http://www.asianage.com/interview-week/avanindra-wanted-money-give-his-interview-and-i-refused-point-blank-386
'Avanindra wanted money to give his interview and I refused point blank' Mar 15, 2015 - Suparna Sharma Leslee Udwin Filmmaker Leslee Udwin, director of the documentary India's Daughter, a 60-minute investigation into the gangrape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student in Delhi in December 2012, is very busy these days. In the United States currently, she is doing back-to-back interviews during the day and spending her nights "not sleeping, but answering hundreds of emails in support". She's also overseeing the release of her film in other countries, and, of course, tackling allegations and court orders from India. India's Daughter arrived in the middle of India's outrage season. A foreigner, a woman had run away with the only scoop to be had in a story that every Indian media house, especially the television channels, was covering very personally. Udwin too had taken it personally. Sitting in Copenhagen, she felt that the protests that followed the gruesome rape were also screaming for her rights. So she decided to make a film on the rape case and protests. She's still in "big debt", she says. But it's been a journey she won't regret. What Udwin calls the "the extraordinary aspect" of her film, the interview with Mukesh Singh, the convicted rapist and killer who has appealed to the Supreme Court against his death sentence, was seen as a threat by many in India. India had the rape conversation under our control. It was ghar ki baat. There were clear boundaries about what we could talk about, and what we must not talk about. But now, India's Daughter had taken over the conversation. It was playing on foreign screens, threatening India's reputation. Our rape secret was out. India wasn't shining. Social media was ablaze. Legal, moral, ethical issues were raised. Jail manuals were read. Lawyers sent petitions, feminists wrote out statements, and the government imposed a ban on the interview. It also sent out an advisory to all TV channels not to broadcast the documentary. One TV channel nodded in smug agreement and reacted with #Nirbhayainsulted on Twitter; another decided to switch off in protest. A documentary that would have been forgotten in a month's time become a symbol of free speech. Every permission granted was held up for scrutiny. Motives were ascribed, visas were checked, gossip was packaged as news stories. The only eyewitness in the case, the victim's friend, Avanindra Pandey, called the documentary a "fake", and Udwin's former co-producer on the film said that the film was"an abominable portrayal of the issue". There was also a mathematical enterprise -- population and rape figures were compared, to claim who rapes more than whom, per capita. We win, you lose. Make a film on your rapists. Smart, snarky ones were at it. Sensible, soft ones were also at it. Some said it was a bad documentary. A white, westerner point of view with the cliched India images -- urchins, cramped bastis, weeping mothers. These images had lost meaning for us, but in Udwin's film they irritated. A few said that the only answer to a bad documentary was a better documentary. But everyone knew they'd always be a post-script to India's Daughter. A rape that had united India, a film on it had splintered it. And Udwin the hijacker didn't help matters by speaking of India trying to hide its shame, about its hysteria and animosity. So the allegations kept coming. We sent Udwin a list of 25 questions, seeking clarification on the charges, allegations. Udwin said she was "disappointed" by the questions because they were "all accusatory and put her in a dock to defend herself". After some emails and phone calls, she agreed to talk, at 3 am on Friday night-Saturday morning, on the condition that everything she says is printed. Over one-and-a-half hours, she answered every question I put to her, except one. Full transcript of the interview. *On Thursday, the Delhi high court, while refusing to issue any direction on the two PILs that sought lifting of the "ban" on your documentary, noted, "Whether he (Mukesh Singh) has shown remorse or not would be considered at the time of his sentencing... media trials tend to influence the minds of judges... It may make his case, it may ruin his case and that of his co-accused... Judges are also people. We are not from outer space." So do you stand corrected -- on insisting that your documentary will have no impact on Mukesh's appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging his death sentence?* I don't stand corrected. I have sought several opinions, I've had a number of opinions verbally, all of which concur with the two written opinions which I then commissioned from very, very senior ex-Supreme Court judges. All of them have concurred that there can be no prejudice, that as long as I put a disclaimer in the front of the film that effectively states that I am not there to influence, or intending to influence, the outcome of the appeals hearings in the Supreme Court, there can be no prejudice. Of course judges are human, nobody thinks they are not, but the judges are not fools and the judges are not puppets. Judges have very strict regulations as far as the evidence that they are allowed to admit into their thinking as they either uphold or dismiss the appeals. And they are only allowed to take into account matters that are on record, matters that have been on record in the trial in the sessions court and in the high court. In fact, I had a senior lawyer compare every word in the transcript of the film with every word on the record of the courts and everything in the film is already on record in the court. So there can be no prejudice, nor will there be any prejudice. *This order means that the release of your film in India is further delayed, at least till the Chief Justice hears it next Wednesday. Could you please confirm that as per the earlier order, issued on March 3 and 4, the "ban" was only on Mukesh Singh's interview, and not the rest of the film. That you could have cut that out...* No, I could not have simply cut that out and shown it. The ban is only one aspect of this. The ban is the ban on the interview. But the ministry of information and broadcasting, which as you know is an organ of state, has issued an advisory to all broadcasters that they shall not release or broadcast or publish the whole documentary. Now the MIB advisory, and I discussed this in great detail with the heads of NDTV, the MIB advisory may not be an edict but, in effect, acts as one because in going against an MIB advisory a broadcaster like NDTV can lose its licence. *Thanks for clarifying that. I asked this questions because...* There have been huge inaccuracies of reporting, this is the problem. That the entire hoo-ha and outcry and hysterical knee-jerk reaction was by people who had not seen the film. Had they seen the film, I do not believe any of this would have happened. *Would you agree that the ban has actually helped make the film a matter of huge interest -- its popularity and download, etc. have increased. And the ban, in effect, has gone against exactly what the government intended to do.* Well, in a sense, it has led to more, if you like, eyeballs on the film and it has backfired in that sense. Because in a digital age one actually cannot silence a film. The version of the film that was leaked on to YouTube -- this is a great, great tragedy and it's one that I regret every single day for a number of reasons which I will go into details in a moment. Let me tell you that I now have not one but two teams working on a daily basis taking down the YouTubes, the Torrents, whatever it is that we can actually insist on taking down. And you know, this is at a cost which again is coming out of my own pocket. Yes, it has led to more views of the film, but from my point of view this is not at all a good thing because the version of the film that was leaked and has now been seen by people in India was not the Indian version of the film. And there is a very big difference between the Indian version of the film and the international versions of the film. In that, for example, the name of the victim was never to be made public in India. The version that has leaked and has now been seen contains the name of the victim and, you know, that is for me a terrible outcome, one of the terrible outcomes of this ban. I spent 48 hours at NDTV locked in an editing room, actually cutting the India version of the film. I would always respect the laws of the land in whatever country a film is being shown in, and in the same way as the American PBS version of the film, and the BBC version of the films, they in themselves different to some extent from the other international versions of the film because public broadcasters have certain rules, certain editorial policies. They cannot, for example, publish the names of any NGOs which might be affiliated to the film. The thanks list in itself has to be scrutinised and is different for public broadcasters than for any other. There are very diverse and complex rules. So there are subtleties which make it necessary to do a different version of the film depending on who the distributor and the broadcaster is. And the greatest pain for me of all is this - there is only one version of this film in the whole world that does not have the statistics at the end of it. And that is the BBC version of the film. And that is to do with the BBC's editorial policy and house style, as far as its Storyville strand is concerned, where they do not quote statistics in their films. So the BBC refused to have my director's cut of the film, if you like, which ends this film with statistics of offences against women from all over the world. I know that that version has also somehow been leaked because I know there are people who have seen that version also on the Internet. But certainly, big swathes of people, in excess of millions I believe, have seen this film without the statistics. That is anathema to me. That is absolutely against my film and my intentions. *The India version?* No, all the world versions of the film carry the global statistics, excluding only the BBC version. The BBC is the only broadcaster in the world that is allowed to make a decision about what is included in their version of the film and what is not because the BBC is the only organization or broadcaster in world that has actually put funding into the film before it was complete. And that gives it certain rights, one of which is to do their version, which doesn't have the statistics. That's their right. *Right. And they chose to keep the statistics out because...* Well, the way the BBC explained it to me and I argued for this very vigorously over a number of, well, several weeks actually, and they basically said that for the BBC, their house style on Storyville is to tell a particular human story and they do not have statistics, they do not have films that, if you like, "look like campaign or NGO films". *Oh, okay.* You should get a quote from them direct, but that is my understanding of their reasoning. And as I said, they are the only broadcaster in the world who has been allowed, because I cannot stop them contractually to take the statistics off the end of the film. In every other country the statistics are on the end of the film. *That's the version I saw, the BBC version, because that was most easily accessible.* There you go. That's why I say it's a travesty that the ban caused this. It's absolutely, really upsetting to me that the version that was meant to be seen in India, and indeed in all other parts of the world, that people in those countries were able to access a version that I had no control over, that did not have the statistics, because it's only the BBC version that I have no control over. *So what difference would it have made if, say...* Huge difference. There's a huge difference. The reason those statistics are on the end of the film is because no viewer reaching the end of this film is to be allowed off the hook, of thinking "what about my country?, what about offences against women in my country?", because there are offences against women in every single country in the world, without exception. It may be different, it may have different characteristics, it may be different in degrees, but it is a global problem and that is one of the major points that this documentary makes. It's a point I make in every single interview I have ever given about this film and will continue to do so. *And according to the statistics, as shown, India is or is not on top of the table... I'm asking because I have not seen them, I don't know what the statistics say, convey.* Ok, let me give you the UK statistic -- one in three girls in the UK, between the ages of 13 and 17, have known, have experienced sexual violence. One in three girls. Let me give you the statistic in Egypt. How many per cent of women do you think have been female genitally mutilated in Egypt? Take a guess, Suparna. *Oh god.* Just guess. *Sorry, I don't... 10 per cent of...* Ten per cent? 96 per cent. 96 per cent of women in Egypt. We live in a world where gender inequality is embedded in the thinking of every country in the world and what I aimed to do and will continue do with this film is to have countries across the world join hands, and I had a really beautiful symbolic gesture on International Women's Day, on March 8, in which seven countries across the globe, including India, were holding hands together to say this is a global problem we are pledged to tackling and we will all join hands and tackle this problem. UN under-secretary-general Baroness Valerie Amos was one of the very extraordinary and high-profile supporters we had in the global launch of the campaign in New York on March 9. And she has pledged to take this film to the UN, to join it with the "He for She" campaign, you know, and to work globally, across the world to tackle this problem that we all face. Now the tragedy here is that I made this film as a positive statement and a tribute to India -- I was holding India up as an example to the whole world, of the only country in my lifetime, and that's a pretty long time, 57 years I've lived Suparna, and I have never seen another country in the whole world stand up with a degree of determination, hope, courage and robust voice, crying, enough is enough, we will not have this any more, and in such a sustained and inspirational way for over a month. That's what took me to India to make this documentary. If those protests had happened in any other country in the world, if those protests had been in response to any other offence against women, be it child marriage, be it an acid attack, an honour killing, a dowry death, a female foeticide case, I would have gone to that country and made that documentary about that case. *This is not a right question to ask, but could you not have "leaked" the other version, the world version...* In fact, in fact, Suparna, the other version has been leaked because I know that people have seen it. Every time someone tells me that they have seen the film, the first question I ask is, "Where did you see it, on BBC iPlayer, or Canada or in Sweden or in Switzerland etc, or did you see it on the Internet?" And anyone who tells me they saw it on Internet, the first question I ask is, "And did you see the version with statistics or not?" And I know that many people have seen both versions, so it has been leaked. I have not leaked it. Given this Salem-like witch hunt of me and this smear campaign against me and against this film, you may believe it or not, but I am actually a law-abiding human being and I would not dream of breaking the law. And there is currently a stay order in place against the broadcast of the film in India and also against dissemination of this film in India on the Internet. This is why I have employed a company and have another team of people working each day to make double efforts to ensure that every version that's on the Internet is taken down. *You are not revealing the names of the judges and lawyers whose opinion you sought, and who told you that Mukesh's statements would not prejudice his case...* No. It would be wrong to do so. Any opinion from a client to a lawyer is a privileged document. *Right. But...* It would be irresponsible and it would break trust if I did so. Anyone is more than welcome to pay the money that I paid to commission such opinions and to get such opinions. *Right. But don't you think it's also irresponsible that if a case is pending, an appeal is pending in Supreme Court, to make a documentary that clearly arouses passions, that can impact public opinion, which can then impact how the judges react. Did you feel... (she begins before I can finish my question, which was, "...no responsibility, empathy -- that Mukesh should get a fair hearing?")* It cannot impact how the judges react. Suparna, judges are not idiots. They are not children. You must pay them the respect they deserve. Nor are they puppets of government, nor are they partial human being. Judges are in that position because they are very wise and mature and clever men and women, not enough women haha, but you know, these are people who are very clear about what they are judging and what they are allowed to take into account. I mean, these are judges who have heard the lawyer A.P. Singh make the comment about burning his daughter, they have heard the lawyer make the appeal to the public in gross terms that it was the girl's fault, not the fault of their six, sorry five clients because the juvenile's case of course was separate. The statements and arguments have already been canvassed in the media as well as in the court. There's nothing new about them. *But the judges themselves have said, that, well, we are not from outer space. I mean the high court, two high court judges said that, on Thursday. So, then...* Well if those judges were sitting of these appeals there would be real problems, because they may not be from outer space but there are very strict rules about what they are allowed to take into account and what they are not. And if they are saying that they would be prejudiced, that is very worrying, as they would not be applying the law and their judgement as required and as demanded by law. *Ok. Umm...* I just want you to know, I took the trouble, it's not that I just rushed into this decision, to show the film at a certain point. We took really diligent steps. I showed the film to the victim's parents because I believe we have a duty of care to them. I showed the film to the prosecution team who have dealt with this case for the state. The response I got was, "This film is one hundred per cent accurate to the case." "As long as you do not say publish the name, because that is against the law in India, and as long as you have a disclaimer, this film is great, actually," I was told. It's a comprehensive compilation, not just of the case, but of the issue. Those were the exact words that were used. *I want to ask you about Avanindra Pandey, who was with the rape victim on December 16, 2012, and has...* Called the documentary a "fake". *Yes, and has singled out Satendra, who the film says, was the victim's tutor.* Yes. *Avanindra has said that he had never heard this name before. I wanted to ask you...* Well, that's his problem, isn't it. I mean, are you telling me, Satendra doesn't exist? I could give you his phone number, and you can phone him up and you can ask him. He was asked by the family in 2006, before Avanindra even knew the victim, he was asked to tutor her, and he did tutor her. He became her friend, he became a very, very close family friend. And you asked in your written question, I believe, how did I meet Satendra. The family introduced me to him. I mean, what are we talking about? This is childish in the extreme. Is he really trying to have the world believe that I got actor in there, some imposter? This is a joke. As far as the film being a fake is concerned, Suparna, I can see where Avanindra is coming from. Avanindra has to face a film now that does not have his version of events in it. He has a film now that has only Mukesh, the driver of the bus, saying that he hid between the seats. Now let me tell you, that I tried for over a year to get Avanindra to come on the documentary, to give us the interview. Avanindra wanted money to give his interview and I refused point blank. I have paid no one on this documentary, nor would have paid. And it is actually, some evidence for you, that Avanindra is not in the documentary because almost everyday that passed while I made this film, I asked this question and expressed to my team, how on earth can we make a documentary where the only living, surviving prosecution witness in this case is not in it. It broke my heart not to have him in it. He has previously taken money for interviews, which I think is unconscionable and unacceptable. He has been recorded in a sting operation negotiating money for an interview. Now I did not cast the first stone, I need to tell you. Had you not asked this question, I would not be telling you these things because I don't go around deflecting from the issue with smear campaigns. It's immoral, it's incorrect. We are dealing here with an issue that is bigger than Avanindra, bigger than me and bigger than you... *How much money did he ask for?* I'm not prepared to go into details. I can only tell you, he asked for money, I refused. We continued to try and persuade him after that, to come on board, we continued to say we would not pay but we really wanted and needed him to, that Nirbhaya would want him to, we tried every argument we could think of, which we, of course, also believed in. Finally, my co-producer Dibang phoned Avanindra and said to him, we have a recording of Mukesh Singh, who drove the bus, saying that you hid behind the seats. We beg you Avanindra to come on and tell your version of what happened that night so that you can set the record straight if there is a record to be set straight here. We thought he would respond to that. Still he didn't. At that point his answer was, "I can't, I can't. I'm in trouble, I'm in trouble." Now don't ask me what he meant, but those were the words, his final words to us, and we didn't try again after that, having tried for more than a year. *Ok. Going a step back. Could you actually give me Satendra's number?* I will give it to you. Obviously not while the recorder is running. *Ya, absolutely.* Sure. Actually, better still, you must surely as a journalist be in contact with the parents, no? *No, I'm not.* You could also ask them. I mean what? Avanindra hasn't heard of Satendra, so Satendra doesn't exist. The parents introduced me to him. He is a very, very close family friend. He was a mentor to Nirbhaya, and a friend and a tutor. What on earth are we talking about here Suparna? Are you honestly telling me you want to phone Satendra to hear whether he exists? *No. You said you could give his number and I asked...* Can you actually tell me where you are coming from in this? You've seen the film. What did you think of the film, Suparna? *I actually liked the film, very much. But I have to say, and it's one of the questions that I sent to you, that he (Satendra) did come across as extremely deliberate, and what he was saying, it seemed to create a certain kind of profile of the victim, which was almost made to order. It didn't...* But you were looking for that, weren't you? Because you heard Avanindra say that it was a fake and he didn't know him. Let me tell you, you are the only one I've ever heard say that and I think I've spoken to upward of a thousand people certainly who have seen the film. I've never heard that comment before. I think that's a very loaded review, and I think it's loaded because you came to it with a certain attitude and information which is not accurate information, simply not true. *Ok. Alright.* You like the film? Wait a minute. You liked the film? What does that mean, you liked the film? It's not a likeable film. *If you want a proper review of the film then I...* I don't want a review of the film. I want to know what that film made you think about the issue that the film is about. It is an issue-based film. What did it make you think? *Well, I thought the film was about one particular rape case, the "issue" I did not get, I got that it's about this one particular rape case and what did come across very, very strongly was the opinion of men in the legal profession, and the mindset of rapist -- it was the first time that I heard someone said what they said... What Mukesh Singh said, what...* Well, it shouldn't have been the first time you heard it because your politicians have been saying it very loudly, and very grossly in manifold ways... *I meant it was the first time I heard a rapist say that victim was to blame, to see that there was no remorse...* Why would a rapist be any different from another human being created by the same society and the same set of attitudes to women? Why would the rapist be different? That is why the rapist thinks what he thinks, that is why the rapist does what he does, because he is taught from an early age that a woman is of no worth, that a woman is a second-class citizen, that a woman who is out after dark must be a slut, that is what he is taught by society. I don't know why it should come as a surprise. *Well then, by extension, in effect what you are saying here is that anybody who holds that opinion is a potential rapist.* Yes, that is correct. That is what I believe. Some will do it. Some will not. The psychiatrists' view of these men -- I spoke to two psychiatrists and I only included one in the film because when you are making a film that is an hour long, you have to leave a lot out. I had 87 hours of interviews, 87 hours I had to bring down to one hour, okay? I spoke to two psychiatrists, both of whom said that these rapists are not monsters, they are not just rotten apples in the barrel, okay. And the view that I came to was that it's the barrel that's rotten and the barrel that rots the apples. These are men who are normal but have anti-social tendencies, that is what the psychiatrist in the film said. So some will, and some won't. But when you are brought up to believe that a girl is less than you are, this is why what Sheila Dikshit said and is included in the film. Whatever else Sheila Dikshit said, about a girl being our late at night being "too adventurous", Sheila Dikshit, along with others, is going up on our Name and Shame page, because it was a shameful comment to make. But what she said about the milk seemed to me to be a very clever and wise way of conveying what all societies do to girls and that is why because of the other comment she made was a shameful comment to make, but what she said about the glass of milk seemed to me to be a very clever and wise way of conveying what all societies do to girls. And that is why it's included in the film, to answer another of your questions later on. *Ok, I will come back to that question, if you don't mind.* Sure. *Anjali Bhushan, who was earlier the film's co-producer, along with you, has claimed to the effect that you were a "collaborator" and that the film's idea was originally hers. Is that correct?* That is a lie. It is a barefaced lie. I had the idea to make this documentary and I started working on it within days of seeing those protesters on the streets. That is when it occurred to me, that when I started sitting down, in my office, in Copenhagen, thinking about what documentary would I make, how would I go about it, who would I interview, starting to read all the articles, doing whatever research I could. And Anjali Bhushan in May of the following year went to Cannes, phoned me up -- she was someone I trusted, misplaced trust, I'm afraid. She was someone I was a mentor to, she had approached me some five years ago in Mumbai when I was sent by the British Film Council to India to do some seminars with Indian writers and she approached me and asked me whether I would help her, advise her, she wanted to... she was a would-be director, and said she wanted to make independent films that broke the Bollywood mould, that were meaningful and issue-based, and I said, "That's great, you are doing a good thing. The more of that we have in the world the better", and I helped her as much as I could from that moment on. She would send me her ideas, script, treatment of various ideas she had, one was a film about Kashmir. I would advise her, I would tell her what I thought and I would try and help her, and in May of 2013, she wrote to me to say, "I'm going to Cannes", and so I said, "You are coming to Europe, if you want to come and spend the weekend with me in Copenheagen, at my home, as my guest, it would be lovely to see you." I was a friend. And she came and when she came I told her about this documentary that I was preparing to go and make. And I mentioned to her that one of the things I was particularly obsessed with doing was to interview the rapists in this case because it seemed to me that to change things you have to really understand them, to get a meaningful answer to why men rape you have to ask the rapists what they think of women, why and how they could do what they did. And at that point she said, "Oh my god! My boyfriend is like a godson to the DG of Tihar (Vimla Mehra). Maybe you can actually interview these rapists." And I said, "That's amazing, that's extraordinary. Let me write an impassioned letter, ask your boyfriend if he would put it in front of the DG (his "aunt")." And that is how it happened, and that is how I got permission. And I said to her, at that time, because I am a very generous, open person. I said, if you can actually manage to get me this access, I will bring you on board as an absolutely equal partner. Now unfortunately, what then ensued was a series of breaches of her contract -- material and serial breaches, falsifying of accounts, incompetence in terms of the handling of the shoot, serious breaches of confidentiality and, also, blackmail. So I ended her contract, as I would that of anybody who behaved in that manner, who breached their contract, who breached confidentiality and all the other breaches that she was guilty of. I mean it's as simple as that. If she has been left rancorous and bitter, well, there is a court of law that she can go to and try and get redressal. She can go to a court and claim unfair dismissal and let a court judge whether she breached the contract in the manner which I say she did or not. *You say blackmail.* Yes, blackmail. And remember again, it was not I who cast the first stone. But I will not stand by and be defamed and have a pack of lies uttered against me and not defend myself. I will tell the truth, Suparna, and I will continue to tell the truth. I am fearless in that regard. *What was she blackmailing you about? I fail to...* Well, clearly, she and her boyfriend had power in terms of their relationship with the DG. Basically, all this trouble about the prison permissions was caused by them, trying to create a problem that only they could solve, in order that they could get paid for that, in order that they could exert pressure. She was blackmailing me for Rs 10 lakh, 10,000 pounds. *When was she dropped?* She was dropped first in December (2013). There was an attempt to get us together again. We had a reconciliation meeting, we reaffirmed certain commitments, which she then went within a month and breached yet again. And finally the termination letters were served on her, I think, only in September 2014, although from June I was dealing with lawyers over it. *Apart from getting you access to the rapists at Tihar Jail, what was her contribution...* She opened a door. I mean, let's not forget that I did write the impassioned letter which obviously persuaded the DG. Well, I assume so. I would hesitate to believe that someone in a responsible position, as a director-general of prisons, would do this simply as a favour to her son's best friend, or her godson, or, you know, whatever the actual relationship was. She must have been convinced, I assume, by the impassioned letter I wrote. *And the Rs 10 lakh she was asking for was not her fee, not a part of her payment for the film, not...* No, it was to bring back in line what she said were "disturbed prison permissions", which they were not. The permissions were granted, they were solid, I had complied with every obligation on me and every condition that those permissions imposed. But what she tried to do was to destabilise the permissions by going to the DG and saying, "This film could end up being negative about India, you could get into problems, what you need is editorial control over this film." And that is when the prison actually started demanding editorial control, served a legal notice on me, which they never took up or acted on because it had no legal leg to stand on, and my response to the legal notice was, you say I meant to give you editorial control, that is not the case. Look at the permission letters. The permission letters say that the only thing you have any kind of approval over is anything that potentially breaches prison security. They had seen every frame of every shot that was shot at that prison, of all the general views of the prison, etc., and they had not made a comment on any potential breach of prison security. They had said it was all fine. On December 9, 2013, when the footage was taken in, it was taken over two days, they constituted a committee to look at the unedited raw footage. They also said, in their legal notice, that I had to hand over the footage and I had to point out that the permission letter did not state "hand over", it stated "show". *So she was asking for Rs 10 lakh to "settle" this problem?* Yes, correct, correct. In order to "sort out" the prison permissions which were not broken as far as I was concerned. *So to take that money for herself, not to pay bribes at Tihar?* Well, she actually expressed that it's for her boyfriend, because he was the one who could fix this problem. *Ok. She has gone on to criticise the film in various ways... so just to clarify, she was on board throughout the shooting.* Correct. Throughout the shooting, until the end of the shoot. *So she was part of the shoot when Mukesh Singh was saying what he was saying, and the two lawyers were saying what they were saying?* Of course, yes. She was present throughout the shoot. Why, why did you wonder about that, just out of interest. This you don't have to put into the interview, by the way, I'm just asking this question out of curiosity. *You know, because she has said that your film is "an abominable portrayal of the issue." So I just wanted you on record to clarify that she was on board throughout the shooting.* She was present one hundred per cent on every single day of the shoot. It was the edit she was not allowed to be in and she was not allowed to be in the edit because, first of all, she had nothing to contribute. She had not proved herself competent as a filmmaker, so from that point of view, her presence wasn't required or desired. And the other reason she was not present at the edit was because on the last day of the shooting in Delhi, after she and her boyfriend had gone in and caused absolute havoc at Tihar and totally wrecked my relationship with the DG, she had rampaged through the hotel that our editor was in, looking for the materials. We had to hide the materials. There was no way I was going to allow her into a room that was had the materials during the edit, and have to look over my shoulder to see whether she was stealing materials. She had nothing further to do with the making of the film after the shoot was over. Nothing meaningful. She was given a chance to see the first cut and contribute notes. Her so called "notes" came in the form of a "vision statement" I had asked her to write several months before. She had nothing to contribute. *Bhushan has said that the original idea of the film has been "overshadowed by your self-promoting agenda". And many people say that...* She's vicious, and she is also in no position to say that because the original idea of the film was mine. How does she know what the original idea of the film was? *Right. But many people have said this, on social media, because of your reluctance to defer the film's release till Mukesh Singh's appeal was dealt with.* You know how many years that could take. You know what happens in India with the legal processes, don't you? How many years do you think it might take till the Supreme Court hearing is over? Do you know? I don't know. It could be several years. It's abominable that it should be because the parents deserve closure when they've been promised a fast-track case. You know, why aren't we focusing on the real issues here? There are two people who live in agony every single day, waiting for this case to be closed, to be dealt with. It's appalling. There hasn't been one day's hearing in the Supreme Court since the matter was referred to the Supreme Court. That's an issue, isn't it? Why talk about my self-promoting agenda or whatever it is that she said. Of course she'll say these things. She's bitter and she is untruthful, and she is foolish to bring these things up when she knows that I will of course defend myself. What am I, a doormat that I will listen to these pack of lies, this smear campaign and not speak out? *Was there a commercial arrangement with BBC and other channels that you had to release the film on March 8, as part of the campaign against gender equality?* No, there was no commercial arrangement of that nature. The BBC could release, whenever it wished to release. It could have released earlier, it could have released later. The BBC, I'm sure, would not have released without the opinions which we sought and got and the BBC lawyers poured over. The BBC are also very upstanding and morally correct public broadcasters. They would not do something that was risky or immoral or in any way reprehensible. Without those opinions I'm sure they would not have broadcast. There was no commercial arrangement, absolutely not. *Okay. The trouble with the prison authorities -- was that a reason for you to get the film out quickly, so that it didn't get stalled?* Absolutely not, absolutely not. Listen, I'm producer of 20 years standing, okay. I'm not a new kid on the block. I know what I am doing. I have teams of lawyers. I do things very diligently, very carefully, and very responsibly. If there was any issue with the prison permissions I would have killed the film off. There is no issue with the prison permissions. The prison permissions are very straightforward -- they have been granted and every single condition in them has been fulfilled. And whatever the prisons had to say later, in a change of heart, or being frightened off by people who were self-interested in making money out of this, to be told that this was somehow going to be negative about India, that's not my problem, that's nothing to do with reality as I see it or as I judge it to be. *This rape case, as you say, is what brought you to India. It changed the discourse about women's rights and safety in India. It brought the nation out on streets. It was very, very personal...* That's what brought me to India, not the rape case, the protests. That's what brought me to India, admiration for the Indian people who led the world by example, fighting for my rights as a woman on the other side of the globe. *The rape case was very, very personal. Apart from the legal issue, I want to ask you, can you understand, and I'm not talking about people like Anjali Bhushan, etc., I'm asking about people, the girls who were out on the streets, that they may find it very hard to listen to what Mukesh Singh says, the way the lawyers speak...* (raising her voice) Why would you hide it? What Mukesh Singh says is what the society says, not only in India but around the world. What Mukesh Singh says is that boys and girls are not equal. What Mukesh Singh says is that girls are meant for housework and house duties, and should not go out at night after a certain hour. Why hide that? That has to be highlighted. That is the opinion of the society that has created Mukesh. Spend the energy and effort in saving women, not hiding shame. *I'm going back now to the Sheila Dikshit question that I had asked. You obviously know what she said, after the murder of journalist Soumya Viswanathan in 2009: "All by herself till 3 am at night in a city... you should not be so adventurous".* I know, I know. It's quite, quite wrong. It's a terrible, terrible remark. Now you look at the wife of Akshay Thakur in the film. She is a colluder, okay. She herself is colluding in this myth, this patriarchal control mechanism that says that a woman only lives for her husband, that a woman is protected by her husband, that a woman has no autonomy, that if her husband is hanged, her life is over. She will actually choke her child, and she meant it. Sheila Dikshit is also a product of that society. Women are not immune from that oppression. They are taught that that is their role in life and some of them accept it. Nirbhaya did not accept it. Many don't accept it. There are masses of forward-looking thinkers and people in India who do not accept it, and around the world. I am one of them. And we are fighting to ensure that those who are oppressed into believing that that is their position are liberated from that oppression. *You know, in India, in Delhi where both these cases happened, Sheila Dikshit stands for that mindset. And you chose to have her, you don't ask her about her statements that are a part of the problem, and the film in a way allows her to whitewash what she had said and now...* Well, the campaign doesn't allow her to white wash it. Because the campaign which this film was always designed to engender... *But why have her, of all the politicians, of all the people who may also have progressive ideas, and...* Because she was intimately involved in the case, she was a participant in the case. I do not have my voice in the film, do I? I do not have a narrator in the film. Most documentaries have a narrator. It was an absolute matter of policy for me, and it was my vision that there should not be a narrator in this film, that my voice should not be in it, that those voices should come from the people who were direct participants in it, and Sheila Dikshit was one. And I interviewed her for approximately three hours, I have chosen only one piece of what she said because it seemed to me to be a very, as I say, a very metaphoric and powerful metaphor that is recognisable by countries the world over. Everybody knows about "give him more food, he is a boy, he needs energy". Everybody knows that syndrome. Why would I not have that in a film that is talking about gender equality? It is a gift to the film, that comment. Nobody else stated it, so I took it into the film, because it is an important thing to be said in a film about gender equality and society, forming and programming men and women... *What do you make of this chief minister who after one case said that Somya Vishwanathan was being extremely adventurous, and now, on camera, she's saying...* Listen, no human being is all black or all white. Okay? Okay. If you look at the film, it's actually very balanced. Even A.P. Singh, who is, if you like, in terms of what the film is saying, he is a chief villain, isn't he. Somebody who can say, who is a lawyer, who is supposedly the guardian of the law, who can say that he would pour petrol on his daughter and burn her alive if she didn't act in accordance with his dictates as a patriarch. This is effectively what he is saying there. He also makes a persuasive point when he says, and this was true then (it is not I believe true now, though I have not looked at the figures). But in the previous government, when he said, 250 sitting MPs have criminal prosecutions pending against them. We all know that in India that means they can all go on for years and years and years without even being heard, prosecutions in terms of rape, robbery and murder, and he says you should start with your own neck if you want to create an example for society. Why aren't you asking me, Suparna, in a challenge, why aren't you saying to me, how could you allow A.P. Singh to make such an abominable statement about his daughter. A lawyer who talks about committing a crime, how could you allow him to also make a persuasive point that stands up to question what the society allows as far as gender inequality is concerned. And the hypocrisy. *Well, I'm asking you now.* They are people, Suparna. They are not all good or all bad. And if Sheila Dikshit makes a bad comment, well she must be pulled up for that. And is going to be pulled up for that in our campaign. As I said, we have a Name and Shame page where we are naming and shaming those people make misogynistic statements about women. *And her name is on that list?* Yes, it is on that list. She also made a very good, wise and insightful, useful metaphor. Why banish that from a documentary when she said it. It helps explain to people, and helps people around the world recognise one of the ways in which women are discriminated against. *You've said that you began this film with a narrow focus -- to understand why men rape. How did you prepare for this very task -- this unraveling of the mind of a rapist?* Well, in terms of the answer to that question, I was placing a great deal of weight on my interviews. And you asked me, how many I interviewed, in total on film, I interviewed five rapists, and in total I interviewed seven rapists and spent about 10 minutes with the juvenile. *And you included only one in the film?* Correct. *As you've said, that whatever Mukesh Singh says is already known, and it's been said by politicians also. So, then, how does the film help you understand the psychology of men who turn rapists? I mean, what was new here that you learnt?* Well I'll tell you what is new here, I'll tell you what I learned... for me, the biggest insight and the biggest learning curve of this film was in the reversal of expectations. When I went and met these rapists, I was expecting the monsters that the media has painted. The media had prepared me to meet psychopaths. Now you know there have been a number of interviews and books about Nazis, Nazi criminals, there was one, Hannah Arendt, who covered the Adolf Eichmann trial -- the remarkable thing she noted there was the "banality of evil". And this was the insight -- that the disease is not the rapists, the rapists are the symptoms of the disease, that these men were not the monsters I were expecting to see. They were shockingly, chillingly, apparently normal. They were utterly unremarkable men. You wouldn't turn an eyelid meeting them in the streets. These were ordinary human beings. Now it would be much, much easier to process what they did, and what these rapists do, if they had been monsters, if they had been these psychopaths, and those who believe that capital punishment serves the purpose, could wring their hands with relief, and say, "Phew! What a relief. We are rid of them." The fact is, that these men do what they do because they have a set of beliefs. We are responsible, Suparna, society is responsible, for what we teach these men about the worth and the value of women. And if, and again, let me quote Sheila Dikshit because what she says is useful, it's an insight. Whatever she said which was wrong, in this case she is saying something which is wise and insightful. She says if men see women of no worth, as of no worth, then there will always be men who can do what they like with her. And the fact is these men are not just rotten apples in the barrel. The barrel is rotten. The barrel rots the apples. *And that's specific to India?* I don't think anything is specific to India, Suparna. I think this is a world problem. And that is why I hoped so much, with all my heart, and I still hope because Prime Minister Modi has still not come out with a statement about this film and I still hope he will because here's how I see it, and I tell you there is not a day that passes and there's not a night that I lie here trying to fall asleep that I do not think these very thoughts that I'm about to express to you now -- this film is an absolute reflection of all the admirable, the eloquent and the welcome things that we've heard from Prime Minister Modi since he took office. He has talked about resetting the moral compass, he has got a Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao campaign. This film is an absolute mirror held up to his views, to his convictions in this regard and here was the perfect opportunity for him, along with other world leaders and prominent people around the world, to embrace this film and to stretch out his hand to other countries. In fact, he had every opportunity and I still give every opportunity because this is what I believe with all my heart, to say, actually, of all countries in the world, let us applaud India for those protests. *Have you contacted the Prime Minister's Office or have you written to him?* No, but I have turned to camera on so many interviews I cannot begin to tell you, and I have appealed to him. And I can only hope that he has seen one of those appeals. *And you are hoping that he will watch the film and make a statement.* Absolutely. Absolutely. I don't even know to this date that the home minister had seen the film. He certainly hadn't when he made his pronouncement about the damage this film could do. What he was pronouncing on, rather ill-advisedly, I believe, he was pronouncing on a trailer campaign which had been run by NDTV. Now NDTV, I have to tell you, have all my admiration. They are an upstanding, moral, liberal broadcaster and what they did on the night of March 8, the International Women's Day, in response to this ban, in shutting off their television broadcast for one hour when they were meant to air this documentary as a sign of solidarity with those who were saying, including the Editors' Guild, who were saying that the ban is unconstitutional, undemocratic. The ban was a comment upon a trailer campaign which probably, if you asked NDTV today, they would say, well, in retrospect, we shouldn't have run those clips without context. But you know, you have to have it in your heart to understand that in the world of television broadcast, a broadcaster wants their programme to be watched. That is why they run trailers. And they ran trailers on, if you like, the more extraordinary aspect of this film, because that access to those interviews, or the interview with Mukesh certainly, was fairly unprecedented. It was fairly extraordinary. So you can sympathise with them for wanting to get attention from viewers to watch the film in the public interest, which is why they wanted to put the film out. And by the way, as for commerce, Suparna, as for this other smear campaign against me, that I have some interest, let me give you two facts that you may not know: I gave this film to NDTV, I refused to take any money for it. I refused. I made it an absolute moral statement and pledge that I would not take one penny from India for this film, because this film was my statement of gratitude to those protesters, to the Indian people, the forward looking ones, the ones who were demanding change and who were supporters of change. And the other thing to tell you is that I am still in big debt on this film, personally, okay. When I went out to make this film, I went out and made it from my own pocket, and it was only months after I had started that the BBC actually said, we are interested in coming on board and taking the UK licence fees and putting some funding into the film. The BBC funding of the film amounts to 40 per cent of the cost of the film. That's it. *Going back to something you said -- that the film has something unique, which is the interview with the rapist, Mukesh Singh. And that was an access which you got thanks to Anjali Bhushan. So, do you...* Wait a minute. If you are being accurate, it was actually access I got thanks to Amit Khullar (Anjali Bhushan's boyfriend), wasn't it? I believe it was the impassioned letter I wrote, about what the purpose of this film was, what the film was about, why I was making this film, and that was responded to by the DG. You can't take that away from the situation, can you? *No. I'm asking...* You know someone, I know someone, you say to me, oh you want to interview a secretary of this company, I actually know the head of that company. I can introduce you to him, so you can ask him. And then it's his decision, isn't it? So you open one door and then it's down to me, and to the head of that company, as to whether I'm allowed to interview that particular secretary. *Sure. But why not acknowledge her contribution, that's all I was asking. That do you acknowledge her contribution to opening that door for you?* Well, of course I did. I brought her on board. She has not make or completed a single film to my knowledge, okay. She was a young filmmaker, an aspirant director. I opened my arms with the utmost generosity and said to her, this is so important to me that if you can actually help me get this access, you can come on board as an equal partner. What bigger acknowledgement can you make? *But her name is not in the credits as...* No, of course it would not be in the credits. If you sign a contract, and then go and breach material, and several clauses on that contract, if you work against the film, if you phone up the parents at a critical juncture, to try and turn them against the person who is employing you, would you not sack that person? If you blackmail your employer, will the employer not sack the person who is blackmailing them, for no good reason? And when you sack someone why would you give them a credit? Why would you give them the benefit of a contract they have breached serially? What world do you live in, Suparna? *Okay.* No, please tell me what would you have done in my position? Please tell me. *I would have given her...* Are you a friend, are you a friend of Anjali's, Suparna? *No. I have never met her. I have not covered this story. But I have read every word that's been written, said about you and the film in research for this interview. That's my only connect with this.* Right. So why are you asking me such a strange question? *Because this question has been raised, because...* Yes, but wait a minute. You have just heard my side of the story, haven't you? You have understood, because we have spoken the same language, you have understood that I had dismissed someone for material and fundamental and serial breaches of a contract. *Right. I'm just...* That means the contract then falls away. Why are you now asking me why I haven't credited her. Because it's a question that's been raised and I want your answer on record. You've got my answer. *Ya, I've got it now. Do you see how Mukesh Singh uses the film to do two things: one is to try and shift the focus back on girls and their behaviour -- not just before, but also during rape -- and to again and again deny that he raped the victim and shifts and assigns blame to others who were in the bus?* Now first of all, what you say is not accurate. He doesn't again and again deny, he denies once. He did deny, in court, again and again. There's no deviation from what is on record and now on the public record -- anybody can get a copy of those proceedings now, and that is what he said in court and he repeats it again. But he says it only once in the film. Not more than once. So let's just be accurate now in our journalism. He does not say it again and again. He says it once. Uses the film? He does not use the film. The Mukesh interview is probably about six or seven per cent of the whole film. I haven't measured it scientifically, but it is only one small part of the film. And, you say he "uses the film to shift the blame on to girls?" Society shifts the blame on to girls. Would you say that the mother of the victim in this case, the mother of Nirbhaya, when she makes a statement in the film and says the girl is always blamed, she is always asked, why did you go out, what are you wearing, how are you behaving, it's the boy who should be accountable, not her. When she says that, which is a reflection of what society thinks, why aren't you saying to me, why do I allow the mother to use the film in this way? It's utterly illogical what you are saying, don't you see it? *ummm* He is uttering what politicians have uttered, what Asaram Bapu has said, what religious leaders, political leaders, what mothers and fathers up and down the country have said, what society says. They shift the blame on to the girls, quite immorally and incorrectly and appallingly. *Aaaaa, moving on to the next question. The title of your film has come in for a lot of criticism. India's Daughter may have a ring for Western audiences, but the title is located in patriarchy. And the street protests against the rape that you say drew you to India, also screamed against this identity -- of being a "daughter". Do you think, in retrospect, that you should have called your film something else?* I could have called my film many things... I could have called my film by the real name of the victim, I could have called the film Nirbhaya, I could have called the film Damini, I could have called the film Protest, I could have called the film many things. It seemed to me, given that the film was looking at the issue through the prism of a particular case, given that the film was doing that, it did seem to me to appropriate to name the film with the identity of the victim in this case. It was a film that was aimed at the world, not just at India, it was a film that was looking at the issue globally, and it was looking at a global release of the film and a global campaign. So it seemed to me that to call it Nirbhaya or Damini was not a great idea because that would be understood in only one country out of several. So India's Daughter, which was the other alias that the victim was called in this case, was a possibility and that seemed to me preferable to the other two. Now as far as the word daughter -- the film itself makes the point very forcibly, that in India, because of its patriarchal society, a woman is seen as either a daughter, a sister, a mother or a wife. And any other understanding of girls or woman is sexualised and scandalised. The film makes this point very forcibly. You should not look at the title of the film and see it at face value or in the context of some political treatise. The word "daughter" is actually very important to this film because there are parents here who are suffering every single day for the loss of a daughter. And the word "daughter" is not a dirty word. I have a daughter whom I love very much. And if she were taken from me in this appalling, gruesome, heinous, hedious manner, I might make a film about it and call it Leslee's Daughter, you know. Don't be pedantic is what I would say. Just focus on the issue. Stop looking away from the issue. You are being irresponsible when you look away from the issue. And I want you to print this, please, Suparna. I have now spent over an hour with you, giving you my time, having been put in the dock by you, to answer allegations. None of your questions actually have focused on the issue. You have asked me one question about the insight I gleaned from my interview with the rapists. Every single other question has been mouthing defamatory allegation made against me, and asking me to respond to it. Now that is a kind of journalism, but I would ask you please, to look into your heart, to look at the women around you, to look at the world you live in, the problem as it exists globally, and to ask yourself whether you would not be better placed as a journalist putting your energies into writing about the issue. Forget about me and what these people who are self-interested for other reasons are saying about me. That doesn't matter. That shoudn't take up your column inch space. Your column inch space should be devoted to decrying the lack of respect, the lack of safety, and the lack of equality that is accorded to women. And you as a woman should stand alongside other women trying to put this matter to right. *Okay.* And you'd better print all that Suparna, because it's on that basis that I have given you this interview. That you would print *Hello! Hello!* (The call drops. I call the hotel again, ask to be connected to her room. She picks up the phone.) Hi Suparna. *Sorry, the call just dropped.* Yes, I assumed you hadn't slammed the phone down. *No. (we both laugh). I can't. It's a cellphone.* Okay. *You have said, on record, that "I myself have been raped." Are you ready to talk...* I have given those details, by the way. I have spoken about it in detail in a number of interviews I have given here in the US. I'll tell why I have spoken about it, because part of our campaign on our website is a page called "Stop the Shame", where we are encouraging girls and women to come and talk about their experiences of rape and abuse. And it seemed to me, given that I was 18 or 19 when I was raped, and for 20 years, Suparna, I told nobody about it. And during those 20 years, my husband was the first person that I told about it. And I then told my children about it, when my daughter was 10. But for 20 years I kept silent. And I can tell you during those 20 years I harboured a sense of responsibility, I harboured a sense of guilt and I was raped in South Aftica, where I was living at that time, I lived there for nine or 10 years, its not just in India that that shame is meted out to girls. As though it's not bad enough being violated and I can tell you that in my experience, and I'm sure this is true of most girls and women who are raped, you think that you are going to die. You think that that man, or those men, in my case it was one man, is going to kill you. And as though it's not bad enough to be violated in that way, and to continue to live with the shock, and have to relive and dream about it and think about it, you have to have this additional burden to be made, somehow, to feel responsible -- Did you act in the wrong way? Did you give the wrong signal? Were you wearing the wrong clothes? Society makes you think that. And it is utterly crucial we stop this sense of shame. As Nirbhaya's mother says in the film, the shame belongs with the perpetrator, not with the victim. And I say the shame belongs with the society. So we have to stop this sense of shame. Any question of dishonour coming to the family, okay? Because partly what results is that girls and women don't report, they hold it in. It's not healthy to hold in a trauma of this nature. And it leads to a lack of proper reporting... we don't have the proper statistics. *What helped you speak up, to get rid of that guilt, that sense of shame. What helped?* ...I got rid of the sense of guilt and shame before I told my husband, because I went to university, I became educated, enlightened, looked into various issues and I think I naturally understood without being helped to do so by unburdening myself. I think I naturally came to the conclusion that it was not me, that no fault lay with me. I sort of managed somehow to come to terms with it within *I'm sorry, but I have to ask you this question. You never thought that unravelling the mind of rapists could begin with your own case? Why didn't you make a personal docu...* Suparna please, with the greatest, greatest respect to you, that is an impossible question to answer and I don't understand why this question is necessary. I could have made any number of films. I do make any number of films. Nobody ever asks me... When I made East is East, you could have made a film about yourself and your own Jewish father's oppression of you. Or his lack of tolerance or allowing his child to make her own choice. Because my father didn't. When I saw a play reading of East is East, and decided to make a film of it, I totally identified that man, George Khan, whom Om Puri played in the film, was my father. That's why I made that film. Nobody asked me why didn't you make a film about your own father, and your own experience? We make the films we make as filmmakers. Why ask me why I haven't a film about that? It's a nonsensical question. *Well, I'm really, sorry, because these things happen to so many women. It's a troubled area to go into, but I have to ask this: if, for example, I have been sexually abused, and I am writing something, I will bring my personal experience there and I think that material will be richer for that. That's why I am asking you this question.* Well, let me tell you again, the reason I made this film was because of the hopeful protests, the clamour for change, that's what I was responding to. And nobody came on to the streets because of my rape. *Ok. Alright.* I can only tell you the truth, Suparna. I'm afraid I can't give you convenient answers, but I say again, please, please Suparna, be a responsible woman and a responsible journalist and let us focus on the issue. What is the film teaching us? What's the insight? Where do we take it from here? Because I'm sure you must feel as strongly as I do about wanting change for women the world over. I'm sure you feel as uncomfortable as I do in your skin, knowing that a woman in Saudi Arabia who drives a car will be arrested and imprisoned. I'm sure you feel as strongly as I do Suparna, that a young girl in the UK, between 13 and 17, has a 33 per cent chance of experiencing sexual violence. I'm sure that you as a woman do not want to live in a world, as I don't, where one in five women will be raped, or have been rape attempted against them. Let us just put the focus where it belongs, I beseech you, meri behen. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
