he is jumping in with an emotional response. Let’s remember that when Gandhiji was thrown out of the train, it was an emotional response. When I first came across the slum situation, it was an emotional response. Twenty years later I am still working with slums but I know the issue threadbare. But it was the emotional response that made the issue mine.

• Now when you visit the slums do you find any change? Any change in mindset, the way they look at life?

I think slum dwellers in any case have enterprise as they are working with their backs to the wall. But a lot of them are living in such a miserable, unhappy condition.

• So how does one solve their problems in Bombay. One, to give them self-respect. Second to give them better lives. These can’t be done by demolishing them and burying them. At the same time they can’t stay on where they are.

First, demolitions are not the answer. Demolitions only create worse slums than the existing ones. People do not go back to the village from where they came.

• …Scientific relocation?

Scientific relocation is a dicey thing because who is deciding what science it is? What you need is unconditional land tenure for the slum dweller. What you need is in the masterplan of the city—specially allocated land for the economically weaker sections. Unless that happens, where will the slum dweller who finds work in Bombay but does not find housing, go?

• Property prices are spiralling….

The government is not going to buy land at market prices for the slum dwellers. So unless the land is earmarked for them, the slum dweller will constantly be termed ‘‘illegal’’, and denied water, civic amenities. People say it is the slums that are ruining the city. You’ll be shocked to know that 60 per cent of the city’s population, which is the size of the slum dwelling population, occupies just 13 per cent of the city’s land.

• I quite believe this, because I had an opportunity to circle over Bombay in a helicopter and you could see it. That’s when your heart goes out to the people living in these slums. They might seem to be illegally occupying land but they are living very poor lives.

They live very poor lives. But the charge against them is also that they do not pay taxes.

• In terms of how much they earn in a city like Bombay, they deserve better lives.

Certainly they deserve better lives. They are not beggars, they are people who are working to make this city run. I always tell all my middle class friends, which includes people like me, that if you think slum dwellers are causing all the problems, take a vow you’ll not give any work, nor get anyone living in a slum to work in your house. Your life will come to a grinding halt.

• I’ll take that. But the point I’ll raise after that is, must these people continue living in these slums?

No.

• Grabbing the land. There’s no infrastructure for the slums, and there’s no infrastructure for the buildings. That’s not the way to do it, is it? So there’ll have to be some movement.

When there is movement, there has to be a political will, there has to be a commitment to 80 per cent— if you add the pavement dwellers it is about 80 per cent of the city. You cannot talk about city beautification only as a cosmetic thing. It has to be about the quality of people’s lives.

• It cannot be municipal beautification.

The problem cannot be solved unless you provide land to the economically weaker sections. You have to give finance directly— soft loans, with which the people will build their homes and pay back. It’s not rocket science.

• And which you’ll be very happy to be involved in?

Yes, in fact we have been involved and I’m very proud that 13,000 families pushed out of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park are being relocated at a Maharashtra government housing project, which is a slum rehabilitation project. Nivara Haq, the organisation I head, and the builders, Sumer Corporation…

• This is a good model.

It is a very very good model, provided that there is an organisation like ours which sees to it that the builder gives what we are asking for.

• Tell me Shabana, how did this transformation happen in your case? How did you move towards activism? I believe it happened because of a couple of films you did: Paar, Ankur, and even Arth.

You know, I don’t think it is possible for an artist who is working in films that talk about social justice to say all right, I have nothing to do with the characters I play. Some of the residue of the characters that you play is bound to have a resonance in your life. It’s something I have spoken about very often but I’ll tell you again, that during the making of Paar I was in a shanty town near Calcutta and there was a young woman from the slums whom I had befriended because I was using her as a role model to see how she walked, how she sat, etc. Sometime during the shooting she took me to her slum and I saw poverty that I had never seen. And I said, my God, this woman is living in such dire straits and yet she has the generosity to become my friend.

• You saw poverty there. I once asked Jaya Prada where she had seen poverty because she kept saying all the time that she was in politics to help the poor and she said I saw it on Newstrack.

But let me continue with what I was saying. When I saw this woman I was completely seized by her and I thought if I go back to Bombay and didn’t do something for people like her, it would be a travesty of the trust that she had placed in me by becoming my friend. It would be equivalent to me saying, OK, I’ll use you in a bargain to win the national award for myself but wouldn’t do anything for you. It was such a…

• It was like you thought you had to pay your dues.

I had to pay my dues. Then I saw this film by Anand Patwardhan, Bombay: Our City. That taught me demolitions serve no purpose. Then I got involved with Nivara Haq.

• Shabana, now tell me about my favourite role, Arth. You were so natural in that role.

You know, Arth really came from Mahesh Bhatt’s life. He and I had a very good equation all through the making of Arth. It was like he pushed a button and I sprang to perform. But the most important thing about Arth was that we stuck to our guns and didn’t change the end. When the husband comes back and says he’s sorry, the heroine doesn’t go back with him.

• In a typical Hindi movie she would have gone straight back… thanked her mangalsutra…

In a typical Hindi movie yes. When the distributors saw it they said bahut achchi film hai, bus iska end change kar deejiye (It is a very nice film. Just change the end). And we said end to hum nahin change karenge (We won’t change the end). And the film was such a commercial success. I suddenly had women coming to my house not as fans but in sisterhood, expecting me to resolve their marital problems. I was petrified because I was not prepared for that. But it made me conscious of how seriously people take the film actor.

• And one more, which wasn’t such a commercial success but was really a remarkable role: Saaz.

Yes, you liked that?

• If I may say so—you may say no— you played Asha Bhosle.

Main chup rahungi (I’ll keep mum). (Laughter)

• Asha Bhosle said “Unhone bada achcha role kiya. Lekin wo to sabhi kuch bada achcha karti hain (She did the role very well. But then she does everything very well)”. You can say main chup rahungi but everyone knows about the role.

Saaz was important for other reasons as well. It was the first film to show working women are invisible in Indian cinema. Every time you see two women fighting it is for the affection of a man. It is the first time you see two women fighting each other because of a professional career. So Saaz went unsung but it was saying important things.

• Did you at any point of time face questions from the Mangeshkars?

No, I didn’t.

• Shabana, tell me about your favourite roles, about acting …because you have done everything. Arth, Paar and Ankur.

You’ve run around trees, and you’ve done commercials. What was that, Do bucket paani…(Laughter)

Paani bachana achchi baat hoti hai (It is a good thing to save water.)

• Saying this as an activist or as a…

As both.

• No detergent saves you two buckets of water.

That one does. I check out a product before I endorse it. But to come back to acting, what grabs me about acting is that it allows me to inhabit the world of the character I am playing. That adds to my degree of awareness. Similarly, when I’m playing Lakshmi I give to Lakshmi everything that Shabana has experienced. It’s a two-way process. And I can say unhesitatingly that of all the things that I do, what gives me the greatest joy is being an actor.

• Are you an activist because you are an actor or vice-versa?

I think I’m an activist because I am an actor and because I come from a family where my father Kaifi Azmi believed art should be used as an instrument of social change.

• And how is it in a family of artists? Your husband, your entire family…nephews, nieces. Everybody is doing wonderfully. How much art and cinema do you talk at home?

Not much.

• And how much of politics do you talk at home?

My husband and I talk a lot of politics. My husband and my father used to talk a lot of politics. Very little of cinema.

• I want to ask a question that many of my friends have asked and maybe you’ve also been asked often. You have been so politically conscious and politically active. Why not ‘politics politics’? Why only this activism on the side?

Because I have problems with joining a political party. When you join a political party it puts the fetters on and the political party’s truth becomes your truth. I want to be able to retain my freedom of speaking on issues I feel strongly about.

• But can you bring about real change, real impact without that?

I’m in a fortunate position because I am also a film actor, and people recognise me irrespective of whether I was an MP or not. What you have when you are an MP is access. And I have fortunately reached a position where people take me seriously.

• You would accept that you are not yet doctrinaire in your outlook—you had a good working relationship with Vajpayee, for example.

One thing I learnt in Parliament was that it is perfectly possible to have strong ideological positions against a person and yet behave in a very civilised manner with him.

• That’s the beauty of Indian politics. I remember Nawaz Sharif saying to me he couldn’t understand V P Singh being welcomed by Rajiv Gandhi, whom he had defeated, with folded hands, and I told him this is what happens in jamhooriyat (democracy). But now it’s breaking down a bit.

I wish that bitterness ceases. I wish politics was done on ideological issues. I think it’s important the Left is with the government today. Congress policies must reflect this.

• Will you greet Modi on a flight?

Er, not Modi. No, not Modi.

• Is that where you’ll draw the line?

Yes.

• But Mr Vajpayee, Mr Advani?

Well when I’m an MP and he’s my Prime Minister and he’s my Home Minister, there are many issues that I have to take to him. I think a line is drawn when you take strong ideological positions and defend them whatever your social relations.

• I see celebrities who get nominations but then do nothing in Parliament. Do you see it as a problem?

I think they should not accept the nominations. By accepting them they are depriving others who really want to do work. And talking of nominated members, I remember when I first went to Parliament I was shocked by the decibel level there. But basically I am a political animal and I quickly got sucked into it.

• Well Shabana, we know you are a political animal and we hope you will soon jump into the fray of the real thing. Besides, we have another motive. Your friends in Delhi want you there. Thank you very much.