Interesting Interview by Sangeet Martand in DNA
Nandu Kulkarni
particularly ill chosen even by his standards!
http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_pandit-jasraj-speaks-up-for-forgotten-melodies_1324364
Nandu
Imnot Apadmashri
> I wonder if he has been quoted verbatim ...
> http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_pandit-jasraj-speaks-up-...
Don't know what your reasons are for suspecting that The National
Treasure didn't say it? I for one never suspected him of having any
shame. He's begging, plain and simple.
And who gave him a brief for Bhimsenji? To the best of my knowledge
BJ or his family ever hinted at financial difficulty. The last I knew
his family was taking good care of him, including managing hordes of
visitors and arranging professional care - a full-time nurse and daily
visits by a physiotherapist. Manoharkaka - since you are there, what
is the latest on Panditji's condition and situation?
Has TNJ never heard of investments?
DG
C Parthapratim
wrote:
And what's wrong in saying that the govt. should, ideally. patronize
the renowned artists? Whether HE deserves it or not is a different
issue.
Partha
Imnot Apadmashri
> And what's wrong in saying that the govt. should, ideally. patronize
> the renowned artists?
What is right with it? If there is no old age pension for others, why
should artists and/or Padma awardees have this unique privilege? What
world do you live in?
DG
C Parthapratim
wrote:
Others, who? Pension is there for everybody who deserves or Govt.
think he deserves, even for the happened-to-be-politicians and their
widows, but not for the artists/freelancers!! You think that's how it
should be? Sorry, I don't agree.
Partha
Abhay
The politicians who get a pension are MPs and MLAs who have been
elected by the people: the pension is part of their explicitly stated
perks of office. Government employees - and many others in service in
certain kinds of organisations - get pensions because they work at
jobs that have the pension as a part of their terms of employment. Any
artiste who takes on employment that has a pension as part of the
terms gets the pension just like these other employees do.
Most artistes are self-employed professionals, and no self-employed
professional is entitled to a pension. Like all such professionals,
they need to make arrangements for their own old age. Why should being
artistes entitle them more than other professionals (say, self-
employed doctors or lawyers) to a pension?
That said, some State governments DO give nominal pensions to chosen
artistes. They also give out houses to them at hugely discounted
rates. I have no idea what criteria are used to choose "deserving"
artistes...
Which brings us to the second problem with this "pensions for
artists": who is to decide, and on what criteria, who should get these
pensions? How does one define "artiste"? Any performer? X number of
performances? And it gets murkier when it comes to deciding merit.
The third - and perhaps the worst - problem with this idea of pensions
is the notion that the government should be in the business of
extending patronage. It is bad enough that the government arrogates to
itself the right to confer sundry awards based on impossibly opaque
criteria: to ask them to start deciding who is worthy of a comfortable
old age on public funds is neither desirable nor advisable.
Warm regards,
Abhay
C Parthapratim
Agreed, but then it's a matter of consistency in policies only. As
some state governments do pay pensions or scholarships, there is no
legal issues in doing so. The awarded artistes already chosen by the
government offices are entitled to use their title for the rest of
their lives. But no money, honey!! Isn't that illogical? Queer!
Partha