No one's ever approached me to make an agenda film, says S S Rajamouli
New Delhi, Feb 17: Filmmaker S S Rajamouli's "Baahubali" films and "RRR" have been blockbuster hits, but the director, who has often been accused of pandering to the majoritarian view, says he distances himself from "either Hindu or pseudo-liberal propaganda".
In an interview with the US publication The New Yorker, the filmmaker took on questions related to the politics of his film, which is nominated in the best song category at the Oscars 2023 for "Naatu Naatu".
He was asked whether there was any political pressure on him to tell certain kind of stories from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
"No, never directly, never. No one's ever approached me to make an agenda film, whatever the agenda is. Still, for a long time, less prominent people sometimes found objections to my films. Sometimes Muslims have had objections, sometimes Hindus, sometimes different castes," the director told the publication.
The Telugu filmmaker said his agenda is to provide "entertainment" to the audience coming to theatres, irrespective of what their ideology may be.
"I distance myself from either Hindu or pseudo-liberal propaganda. I know there are audience members from those extreme groups in my audience. I know that, but I'm not catering to them. I'm just catering to the emotional needs of the audience," Rajamouli said.
Released in March 2022, "RRR" is a pre-Independence fictional story focusing on two real-life Indian revolutionaries in the 1920s -- Alluri Sitarama Raju (portrayed by Ram Charan) and Komaram Bheem (played by Jr NTR). It also featured Alia Bhatt and Ajay Devgn in pivotal roles.
Rajamouli also responded to the criticism that his films are nationalistic in nature and distort history.
"First of all, everyone knows the 'Baahubali' movies are fictional, so there is nothing for me to say about whether it is a distortion of history to portray historic characters to suit the present BJP's agenda. As for 'RRR', this is not a documentary. This is not a historical lesson.
"It's a fictional take on characters, which has been done many times in the past. We also just talked about (film) 'Mayabazar'. If 'RRR' is a distortion of history, 'Mayabazar' is a distortion of the historic epic," he added.
The director said those who have accused him of supporting BJP or the party's agenda in his cinema forget that a BJP leader had threatened him for showing Jr NTR's Bheem in a skullcap.
"So people can decide for themselves whether I'm a BJP person or not... I hate extremism, whether it is the BJP, Muslim League, or whatever. I hate extreme people in any section of society. That is the simplest explanation that I can give," he added.
On the allegations that he deliberately omitted Mahatma Gandhi's picture in "Etthara Jenda", the final song of the movie, Rajamouli said he was tired of answering that question.
"There are numerous freedom fighters who laid down their lives to attain liberty for our country. I have heard many stories about these freedom fighters from childhood onward. Whichever stories touched me, made me cry, or made my heart swell with pride, those are the historic figures that I chose for that scene," he said, adding that there was room for only eight photos in that song.
"Still, I respect all of the revolutionaries that I chose, and, if I didn't put Gandhiji's portrait there, it doesn't mean I disrespect him. I have huge respect for Gandhiji, no doubt about that," he said.
On a question about whether there was a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in India, the director said he does not think in those terms.
"I don't know. I don't think in those terms. I always feel like films reflect the society that created them, whatever that society's feelings are. Films reflect the pace of society because filmmakers have to cater to audiences. They'll see what audiences like, what their present mood is, and make films for that.
"If there is a rise in that kind of sentiment in society, those kinds of films will come out. But I always stay away from that. I go a completely different route," he added.
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.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
