Dadamoni – The Actor Who Could Do No Wrong

Dadamoni – The Actor Who Could Do No Wrong

What can one write about Ashok Kumar, who died 22 years ago, at age 90, and whose last film was in the last century? A lot, actually, if the present film fraternity eyeing the future is looking for a case study from the past. It may find some answers, though not all.

His legacy needs a re-look when the country’s cinema is facing multiple crises. For one, institutional challenges to the studio and the star systems. Ashok Kumar straddled both. His Bombay Talkies, a major studio, lasted till the studio system itself had to yield place to the star system. Kumar was among the early beneficiaries of the change.

Now the star system is threatened. Today’s frequently-failing stars can’t sustain the country’s 12,000 cinema theatres. Jubilee times – silver, golden et al – are past. They are forced to take recourse to the OTT (over-the-top) platforms proliferating with their own global cinema, breaking geographical barriers. Alongside, films are being financed by a new set of foreign-financed studios that dictate terms to individual filmmakers. Film-making has become increasingly money and technology-driven.  

Two, on his success, Ashok Kumar invited Bimal Roy to Bombay. Along with the 1947 Partition, this triggered the influx of many more and not just from Bengal. This evolved into what is Bollywood today.

That Mumbai-based network producing Hindi films faces challenges from some of the regional language films. Bollywood must meet it by reaching out to those cinemas. But more importantly, by injecting a measure of discipline into its money-washed work culture. Collaboration in the making and marketing of RRR (2022) indicates some action on the first. On the latter, one can only hope that Bollywood is resilient enough to apply correctives — without awaiting lessons from some retired colonel that Ashok Kumar portrayed in Chhoti Si Baat (1976)!

Three, discipline was one reason behind Kumar’s success, of being sought after by three generations of filmmakers. He came to work on time, left on time and spent evenings, besides being with his family, rehearsing his next day’s dialogues. If Amitabh Bachchan is busy at 80 today, and his contemporaries and some younger lot are not, it is because of his punctuality and work ethic.

It would be impossible, even disastrous in the present times, to follow Ashok Kumar’s stipulation that he would not embrace the heroine. His smiling eyes did the romancing. He was called ‘dadamoni’, the affectionate elder brother, by everyone, including his legion of heroines. There were no scandals around Ashok Kumar, his biography by Nabendu Ghosh, who wrote many of the Bimal Roy classics, tells you.

ALSO READ: Ameen Sayani – Music To The Ears

Ghosh wrote Dadamoni: The Life and Times of Ashok Kumar when the thespian was around. It has got a new life with a Foreword by Kumar’s eldest daughter, Bharti Jaffrey, and an Afterword by Ratnottama Sengupta, Ghosh’s journalist-curator daughter. Together, the two ladies bring Ashok Kumar alive with innumerable insights and anecdotes.

The quintessential family man kept the promise he gave to Himanshu Rai, the man who launched his reluctant acting career, to stay away from ‘flappers’. Such a story would be boring today for those who devour filmy gossip and social media that get juicy bits, often from the stars themselves.

Dadamoni’s is not a rags-to-riches story. His well-heeled family did not mind his working as a laboratory technician in a film studio but was enraged at his becoming an actor. His engagement broke. He was pushed into an arranged marriage that lasted a lifetime. Society then enjoyed watching the film stars but treated them as social outcasts.

Shedding Ganguly, his surname, set the trend for ‘Kumars’: Uttam, Rajendra, Raaj, Manoj, Sanjeev, even Dilip (Yusuf Khan). Indian cinema’s first male superstar, he launched or promoted many, including Dilip, Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand — the troika that ruled the Hindi screen for decades. In his later years, he did supporting roles with them.

A sucker for good author-based films, he promoted writers like Sadat Hasan Manto, Ismat Chugtai and Shaheed Latif. He produced Parineeta based on Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyaya’s novel. It helped that he became a partner of Bombay Talkies and then the owner. He also launched his own production house. An astute businessman, he owned prime property around Kala Ghoda in South Bombay and nursed Rhythm House, the city’s iconic music hub.

Biographer Ghosh, also a fan, finds nothing negative about his idol. But Kumar’s younger daughter Priti recounts his smashing the Chinaware when in a foul temper, which was rare. She ended one on a hilarious note. She pleaded that he was about to smash an expensive crystal. He angrily demanded a cheaper one. She obliged. Dadamoni’s temper came crashing down instead.

Films had begun to ‘talk’ by the time he began but had yet to sing. Kumar sang with Devika Rani in Jeevan Naiya (1936). Pre-playback, Ghosh recounts, the composer and his team, perched on a tree branch to record Dadamoni and Devika singing, came crashing down. But Ashok Kumar did not give up singing. He was India’s first rapper with his “rail gaadi” in Ashirwad (1968).

With his smooth, natural style, he was the first to free acting and dialogue delivery from theatrics. No swagger. Less of speaking; he felt that was ‘preaching.’

Though beholden to the beauteous Devika Rani, he boycotted her years later. She had refused to meet Jawaharlal Nehru, the future prime minister. He called her ‘vain’ and ‘too proud’ of her beauty, film writer Gautam Kaul records. The boycott persisted till she met Nehru.

The variety of roles Dadamoni played, even their opposites, would be the envy of any actor, anywhere, anytime. The British rulers loved him as a cop but threatened to arrest him when he portrayed a rogue cop. Given his popularity, they reasoned, the public would get the wrong message.

He was a judge – also one accused of murder in Kanoon (1960). He played the thief in Jewel Thief (1967) because the Anand brothers – Dev and Vijay – were confident that given his image, none would suspect him of being one. He showed a flair for comedy, teaming up with Pran 27 times. Soap opera Hum Log was the flavour of the 1980s, the golden era of the government-controlled Doordarshan. Audiences waited to see how an episode they loved would end with Ashok Kumar’s message.

Despite hits from the word go, his stardom was not easy. A Brahmin romancing a Dalit, Achhut Kanya, a great social message, did not please the conservative. His song in Kismet (1943) ‘Door Hato Aye Duniawalo Hindustan Hamara Hai’ drew British censors’ wrath during the war years. The song was against the Germans and the Japanese, not the British. This worked. He stood for democratic values. When Hitler, on seeing Achhut Kanya sent a congratulatory telegram, he tore it off.

He admired Hollywood, but he refused an invitation from the legendary David Lean. He did not want to be typecast in bit roles. “I am an Indian and have no ambition to conquer the world,” he wrote back to Lean.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Pakeezah – The Courtesan’s Classic

What can one say about a film that took 16 years to make, its genre no longer popular when released, and its main attraction looking jaded, only a sad reminder of her resplendent beauty?

Well, you can say that despite these and numerous other debilities, it remains a classic that has grown with time. Fifty years after its release, Pakeezah (The Pure) continues to be viewed and debated by the discerning in the new century.

India was in a triumphant mood after the 1971 war when Pakeezah was released on February 2, 1972. People had no stomach for its deep melancholia. Romantic and opulent historical and “Muslim socials” of 1950s-60s (with notable exceptions Shatranj Ke Khiladi-1977, Junoon-1979 and Umrao Jaan-1981) were yielding place to contemporary themes. The “angry young man” was knocking at the cinema door.

After many expensive fits and starts, writer-director Kamal Amrohi barely managed to complete filming Meena Kumari, his estranged wife and muse. Both knew she was dying. Despite its rich artistic content and popular songs, Pakeezah flopped commercially. It marked the end of a life-time dream. Until…

Re-released after Meena Kumari died, just eight weeks later, on March 31, it stormed the cinema theatres. Not only were the fortunes revived and the fame restored, Pakeezah and Mena Kumari became synonymous. They overshadow her earlier acting triumphs and for that matter, also Amrohi’s outstanding films, with and without her.

Although it loses out in most departments except in music, Pakeezah often gets compared with Mughal-e-Azam (1960), a magnificent story of another bygone era, arguably one of the greatest films ever made in India.

ALSO READ: Unparalleled Reign Of Mughal e Azam

Many stories, real, apocryphal, even autobiographical, fuelled the making of both the films. Amrohi, appointed as one of the four writers for Mughal-e-Azam, abandoned Pakezaah because both had similar themes drawn from the Anarkali legend. Separated for five years from wife, he considered replacement. But he couldn’t imagine Pakeezah without Meena Kumari, and gave up again. Friends Nargis and Sunil Dutt helped their patch-up.

To lighten his burden, Amrohi engaged Satyen Bose, but couldn’t quit direction. Signing writers Akhtar-ul-Iman and Madhusudan led to disputes. He had to pay a fine to disengage with the latter. So, no Pakeezah without Amrohi as well.

The film’s German cinematographer, Joseph Wirsching, died in 1967. Technology switch was needed from Black & White to Eastmancolor. Composer Ghulam Mohammad died, requiring Naushad to complete the soundtrack, finally ‘arranged’ by Kersi Lord.

Pakeezah is the story of a tawaif, a courtesan. Unable to marry her lover Shahabuddin, she begets a girl-child before dying. Her sister Nawabjaan raises the child, grooms her as a dancer. The love story repeats, this time between Sahibjaan and Salim, a forest officer, also a nephew of Shahabuddin.

Family patriarch, common to both situations, rejects Sahibjaan. He shoots Shahabuddin who, shamed by Nawabjaan, wants to redeem himself. After this blood-letting, Salim has his way. He marries Sahibjaan, his Pakeezah. A poignant ending with justice, a rarity, for a courtesan.

Thanks to frustrating time-loss in production, Ashok Kumar, signed to play Salim, grown old, had to play Shahbuddin. From ‘stars’ of the day — Dharmendra, Raaj Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Sunil Dutt, and Pradeep Kumar – Amrohi chose Dharmendra as Salim. But well into shooting, he found the wife getting on “too well” with Dharmendra, enough to distract filming. There were rumours galore. The possessive husband-director dropped Dharmendra.

It was finally Raaj Kumar. He sees Sahibjaan sleeping on a moving train. Smitten, he leaves a note between her foot thumb and finger: “Aapke paon dekhe, bahut haseen hain. Inhein zameen par mat utariyega… maile ho jaayenge” (Your feet are really beautiful. Do not step on the ground… lest they be soiled). The dialogue is rated as one of the most romantic/erotic scenes in Indian cinema.

When released, the courtesan culture, the kothas of Lucknow et al, were passé. Not that there was no room for romanticism. But India was ready for another theme, Garam Hawa (Hot Winds-1973), about the plight of a Muslim businessman and his family, in the aftermath of the 1947 Partition. Only a year separated it from Pakeezah.

However, these “hot winds” couldn’t dampen the romance of Pakeezah and its songs. They also blew across the border from an aspiring India to a just-truncated Pakistan. Thankfully, Pakeezah helped a catharsis between the neighbours.

End-1972, I witnessed an India-Pakistan border “flag meeting”. A Pakistan Army officer, with roots in India’s Moradabad, half-seriously urged his Indian counterparts tasked to remove the explosives on the minefield, to “leave one mine only to be cleared by me, with a gramophone record of Pakeezah songs concealed underneath”.

India’s Doordarshan telecast Pakeezah from its Amritsar centre on September 29, 1973. Columnist Ibn-e-Imroze wrote in Daily Imroze: “The day Pakeezah was televised, Lahore cinemas wore a deserted look. Black-marketers sold their tickets even below the face value. Lahorewallahs had resisted (India’s) 1965 and 1971 attacks, but surrendered to this invasion of 1973. People invaded TV shops. Those who could not get one, fixed bamboo antennae on the roofs of their houses (to watch direct telecast), to console their frustrated feelings. Traffic came to a halt, pockets were picked, even doctors said to their patients: ‘If you remain alive till then, I’ll see you tomorrow. Today I am going to see Pakeezah’.”

To anyone with an ear for music, the film’s pull is undeniable. Among those gems, alas, Inhin Logon Ne seems plagiarised. It can be heard on Youtube in Shamshad Begum’s voice, sung for a 1941 film Himmat. The lyric is by Aziz.

Film analyst Gautam Kaul writes: Majrooh Sultanpuri had stolen the lyric from Aziz for Ghulam Mohammed, a contemporary of Pandit Gobind Ram, the original composer from the Lahore School.

Cut to 1972. Kaul notes: “It is the same kotha, the same assembly of men, the same musical score, the same song, the same Kathak style, but it is Technicolour, and a bloated Meena Kumari, with leathered skin due to constant drinking, is attempting to dance. The dancing isn’t a patch on the rendition by the light-footed young actress Manorama in the original.”

Truth be told, Meena Kumari was too sick to dance. She was filmed sitting. Padma Khanna performed all her dance movements, not credited to any choreographer.

None of these prevented the film’s earning five times the sum spent on production. Its soundtracks sold the best across Asia and topped the popularity charts of Radio Ceylon’s Binaca Geetmala, then a decisive benchmark.

Chalte Chalte, “Aaj hum apni duaon ka asar and Thaade rahiyo, for which she designed the costumes, remain the most memorable song-and-dance performances. A storm of protests from the film fraternity damned Filmfare that denied awards to Pakeezah because its leading contenders were dead.

In 2005, the British academic Rachel Dwyer called Mena Kumari’s character a “quintessentially romantic figure: a beautiful but tragic woman, who pours out her grief for the love she is denied in tears, poetry and dance.”

Meena Kumari’s fee for acting in Pakeezah was one sovereign gold coin. Kamal Amrohi gave that to his dying wife. She clutched it till she passed away, never able to see it or the released film. Pakeezah was truly, Meena Kumari’s film.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Ashok Kumar

Ashok Kumar: Accused, tortured, spat out 


The June 22 murder of a Class 9 boy by another one from Class 10 at a Vadodara school is eerily similar to Gurugram’s Ryan School murder of last year. While the focus remains on the schoolboys accused of murder in both cases, the bus conductor accused of the Gurugram horror has been largely forgotten. Lokmarg went to meet 42-year-old Ashok Kumar at his home in Ghamroj village of Sohna Tehsil in Gurugram district. This is what we found.

Barun Chand Thakur’s agony will never end. Not even after justice is served for the brutal, wanton murder of his seven-year-old son Pradyuman in Gurugram’s Ryan International School on September 8, 2017. But what of 42-year-old Ashok Kumar, the man wrongly accused of the murder, propped up and sashayed before baying television camera packs, and subjected to interrogation and imprisonment on the basis of what now has been swept aside as a murder probe gone terribly, horribly wrong?

This is a tale of our times, and that it has been forgotten till major developments take place in the unfolding prosecution of the case is largely a function of the unpeopleness of the family torn apart by botched police work. For Ashok Kumar is no Deepak Talwar. Kumar, a slightly built bus conductor with all the meekness that his poverty marks him with, was freed on November 22 after the Central Bureau of Investigation that took over the probe on September 22 said he was not an accused any more.

He lives in Ghamroj village, a settlement of less than 5,000 people in a rocky barenness that stays sandwiched between the millenial development of Gurugram and the aridity of Mewat district. Ghamroj clings to the nearby forested haven of Bhondsi village for survival, be it a functioning ATM or the nearest post office. As the first anniversary of the beginning of his ordeal approaches, Kumar is not well.

He hasn’t restarted the life his innocence provides. He’s practically bedridden, suffering from severe lower back pain. Laying down in a cot in his little single storey house, he points to the region between his lower spine and hip.


What Happened at Ryan International School? 

Pradyuman Thakur was found murdered in a bathroom of his school on September 8 last year. The police zeroed in on Ashok Kumar, a bus conductor who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Kumar has alleged intimidation and torture by the cops who are also at the receiving end of a supplementary chargesheet that the CBI has filed against them, officers named and included.

It took the CBI two days of investigating the crime to conclude Kumar was innocent and that a teenager who reported the dead boy in the bathroom to a school gardener was the real culprit. The Class 11 boy was kept in a juvenile home as per the law but a court last month allowed his prosecution as an adult. The prosecution continues, at a surprisingly good pace by Indian standards.


“There is severe pain in my lower back. It is very hard for me to sit on the floor or to stand up quickly. The doctors have referred me for immediate surgery but I do not have enough money for it. So I am staying home,” he says as the sun beats down on the earthern courtyard of his simple but clean dwelling, a guava tree in the centre providing the only island of shade. Kumar walked free on bail on November 22, a day after it was granted.

In the runup to the bail hearing, residents of Ghamroj started a collection for Kumar’s bail, hundreds and fifties and some thousands adding up to all of ₹2 lakh. He was finally acquitted of all charges on February 28 this year. “Almost six months of hell,” says Kumar. The most difficult phase was Kumar’s remand period with the Gurugram police when they “injected sedatives and brutally assaulted me for a crime that I had not committed”.

Kumar’s skills are limited; he can drive a van or work as a bus conductor. Only, he can’t even do that anymore. “The third degree torture of Gurugram police is responsible for this pain in my lower back and therefore I am unable to do any physical work.

I am completely dependent on my father and wife who are employed in village’s Vivek Bharti public school and earning for our livelihood,” he says. Kumar’s father Amichand enters the conversation: “My son had faced police torture and jail but it has disrupted the entire family. We suspect any stranger we see coming to our house,” he says. “We hope the trial concludes as soon as possible and that the real culprit is proven guilty in court.” Kumar’s father makes about ₹4,000 a month; about the same as his daughter-in-law.

“Besides, there’s ₹1,600 coming in every month because of the old age pension that Ashok’s grandmother is entitled to,” he explains. That’s a total of ₹9,600 to run a seven-member household, including Kumar’s two schoolgoing sons. “The low earnings of our family does not allow us to get Ashok’s lower back surgery done despite its immediate recommendation by doctors,” says Amichand. Kumar’s lawyer, a man who’s fought heroically to save his client, has said he will move court for compensation. But that remains far away, and Kumar remains stricken.


The Ryan School Murder Case on Lokmarg 

Ryan conductor walks free after 76 days in prison

Turn follows twist in Ryan School murder case

CBI reconstructs Ryan School murder

Dramatic twist in Ryan murder; Class 11 boy held