English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Tom Alter, the blue-eyed ‘saheb’ of Indian cinema, is no more

Published

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The acclaimed actor, sports journalist, Padma Shri awardee and Urdu lover was recently diagnosed with skin cancer. He was 67

– By Puneet Nicholas Yadav

An acclaimed actor, sports journalist, Padma Shri awardee and Urdu lover, Tom Alter, is no more. The blue-eyed ‘saheb’ of Indian cinema, who portrayed a wide range of characters through his nearly four decade long acting career that saw him feature in over 300 films, was recently diagnosed with terminal stage of skin cancer and admitted to Mumbai’s Saifee Hospital. He passed away late on Friday night, surrounded with his family members. He was 67.

Born Thomas Beach Alter in Mussourie in 1950, Tom was an American through his family lineage. His grandparents were American missionaries who traveled from Ohio to preach, convert and teach in the part of Punjab that is now in Pakistan. His father, also a missionary, was born in Sialkot (now in Pakistan) and later settled in the Himalayan hill station of Mussourie. Tom went to the famous Woodstock School in Landour with other Americans, children of missionary parents, diplomats, business executives and other ‘settlers’ and later for a brief year-long stint to the prestigious Yale University in New Haven, USA.

But if you ever met the man, you could only risk calling him an American or non-Indian at your own peril. Tom was as Indian as an Indian can be and immensely proud of it. With his impeccable Hindi and flair for Urdu, Tom was quite the anti-thesis of that image of him that most Indian moviegoers are familiar with – that of the ‘gora’ villain, a foreign diplomat or British colonial – roles which typecasted him in Bollywood and for a period won him the moniker of Indian cinema’s ‘blue-eyed sahib’. But then those were roles.

Fiercely proud of his Indian identity, Tom would often speak – in what could turn into a gripping monologue unless he was interrupted – about the ‘idea of India’. The current political and social churning in the country wherein gau rakshaks, lynch-mobs, abusive right-wing trolls and political leaders who promptly advise anyone with views divergent to theirs to ‘go to Pakistan’ was something that affected Tom deeply and he worried about what we were transforming into as a nation. The concept of a Religious State is something Tom never missed to vociferously attack.

In an interview that the actor had given to this writer sometime in 2010, he had minced no words while comparing a Religious State with “the making of a pornographic film”.

In that interview – the substance of which is more relevant today than it perhaps ever was – Tom has said: “I have always held that without India and everything that it stands for the world will be destroyed. If we destroy the secular, democratic and free country that India is and become like other Religious States, the world would come to an end in not more than 25 years.”

“It’s too easy to run a Religious State where there is no freedom of expression or freedom to practice what religion you want to or the freedom to wear what you like. It’s as easy as making pornography. But then Religious States will disappear without a trace, no one will remember them for anything good, just as no one remembers names of any directors of pornography,” Tom had said.

The actor, who essayed the role of freedom fighter and India’s first education minister Maulana Azad on stage in the highly acclaimed play ‘Maulana’, believed that India’s real challenge today is to preserve its secular and democratic set up, traits that he believed had taken a beating over the years.

His pride in India aside, Tom was always just as passionate about the one thing that got him international acclaim and recognition – acting – a craft which, ironically, wasn’t his first love when he started off in life. He was more interested in sports, cricket in particular, and pursued a simultaneous career as a sports writer in the 1980s and 1990s even when big roles in films began coming his way. He was the first person to interview Sachin Tendulkar for a television channel in the 1980s, much before the cricketer earned his iconic status. His love for cricket stayed with him till the end. When this writer met him in Bhopal a couple of year ago – where he had come to perform Maluana to a packed audience at the Ravindra Bhavan – Tom had admitted that he missed writing on sports as often as he would like.

Tom had started off as a teacher in a hamlet called Jagadri in Haryana at the age of 19 and in those days rarely watched Hindi films. But then that same year, almost like the script of a good Bollywood film, his life took a sudden turn when he saw the then reigning superstar of India, Rajesh Khanna, romancing the stunning Sharmila Tagore in the cult film Aradhana that had released in September 1969.

Tom would often remark – “I saw Aradhna over and over again and was in love with Rajesh Khanna. I wanted to become Rajesh Khanna. I packed up my stuff and decided to quit my teaching role in Jagadri and move to Mumbai”.

In 1972, Tom became one of only three aspirants – the other two being actor Benjamin Gilani and Phunsok Ladakhi – to be selected from a batch of over 800 candidates from across north and central India to get selected for the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune. Tom’s talent in acting was evident during his stint at FTII from where he passed out in 1974, winning a gold medal in his acting diploma course. At the FTII, he struck a close bond with Naseeruddin Shah. Tom, Naseeruddin Shah and Benjamin Gilani would go on to form the theatre troupe- Motley – in 1979.

After the initial struggle to find his feet in the fiercely competitive world of Bollywood where he had no godfather, Tom got a break in Ramanand Sagar’s 1976 production, Charas, in which he played actor Dharmendra’s ‘firang’ boss. Dharmendra was already a huge deal among Indian cinemagoers then but Tom managed to make a mark and was noticed by other directors and producers who began offering him roles – though largely of the same sort – that of a ‘gora’ character. This stereotype of playing the ‘blue-eyed saheb’ would break only occasionally, particularly in films like Raj Kapoor’s Ram Teri Ganga Maili or Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s Parinda in which he played pivotal roles and as an Indian character.

Through his career, Tom worked with leading actors, producers and directors – the likes of Chetan Anand, Dev Anand, V Shantaram, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Manmohan Desai, Shyam Benegal and Subhash Ghai, Mahesh Bhatt, Ketan Mehta, Priyadarshan and even Satyajit Ray. Offers of working in foreign productions too came along and Tom did pick up roles in Richard Attenborough’s Oscar-winning film Gandhi and the Peter O’Toole starrer One Night with the King.

While his acting resume expanded with each passing year, Tom also ventured into theatre giving audiences stellar, mind-blowing performances in plays like Ghalib ke Khat, Maulana (both in chaste Urdu), Lal Qile ka Aakhri Mushaira, Trisanga, Teesveen Shatabdi, Copenhagen and the City of Djinns.

But unlike several Indian actors – like his dear friend Naseeruddin Shah – who are associated with both theatre and cinema, Tom never took a dim view of the Indian film industry. “Whatever I am today is because of the roles – even the bad ones – that I got in Indian movies. I can never, ever disown the Indian film industry or criticise it”, Tom told this writer once.

When asked if he regretted not having become a ‘star’ in Indian cinema despite his indisputable talent, Tom had said: “You need that flair to present yourself, market your work. Theatre actors don’t do that.” When this writer asked him if he lacked the ‘flair’, Tom had candidly replied: “I think I did have the flair but I made some wrong decisions in the beginning of my career. Also there were some films I did which unfortunately never released. Had they released perhaps they could have pushed me in a different league. But I have no regrets.”

A question that Tom would hate being asked was “how are you so good with Urdu”. For a layman who wasn’t familiar with Tom’s body or work or his upbringing, this might seem an obvious question given the ‘colour’ of Tom’s skin. But Tom would almost lose his famous temper (if he was in one of those moods) or have some witty repartee for such a question.

“I learnt Urdu as a child. Everyone spoke in Urdu where we lived,” he had once told this writer. Tom’s father was well versed with Urdu and even read the Bible in the language – something that Tom followed too. Tom would pick up Urdu books, dictionaries (though one felt that he never really needed them because he understood the language better than even some Urdu scholars) and poetry whenever he got a chance, and would get extremely agitated by anyone who ignorantly associated the language with Pakistan.

“Gandhiji gave the language a beautiful name- Hindustani. He learnt the language and its script. He even wanted all members of the Congress to learn both Devanagari and Urdu scripts… The Pakistanis today say Urdu is their national language. I tell them are you mad! How can Urdu be the language of the Pakistanis? The language was born in India, in Delhi,” this writer remembers Tom telling an interviewer once.

Tom had some quirks too and the most irritating one for the people who knew him was his extremely stubborn dislike for mobile phones – “I hate the damn thing” – he would often say when asked why he didn’t have a cellphone or told that it was difficult to get in touch with him. He felt that mobile phones had connected people from far-flung regions but had also “taken away emotions, inter-personal relations and the ‘tameez’ of a conversation”.

Tom’s calming presence, his vibrant performances, his idealism and his quirks will be missed by anyone who knew him. Rest in peace, Tom Alter, the Indian sahib.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress protests against Gyanesh Kumar, demands Election chief’s resignation

Congress workers took to the streets against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with protests and demonstrations held over the party’s allegations concerning the Election Commission.

Published

on

Congress stepped up its campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with party workers taking to the streets and demanding his resignation amid the ongoing row over the Election Commission.

The protests followed repeated criticism by Congress leaders of the poll panel and its functioning. The party has alleged irregularities in the electoral process and has sought accountability from the Election Commission.

Congress leaders have also targeted Gyanesh Kumar personally, with Rahul Gandhi among those calling for the Chief Election Commissioner to step down.

Congress takes protest to streets

Congress workers staged demonstrations in different places as part of the party’s campaign against the Election Commission.

The protests featured sharp symbolism, including masks and handcuffs, as Congress sought to highlight its allegations against the poll panel and demand action against Gyanesh Kumar.

The demonstrations are part of a wider confrontation between the Congress and the Election Commission over issues related to electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.

Congress demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

The Congress has repeatedly demanded the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the Election Commission of failing to adequately address the concerns raised by the opposition party.

Rahul Gandhi has also stepped up his criticism of the poll panel. In a statement on Thursday, he demanded that Gyanesh Kumar resign and alleged that the Election Commission had acknowledged the issue of “vote theft”. These are allegations made by the Congress and should not be treated as an established finding unless confirmed by the relevant authority.

The dispute comes amid a broader political debate over electoral rolls, voter verification and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Election Commission under opposition scrutiny

The Congress has intensified its campaign against the poll body in recent weeks, with party leaders repeatedly questioning its decisions and procedures.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that India’s electoral process is conducted according to the Constitution, electoral laws and prescribed procedures. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has previously defended the integrity of the electoral system and rejected claims that electronic voting machines can be remotely hacked.

The latest protests add to the continuing political confrontation over the Election Commission and the opposition’s demands concerning the poll panel’s functioning.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com