Mother India

Mother India

Indian HOLOCAUST My Father`s Life and Time NINTY SIX

Palash Biswas


mother India has been a favourite film in our peasant family. With Do Bigha jameen this film portrays the Rural India in the same way as depicted by Munshi Prem Chand in his epic novel godan. I first saw the film in my childhood. I enjoyed the film anytime whenevr it was telecasted on small screen as I never miss an opportunity to see Teesri Kasam. Recently I saw Mother India once again and it seems to be the most relevent film till this date, as I feel. No less than Twenty thousand farmers died victimised by Globalistion since 1998. Bidarbh has becom famous for suicides. suicide by a farmer does not stun any one today. It is a dull routine of everyday life in Rural India. I find a new meaning of Samu`s leaving his family and the fight launched by his wife , the mother India. The bleeding continues and no river , no ocean in this world seems to sustain without the blood of peasants worldwide. This is globalisation. Is any one interested to do a remake of Mother India in the Sez context as they have done so many times?

The stotry line:
Radha (Nargis) now an old woman remembers her past. She remembers her married life. The family has to work extremely hard to pay off the moneylender Sukhilala (Kanhaiyalal). Her husband (Raj Kumar) loses both his arms in an accident and feeling useless abandons the family. Alone, Radha has to raise her children while fending off financial as well as sexual pressures from Sukhilala. One son dies in a flood, and in later years one son Ramu (Rajendra Kumar) grows to be a dutiful son while the other Birju (Sunil Dutt) becomes a rebel committed to direct, violent action. Finally to preserve the honour of the village, Radha puts an end to Birju's rebellious activities by shooting him down.

Until recently, before satellite television changed viewing habits, Mehboob Khan's Mother India (1957), could boast the remarkable distinction of having been constantly in distribution since its first release. Rooted both in Hindu mythology and in the collective experience of a newly independent nation-state on the brink of industrialization and social change, the film, starring screen legends like Nargis, Sunil Dutt and Rajendra Kumar, is a family melodrama that moves inexorably towards tragedy and renewal.The most important film of its time and now a national epic, Mother India portrayed rural life as the true 'essence' of India. The heroine, Radha, embodied the moral values and social customs that form the basis of traditional Indian society. Nargis Dutt played a role that no one could repeat. Not even our darlings like Shabana azmi, Smita Patil or konkana sensharma. Hitherto nargis played typical raj kapoor romantic films and she had been best known as in pair. She felt the pain, pangs and passion of real indian rural woman. She challanges goddess laxmi, ` Kabhi Maa Banke dekho’. Her cry is an eternal cry of mothre India, ` Mere Bacche Bhookhe hai ( My children are Hungry). Well, the real mother India is also crying all the time that her childre are starving. Only intellects like Mahashweta devi, Medha, Arundhati and a section of Kolkata Intellegentsia seem to have listened the cry. Others who use art, literature and culture as a best tool to promote prostitution, are quite detached. best examples are Sunil Gango, Saumitra chatterjee, Mrinal sen, amartya sen and Md Yunus. Who remained silent during all the turmoil in singur and nandigram, have come out of den to save the brahmin Pustak Mela.

Rajkumar played not a lesser role as he reprents the helplessness of Indian peasants. He wipes the sindoor on her wife`s forehead. Better expressesed is the suicide trend , globalisation and SEZ econmy, in this single shot.

Though we don1t face any resistance as we see in Benegal films Ankur, Nishant and Manthan. Shrikakulam , Telengana or Naxalbari had not been the inspiration for Mehbbob. We may not find nandigram or singur in Mother India, but we definitely see shadow of Bidarbh and Kalahandi all the way. Life struggle of Inda`s rural underclass population is honestly portrayed without any political dimention.Radha stood as a symbol of Indian womanhood and a new independent nation.In 1947 India gained independence from British rule. The country was caught between the need to modernise and continue the technological advances of the last two decades, and the need to maintain traditional moral values and avoid cultural decline.Cities were at the centre of many social and economic changes. Seen as the source of employment and wealth they attracted thousands of migrant workers from the villages. In this period of transition, films looked at the question of national identity and what the meaning of being Indian meant. They explored issues of modernity versus tradition, of urban life versus the rural ideal. Cities were projected as corrupt and evil while villages were seen to preserve social and moral values.

You may witness the sets of Mother India real anywhere in India thanks to NRI Ruling Brahminical classes whic have enslaved the Rural India by Hindutva politics of different brands in cludin Left, Right and centrist. Just vist bidarbh. You may chose singur. Why Nandigram also seems to be very appropriate set for mothre India. Will Mrina sen, Gautam Ghosh, rRtuparna, Aparna sen, Shyam benegal, Maniratnam, Adoor, anyone would like to shoot live?

Do all the different facets of her suffering allow "Mother India" to reach a moment of absolute clarity at the end? Is she exhibiting a healthy anger, or is it the sentimentalised anger of those who like to believe that there is nothing more ennobling than a victim who accepts her fate. These ambiguities, along with the lushly beautiful image of Nargis toiling away in glorious cinematic colour, are what make the myth of "Mother India" so compelling. In a poor country it is almost a consolation to be a victim. Women have been persuaded to play this role till it has almost become a hereditary right to become widows, to become "satis" to become temple prostitutes, to be labelled as "unclean", or "barren" or to be regarded as property to be bartered as the system demands. This type of anger fragments a society and destroys an individual into thinking that he or she is just a helpless plaything for the gods, or economic forces to control or destroy, or the next well meaning NGO to bachao. It is quite the opposite of the positive anger that a Vivekananda, or a Gandhi, or any of the social reformers of the pre-Independence era, were able to instil.

REACHING villages in eastern Midnapur, 120km (75 miles) south of Kolkata, where a branch of the Ganges runs into the sea, has become an ordeal. Trenches have been cut into the approach roads and bricks and palm-trunks piled over them; no vehicle bigger than a motorcycle can pass. Beside the barricades, black rags hang from bamboo flagstaffs—in honour, the locals say, of half a dozen villagers killed this month in a battle with the state government's goons. At the entrance to one village, Gar Chakraberia, a burnt-out police van bears their epitaph: “We will never let industry take our motherland.”The cause of the conflict is a plan by West Bengal's Communist government to grant land to an Indonesian conglomerate, the Salim Group, which wants to build petrochemical plants over Midnapur's fishponds and paddy fields. The group has been promised 9,000 hectares (22,000 acres) in the form of two special economic zones (SEZs)—havens for export-driven industry, with light taxation and other perks. The government hopes that, as in China, SEZs will boost the development of infrastructure and manufacturing. Since it passed a law offering improved terms for investors in the zones last year, 63 have been approved, 237 have been all but approved and over 400 are being considered.


The film, Mother india begins with the finishing of a water canal to the village set in the present. Radha (Nargis), as the 'mother' of the village is asked to open the canal and remembers back to her past when she was newly married, mirroring the new independence of India.The wedding between Radha and Shamu (Raaj Kumar) was paid for by Radha's mother in law who raised a loan from the moneylender, Sukhilala. This event starts the spiral of poverty and hardship which Radha endures. The conditions of the loan are disputed but the village elders decide in favour of the moneylender after which Shamu and Radha are forced to pay three quarters of their crop as interest on the loan of 500 rupees.Whilst trying to bring more of their land into use to alleviate their poverty, Shamu's arms are crushed by a boulder. He is shamed by his helplessness and is humiliated by others in the village, deciding that he is no use to his family he leaves and does not return. Soon after this, Radha's mother in law dies.


Radha continues to work in the fields with her children and gives birth again. Sukhilala offers to help alleviate her poverty in return for Radha marrying him, but she refuses to "sell herself". A storm sweeps through the village destroying the harvest and killing Radha's youngest child - the villagers start to migrate but decide to stay and rebuild on the urging of Radha.

The film then skips forward several years to when Radha's two surviving children, Birju and Ramu, are young men. Birju, embittered by the exactions of Sukhilala since he was a child takes out his frustrations by pestering the village girls, especially Sukhilala's daughter. Ramu, by contrast, has a calmer temper and is married soon after. He becomes a father but his wife is soon absorbed into the cycle of poverty in the family.

Birju's anger finally becomes dangerous and, after being provoked, attacks Sukhilala and his daughter as well as violently lashing out at his family. He is chased out of the village and becomes a bandit. On the day of the weeding of Sukhilala's daughter, Birju returns to take his revenge. He kills Sukhilala and takes his daughter - but Radha, who had promised that Birju would not do harm, shoots Birju who dies in her arms. The film ends with her opening of the canal and reddish water flowing into the fields.

this story is repeated again and again. Now it has got the global dimention, as not only the feudal lord, this time the entire state machinery is invoved to evict Indian peasants from their land an life.

Real Double speak may not be compared with mother India at all. Leader of one of the major constituents of the Left Front, Mr Debabrata Biswas is the general secretary of the All-India Forward Bloc, the party founded by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in 1939. Holding the party post for the third consecutive term since 1997, sixty-one-year-old Mr Biswas entered politics as a student leader.
A Rajya Sabha member for the third term, Mr Biswas hails from Bagnam village, just 10 km from Singur, the Hooghly village where the West Bengal government had to use the police to control protests over land acquisition for the Tata small car project.
Singur received nationwide attention and brought Left Front unity under strain.
Many Left Front leaders, including Mr Biswas, complained that the confusion arose because of lack of transparency in the land acquisition process. But despite the Left supporters have come out against SEZ in Nandigram, the leaders of the left all around are out to save the front, the governments in states and centre and the interests of the ruling classes.

In a poor agrarian country, the charge of bullying farmers to pander to big business can be a winding blow, especially as the ruling coalition, led by the Congress Party, relies on the Communist parties for its parliamentary majority. Not coincidentally, West Bengal has been ruled for 30 years by the Communists, who until a few years ago opposed most industrialisation. The West Bengal opposition is now relishing the chance to accuse the commies of cosying up to capitalists at the expense of the peasantry. “In a Communist state, sir! The poor peasants are being shot with bullets by the Communist party police,” says Madan Mitra, a leader of the opposition Trinamul Congress Party. With elections looming in four other states, including the most populous, Uttar Pradesh, the central government will not rush to unblock SEZs.

Tagore wrote Bahart Tirtha, Jana gana Mana and dui Bigha Jami. Bankim wrote Vande Mataram and anando Math- all depicting what India was under Colonial rule. Mother India is essentially a story of free India. And what a freedom have we got. The peasants are free to commit suicide and the poor population living under poverty line has got the right to succumb anytime. What sovereignity have we got that we follow every dictate from Washingto and World Bank and IMF play non constitutional agents to run the government alligning with foriegn capital and corporations with a sole aim to protect US interests anywhere in this world.

Nature and man seem to be different. different are the polity and society. We have surrenedered our culture and laguages, folk and music, arts and crafts the entire production system. Kanhaialal would not have played the roles played by Dr Manmohan singh, Buddhdev Bhattacharya, Left leaders and chief ministers of India. In Mehboob's famous film, "Mother India" the most electrifying moment comes at the end, when Nargis, Indian cinema's most enduring heroine, picks up a gun and kills her own favourite son Birju, who has become a dacoit, when he comes to take revenge against the moneylender at whose hands his mother has suffered all her life. It is more than 40 years since "Mother India" was shown in 1957, and few people will remember the extraordinary hold that the film had on the imagination of the viewers. It was in part a response to the trauma of Partition, where like the Birju figure, one part of the country had turned against the Motherland. In another light, it was an epic poem to the suffering image of the Indian woman as exemplified in the transformation of Nargis, from a beautiful bride, to the anguished wife, mother, tiller of the soil, a single woman whose body is still desired by the greedy moneylender and finally the saviour of the village, who goes against her innermost instincts to kill her son. You couldn't get more reactionary than that. It's a triumph of the patriarchy where even the most oppressed of victims turns around and supports the old feudal order. There could be no bigger sacrifice than that of a Mother killing her own son for the greater good of society, even a society that has just ground her into the soil.

Not only Singur or Nandigram or Barasat or Bhangad or Haripur, not only Maharashtra and uttar Pradesh, now Punjab farmers also have lodged their protest agaist the murder of Rural India. Farmers of punajab clashed on Wednesday with Police in Barnala to save their green fields.
Protesting against forcible acquisition of the farmers’ land and seeking its restoration, activists of various farmer bodies today clashed with the Police in Barnala. The farmers allege that the government was forcibly acquiring farmers’ lands and protecting the interests of big business houses. They have also accused the government of forcibly handing over 376 acres of land in three Barnala villages to Trident under the same policy. On the other hand, on Tuesday, January 30, 2007,Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee has issued a fresh ultimatum on Singur.It was her first public appearance since she was released from hospital after her 25-day hunger strike last month. The Trinamool leader warned that if the Tatas and the West Bengal government did not do a rethink on the Tata Motors factory at Singur within the next 10 days, she would not be responsible for the trouble that was inevitable.

Every Tata has his legacy and Ratan Tata, the man with a rare mix of grace, composure and steely nerves, has created his own by winning the Corus battle against odds just as he steered the people's car project at Singur in West Bengal. Since taking the reins of the $21.9 billion Tata business empire in 1991, Ratan Tata, 69, has only steeled the group's reputation of integrity, goodwill and competence. To the Indian polity, Tata, who is heading the Investment Commission, is an apolitical policymaker, while to corporate India, he is a great visionary and for the group, he is an outstanding entrepreneur. The takeover of the Anglo-Dutch steelmaker is especially close to the heart of Ratan Tata, as it coincides with Tata Steel's 100th year. Tata Steel was founded in 1907 despite hurdles from the then British colonial masters. But it took a lot of perseverance on his part before the Corus deal was finally clinched.


The last five years have seen Tatas emerging as India's biggest acquirer of global entities, adding one company after another to the kitty of the group, which otherwise is also a major expansion drive with an investment of over Rs 180,000 crore (Rs 1,800 billion) in the next 5-7 years.

Therefore, it doesn't come as a surprise that he is many a times asked to lead corporate giants, along with the Prime Minister, to showcase India as an investment destination.

Mamata Banerjee on Sunady accused the West Bengal government of having "double standards", saying it was enforcing prohibitory orders on common people at Singur in Hooghly district while helping the Tatas go ahead with the work for setting up their small car factory there.
"Everyone is equal before the law. Then why is it that commoners are not being allowed to enter Singur through enforcement orders under section 144 CrPC," she said.
"While there is one law for the common people why then there should be a separate provision for the Tatas," she said adding "We are opposed to setting up industries on fertile agricultural land. Let the industries come up on non-agricultural land."
She said "provocative" statements of the ruling party leaders and the role of the "callous" administration had created the impasse at Nandigram in east Midnapur district where the opposition parties are protesting, vowing to oppose any move for acquisition of farmland for the proposed SEZ of Indonesian business house Salim Group.
"Similarly, the government attitude is responsible for the present situation at Singur," she said. Banerjee was reacting to the clashes between Trinamool supporters and the police near Singur today during a demonstration to protest the start of work on the Tatas` small car project. The Trinamool chief observed a 25-day hunger strike last month demanding re-location of the plant, while social activist Medha Patkar also made repeated attempts to reach Singur where prohibitory orders were clamped by the administration following initial protests. Official sources had earlier said the prohibitory orders were in force as it was apprehended that some groups opposed to farmland acquisition might "instigate trouble".

Besides the forcible land acquisition for SEZs, the farmers allege that it is the government’s failure to reach out to them at the grassroots that has hurt the community the most. The farmers said they would not allow anyone to step into their land and would continue with the stir.

Meanwhile Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus says SEZ policy is sustainable > He follows the Amarty Sen linewhich is quite in vogue in Asian countries. Economics has always been a tool for capitalism as Adam smith invented the genre.he case for free trade rests on the age-old principle of comparative advantage, the idea that countries are better off when they export the things they are best at producing, and import the rest. Most mainstream economists accept the principle, but even they have serious differences of opinion on the balance of potential benefits and actual costs from trade and on the importance of social protection for the poor. Free traders believe that the rising tide of international specialization and investment lifts all boats. Others point out that many poor people lack the capacity to adjust, retool and relocate with changing market conditions. These scholars argue that the benefits of specialization materialize in the long run, over which people and resources are assumed to be fully mobile, whereas the adjustments can cause pain in the short run.

The debate among economists is a paragon of civility compared withthe one taking place in the streets. Antiglobalizers' central claim is that globalization is making the rich richer and the poor poorer; proglobalizers assert that it actually helps the poor. But if one looks at the factual evidence, the matter is rather more complicated. On the basis of household survey data collected by different agencies, the World Bank estimates the fraction of the population in developing countries that falls below the $1-a-day poverty line (at 1993 prices)--an admittedly crude but internationally comparable level. By this measure, extreme poverty is declining in the aggregate. The trend is particularly pronounced in East, South and Southeast Asia. Poverty has declined sharply in China, India and Indonesia--countries that have long been characterized by massive rural poverty and that together account for about half the total population of develop­-ing countries. Between 1981 and 2001 the percentage of rural people living on less than $1 a day decreased from 79 to 27 percent in China, 63 to 42 percent in India, and 55 to 11 percent in Indonesia.


Even as the farmers protest against special economic zone (SEZ) proposals in the country, Nobel Laureate and Chief Architect of Grameen Bank and the main micro-financing body in Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus said on Tuesday that Indian SEZ policy is sustainable in the long term.

"SEZ policy is definitely sustainable for India. There is a limit to development which agriculture can achieve. For a jump in growth, industrialisation is necessary. You have to make a choice between agriculture and industrialisation," Prof Yunus said on the sidelines of a conference.

The question is on which land these projects are being set up, he said, adding the protests led by farmers will fade away if they are convinced that their 'barren land' will be put to productive use.

"The first step to win their favour is to make them evacuate the barren land with decency and respect by giving adequate compensation," Prof Yunus added.

Since its inception, the policy to allow companies to set up SEZs in the country has been under fire from different bodies, creating doubts about its success.

Salim Group SEZ project in Nandigram village in East Midnapore district of West Bengal is being opposed by the farmers.

Well Yunus saheb, you may know better.

In 1993, anticipating a U.S. ban on imports of products made using child labor, the garment industry in Bangladesh dismissed an estimated 50,000 children. UNICEF and local aid groups investigated what happened to them. About 10,000 children went back to school, but the rest ended up in much inferior occupations, including stone breaking and child prostitution. That does not excuse the appalling working conditions in the sweatshops, let alone the cases of forced or unsafe labor, but advocates must recognize the severely limited existing opportunities for the poor and the possible unintended consequences of "fair trade" policies.
The Local Roots of Poverty
Integration into the international economy brings not only opportunities but also problems. Even when new jobs are better than the old ones, the transition can be wrenching. Most poor countries provide very little effective social protection to help people who have lost their jobs and not yet found new ones. Moreover, vast numbers of the poor work on their own small farms or for household enterprises. The major constraints they usually face are domestic, such as lack of access to credit, poor infrastructure, venal government officials and insecure land rights. Weak states, unaccountable regimes, lopsided wealth distribution, and inept or corrupt politicians and bureaucrats often combine to block out the opportunities for the poor. Opening markets without relieving these domestic constraints forces people to compete with one hand tied behind their back. The result can be deepened poverty.

Yunus sheb is quite detached in every respect whatever happens in Bangladesh and in this Sub Continent. he does not stand with Bangla Inteeligentsia as same thing is seen in case of another prominent Economist, the Indian Amartya sen.The experiences of these and other countries demonstrate that antipoverty programs need not be blocked by the forces of globalization. There is no "race to the bottom" in which countries must abandon social programs to keep up economically; in fact, social and economic goals can be mutually supportive. Land reform, expansion of credit and services for small producers, retraining and income support for displaced workers, public-works programs for the unemployed, and provision of basic education and health can enhance the productivity of workers and farmers and thereby contribute to a country's global competitiveness. Such programs may require a rethinking of budget priorities in those nations and a more accountable political and administrative framework, but the obstacles are largely domestic. Conversely, closing the economy to international trade does not reduce the power of the relevant vested interests: landlords, politicians and bureaucrats, and the rich who enjoy government subsidies. Thus, globalization is not the main cause of developing countries' problems, contrary to the claim of critics of globalization--just as globalization is often not the main solution to these problems, contrary to the claim of overenthusiastic free traders.


Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, who appeared before the public on Monday for the first time a month after she ended her fast over Singur, announced her support for the Nandigram villagers.


. This week the government froze the approval process. SEZs have been attacked on many fronts: by social activists, opposition politicians and even some government members. But the fiercest critics are those defending the right of farmers to their plots—what even Palaniappan Chidambaram, India's finance minister, calls “the sacred tie between the tiller and the land”.

In a poor agrarian country, the charge of bullying farmers to pander to big business can be a winding blow, especially as the ruling coalition, led by the Congress Party, relies on the Communist parties for its parliamentary majority. Not coincidentally, West Bengal has been ruled for 30 years by the Communists, who until a few years ago opposed most industrialisation. The West Bengal opposition is now relishing the chance to accuse the commies of cosying up to capitalists at the expense of the peasantry. “In a Communist state, sir! The poor peasants are being shot with bullets by the Communist party police,” says Madan Mitra, a leader of the opposition Trinamul Congress Party. With elections looming in four other states, including the most populous, Uttar Pradesh, the central government will not rush to unblock SEZs.


In India, Gandhiji was able to mobilise the latent anger of a colonised society into a weapon of peaceful resistance. By involving the women of the country in the freedom movement he accomplished through the moral force of Satyagraha what the two World Wars had done for the West. Women gained a professional status. They could compete with men on the factory floor in the industrialised countries. While in India they could aspire to the more elite professions such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, writers and cultural activists. For such a rigidly stratified society it was perhaps to be expected that even the liberation of women should take place along class ines.


In this entertaining and insightful examination of the classic, Gayatri Chatterjee, winner of the President's Gold Medal for the Best Book on Cinema, outlines the film's eventful production history, the ambitious vision of its director, and the brilliance of its stars. She also analyses its epic-style narrative, the mythological underpinnings, the many references to the history of a country in transition, and its relation to post-Independence culture and politics, to show why Mother India is a cornerstone of Indian cinema.
Starring
Nargis, Raj Kumar, Sunil Dutt, Rajendra Kumar, Kanhaiyalal

Story and Script
Mehboob Khan

Dialogue
Vajahat Mirza, S. Ali Raza

Cinematography
Faredoon Irani

Editing
Shamsudin Kadri

Art Direction
V.H. Palnitkar

Choreography
Chiman Seth

Lyrics
Shakeel Badayuni

Music
Naushad

Directed by
Mehboob Khan


The film

Mother India is the ultimate tribute to Indian Womanhood! This epic saga of the sufferings of an Indian peasant woman has an inherent and perennial appeal, being typical of the Indian situation. So tremendous was its success that the film is in fact a reference point in the long-suffering mother genre and is like an Indian Gone With the Wind (1939).

The film is an opulent colour remake of Mehboob's earlier austere Black and White film Aurat (1940). Raised in a village himself, Mehboob himself was familiar with rural life, its customs and manners, its soil, seasons, sufferings and joys and creates a totally Indian experience in milieu, detail, characters and dramatic incidents.However Mehboob raises all these elements to make a highly charged film that is larger than life and one that admittedly takes a totally romanticized look at rural India.

The film makes heavy use of psychoanalytic and other kinds of symbolism and nationalist allegory. (The peasants forming a chorus outlining a map of India) In fact everything about the film is highly charged right down to the strong, earthy central performance of Nargis. The film represents the pinnacle of her career and won her the Best actress award at the prestigious Karlovy Vary festival. To quote the Filmindia review of the film...

"Remove Nargis and there is no Mother India. Nargis is both the body and soul of the picture. Never before has this girl given such a superb and dynamic performance. Nargis reaches such rare heights of emotion that it will be difficult to find another artiste in the entire film world today to compare with her. Nargis lives the role better than Radha could have lived it."

Other strong performances in the film come from Sunil Dutt as the wayward son Birju (Initially Dilip Kumar and Hollywood star Sabu were in the running for this role and it is said that Dilip Kumar made Ganga Jamuna (1961) with himself as the wayward brother as an answer to Mother India), Master Sajid as the young Birju and Kanhaiyalal as the creepily, evil moneylender Sukhilala. Incidentally Kanhaiyalal had played the role of Sukhilala in Aurat as well!

It is a well-known story that while shooting for the film, Nargis was trapped amidst lit haystacks. As the flames got higher and higher, Sunil Dutt playing her rebellious son, Birju, in the film ran through the fire and rescued her. He proposed to her and Nargis married Sunil Dutt and quit films after marriage. She did lend her voice and we do see her silhouette in Sunil Dutt's 'one actor movie monument' Yaadein (1964) and she did make a comeback of sorts expertly playing a woman with a split personality in Raat Aur Din (1967) winning the National Award for the same.

Mother India released in 1957 was greatly lauded by both the public and critics. To quote Filmfare in its review in the issue of November 22, 1957...

"Every once in a while comes a motion picture which helps the the industry to cover the mile to the milestone. Mehboob's magnum opus, Mother India, which was released in the fortnight is one such film."

Even the hard to please Baburao Patel who had panned some of Mehboob's earlier films mercilessly had to admit...

Mehboob's Mother India is an unforgettable epic...the greatest picture produced in India during the forty and odd years of filmmaking in this country. In its epic sweep it is perhaps as great as Gone With The Wind produced by Hollywood but it is greater than the Hollywood picture in theme and spirit, for Mother India portrays the eternal story of the soil - the mother of countless millions of human beings."


Mother India's spectacular success was ironically noted in Vijay Anand's Kala Bazaar (1960) when Dev Anand is seen selling tickets in black for Mother India's premier! The Film became the first Indian Film to be nominated for an Oscar in the Best Foreign Film Category and at the 1958 Academy Awards lost out to another masterpiece Federico Fellini's Nights of Caberia by a solitary vote.