News Hindi

Kangana vs Apurva Asrani & what it means for writers in the industry

Writer-editor Apurva Asrani's recent post regarding Ranaut's demands for 'co-writer' credits on Hansal Mehta's Simran only underline the hierarchy in which scriptwriters are placed in the industry. 

Writer and editor Apurva Asrani's long post on Facebook on Wednesday morning raised more questions than just about the importance of writers in Hindi cinema. Asrani wrote a detailed narration of the entire controversy which led to Kangana Ranaut being named 'additional dialogue writer' for the film. While Asrani, who was removed as editor from the film, has blamed Ranaut for 'stealing' his hard earned credit. 

In his post, Asrani wrote, 'She says that the story was dark & gritty thriller at that stage and that she herself developed it into a light, fun film. This completely discredits me and my efforts, and I have to call out this lie at the cost of so many of her fans turning against me.' 

However, Cinestaan.com spoke to Anjum Rajabali, a writer himself and member of the legal sub-committee of the Screenwriters' Association. Rajabali said, "There are some fundamental rights which are inalienable. If you have written the script, the law gives you the right to have it attributed to your name. It is called the law of attributability, which refers to the right to be called the author of the script. That is not under debate in this issue. He is getting his credit." 

Writers have never enjoyed clout in the Hindi film industry. Javed Akhtar has often recalled the time when he and Salim Khan would hire a painter to write their names in bold over posters, to get credit for the film and its story. Four decades down, it seems not much has changed in the industry. 

To be fair, Asrani has not raised a major hue and cry over the position of the credits either. In a tweet to fellow writer Saiwyn Quadras, writer of Neerja (2016), Asrani wrote, 'I appreciate the support @SaiwynQ, but positioning of credits is @producer/directors discretion. It reflects how much they value writers.'

Rajabali adds, "As I said, unless the writer's contract specifies clearly that the credit will be exclusive to them, then I don't think they can object. The only thing he can protest is that if he believes that the other writer has not written, but by some partiality he/she has recieved credit. Then he can certainly contest it."

However, he adds that in order to receive a joint credit, any 'writer' has to prove that he/she has worked on a complete draft of the story or the script.

As for the recourse left to Asrani, if he chooses to take it, Rajabali states, "He can approach the Screen Writers' Association or the court. The court will also judge the issue. Credit indicates copyright, which makes it a legal issue. If credit has been given without copyright being created, then what you are doing is that you are taking the writer's right away. By reducing his right, you are allowing someone to encroach on it...if the other person has not written. If the other person has written, and the original writer did not have an exclusive contract, then in which case the producer has the right to go as per he thinks." 

While there has been complete silence from both, director Hansal Mehta and Ranaut, there is an increasing discontent among writers at this treatment of a National Award winner. It only reflects a growing tendency to bow down to star status, rather than content. The irony of it is that the film is being directed by Mehta, who is known for making content-oriented films. 

While it is unlikely that Asrani might win this battle over Ranaut, it is necessary that the writers in the industry find a way out.