TIFF-2022 award for documentary on Ravish Kumar
New Delhi: ‘While We Watched’, the 94-minute Hindi documentary by award-winning filmmaker Vinay Shukla on the professional journey of Magsaysay Award winning Indian journalist Ravish Kumar, won the Amplify Voices Award at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF-2022).
‘While We Watched’ – titled ‘Namaskar! Main Ravish Kumar’ in Hindi – was produced by BRITDOC Films and LONO Studio.
A film that focuses on Ravish Kumar’s efforts to uphold facts and truth and simultaneously unveil mere hearsay, ‘While We Watched’ received a standing ovation at the film festival.
TIFF film programmer Thom Powers said that people concerned with the future of television journalism ought to watch the documentary, since, although its tale is situated in India, its reference to putting forth truth fighting the spread of falsehood would be applicable in any country.
Shukla called the feature-length film an expression of his love for journalism. He also called journalists ‘the greatest storytellers of our times’.
Speaking on communicating with Ravish Kumar who won the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2019, Shukla said that he watched the veteran journalist at work for two years, the way the team ascertained the truth behind a news piece. This, the director said, taught him the efforts put in behind the screen, even every sort of cost the journalist paid, for every news show that a viewer watched. Since he realized it was a tough job, the film was a tribute to the personal cost that journalists pay to get their job right, Shukla stressed.
Luke W Moody, who is one of the producers of the film, called it an effort at bringing to light the loss that the world would face if such quality journalism had to die.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'Father didn't know minor son took car', says court, grants bail to businessman in accident case
Mumbai (PTI): A Mumbai court on Wednesday granted bail to a businessman, held in a car accident caused by his minor son that led to the death of a person last month, noting that prima facie the father lacked knowledge of his son taking out the vehicle for a drive.
Additional Sessions Judge R M Jadhav allowed his bail on a bond of Rs 50,000 and mainly relied on the statement of a watchman of the building where the businessman resides while granting him relief.
The accident occurred on February 5 near Somaiya College in Mumbai's Ghatkopar area.
As per police, the minor son of the businessman, booked for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, was driving a Kia Seltos when it collided with a scooter, leading to the death of its rider Dhrumil Patel. The deceased's wife Meenal, who was riding pillion, suffered grievous injuries in the crash.
The boy's father was arrested on February 10 and booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions related to rash driving, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, act endangering life and safety of others as well as relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The accused, through his advocate Manish Singh, had argued during bail hearing in the court that he was neither present at the accident spot nor driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
He claimed had no knowledge of his son taking the vehicle on the day of the accident and was not responsible for the fatal crash.
Public Prosecutor P B Bankar opposed the bail application, contending the father allowed his son to drive despite knowing the minor did not possess a valid licence.
Advocate Ruben Mascarenhas, appearing for an intervenor (representing the victim's family) , highlighted that the minor operated an Instagram account which featured reckless driving stunts.
The applicant/accused had knowledge of this fact, but still allowed his son to drive the SUV. Hence, prima facie an offence was made out against him, he added.
The advocate submitted that the accused offered Rs 40 lakh to the victim's family to settle the case and claimed that the minor's Instagram history was tampered with.
Additional Sessions Judge Jadhav, after hearing all sides, relied on the statement of a watchman of the businessman's building while granting bail.
It is noted that at 10.15 pm (on the day of accident) the juvenile accused approached the watchman and asked for the car's keys (which were in the latter's possession at that time). The watchman claimed that without questioning the teenager, he handed over the keys to the minor as he happened to be the son of the accused, the court order said.
Later, when the father came down and found that his car was not there in the parking lot, he enquired with the watchman, and came to know the vehicle was taken by his son, it said.
"Prima facie, the material on record thus goes to show that the applicant/accused was not having knowledge of the fact that at the time of incident his son took the vehicle which is required to be noted here," the court held.
The court directed the businessman not to leave Mumbai without its permission and desist from any attempt to influence witnesses in the case.
