বলিউডের তারকাদের অদ্ভুত সব চাওয়া

আকাশের তারা যেমন থাকে ধরাছোঁয়ার বাইরের এক স্তরে। আলো দেখা যায়, সে আলোয় পৃথিবী আলোকিত হয়। তবে কাছে যাওয়া যায় না, ছুঁয়ে দেখারও উপায় নেই। রুপালি পর্দার তারকারাও যেন তেমনই। পর্দার এপার থেকে দেখেই অভ্যস্ত সবাই। পর্দার ওপারের মানুষটিকে জানার উপায় নেই। তবে সাধারণ মানুষের মতোই তাদেরও কিন্তু হাসি আছে, কান্না আছে, আছে সুখ-দুঃখের জীবন। আবার কারও কারও আছে অদ্ভুত সব চাওয়া! বলিউড তারকাদের কথাই ধরা যাক। কেউ কেউ তো বিনয়ের অবতার, একদম মাটির মানুষ। কারও আবার অহংকারে ‘মাটিতে পা-পড়ে না’ অবস্থা। যেখানেই যান, তাঁদের নির্দিষ্ট কিছু চাওয়া পূরণ না করে উপায় থাকে না নির্মাতাদের। এ প্রতিবেদনে থাকছে এমনই কিছু বলিউড তারকাদের কথা।

ব্যক্তিগত শেফ ছাড়া এক পা নড়েন না হৃতিক
নাচে, অভিনয়ে তো বটেই; পেশিবহুল শরীর বানিয়েও হৃতিক রোশন কুড়িয়েছেন সবার প্রশংসা। তাঁর এমন সুগঠিত শরীরের রহস্যের কিছুটা হয়তো তাঁর খাবার রান্নার মানুষটির ওপরেও নির্ভর করে। যদি তাই না হবে, তাহলে হৃতিক যেখানেই যান, সঙ্গে তাঁর ব্যক্তিগত শেফ কেন থাকবেন! তা সে শুটিংয়ের জন্যই হোক, কিংবা পারিবারিক ছুটি কাটাতে। এ অভিনেতার শেফকে সব সময় তাঁর সঙ্গেই দেখা যায়। এ ছাড়া, শুটিংয়ে হৃতিক যেখানেই থাকেন না কেন, উন্নতমানের জিম তাঁর থাকা চাই-ই চাই।



সানডে অক্ষয়ের জন্য ‘ফান-ডে’
অক্ষয় কুমারের নিয়মানুবর্তিতার সুনাম সারা বলিউড জুড়েই। দৈনন্দিন কাজের তালিকায় কোনো বিচ্যুতি বরদাশত করেন না এই ‘খিলাড়ি’ তারকা। তবে রবিবারে কোনো কাজ না। কাজের যত চাপই থাক, আর সেটা যত জরুরিই হোক না কেনো, সানডে বা রোববারকে তিনি রাখেন ‘ফান-ডে’ হিসেবেই। অবশ্য তাঁর মতো কঠোর পরিশ্রমী অভিনয়শিল্পীর জন্য একটা দিন তো ছাড় দিতেই পারেন নির্মাতারা।


কারিনার শর্ত
কারিনা কাপুর খানের পরিবারে স্বনামধন্য অভিনেতার কোনো কমতি নেই। তাঁদের ছায়া থেকে বেরিয়ে আসতে অভিনয়ে অসাধারণ দক্ষতার প্রয়োজন। তা তিনি প্রমাণ করেও দেখিয়েছেন। সমালোচকদের মুখে তালা আঁটতে অভিনয়ে তাঁর দক্ষতাই যথেষ্ট। তবে এই ‘হিরোইন’ তারকাকে ছবিতে পেতে চাইলে তাঁর শর্ত একটাই, কারিনার বিপরীতে সেরা অভিনেতাকেই নিশ্চিত করতে হবে প্রযোজকদের। বি গ্রেডের কোনো সহকর্মীর সঙ্গে কাজ করেন না বেবো। অসংখ্য নির্মাতাদের ফিরিয়ে দিয়েছেন তিনি শুধু এই একটি কারণে।

চুম্বন দৃশ্যে সোনাক্ষীর অ্যালার্জি
বলিউডের ছবিতে চুম্বনের দৃশ্য এখন আর কোনো বড় বিষয় না। প্রায় সব ছবিতেই এমন কোনো না কোনো দৃশ্য থাকছেই। তবুও কিছু কিছু অভিনয়শিল্পী আছেন, যারা এখনো এই দিকটাতে ঠিক অভ্যস্ত হয়ে উঠতে পারেননি। সোনাক্ষী সিনহা তাঁদেরই একজন। পর্দায় তাঁকে কখনো চুম্বনের দৃশ্যে দেখা যায়নি। কোনো ছবির কথাবার্তার শুরুতেই তিনি এ ব্যাপারে নির্মাতাদের বলে রাখতে ভোলেন না। টাইমস অব ইন্ডিয়া।

195 Pak soldiers can still be tried for genocide in Bangladesh

PAKISTAN LYING, STILL

1974 Delhi Agreement holds no bar to try these war criminals

Inam Ahmed and Shakhawat Liton

Pakistan army's 195 officers are morally and legally culpable for the genocide of 1971 and Bangladesh has the moral and legal rights to try them. Pakistan's excuse of the 1974 agreement does not give it reprieve.

This is the last of our series in exposing Pakistan's moral hypocrisy and duplicity about its army's war crimes in Bangladesh in 1971.
The 195 Pakistani soldiers against whom Bangladesh had collected specific evidences of genocide can still be tried in the International Criminal Court in The Hague irrespective of whatever was mentioned in the 1974 Delhi Agreement that Pakistan claims had absolved these criminals from prosecution.
After a long-drawn stressful negotiation over the POWs, Bangladesh finally signed a tripartite agreement in Delhi in April, 1974 in which Bangladesh said “having regard to the appeal of the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the people of Bangladesh to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past,” and Bangladesh decided not to proceed with the trials as an act of clemency.
But Bangladesh inked the agreement because Pakistan held 203 Bangladeshi officials hostage for its 195 officers of very high ranks. It also made the repatriation of four lakh Bangladeshis uncertain and put intense international pressure on Bangladesh.
However, this “clemency” has no bearing on the trial of those who committed genocide as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report of 2009 titled “International Law and United Nations Policy on Amnesty” said: “Under various sources of international law and UN international policy, amnesties are impermissible if they prevent prosecution of individuals who may be criminally responsible for war crimes and genocide.
An amnesty for genocide would violate the Genocide Convention and Customary international law.
“Amnesties that prevent the prosecution of war crimes ….are inconsistent with the State's obligations under the widely ratified Geneva Convention of 1949 and their 1977 Protocols, the UN said.
Countries which have signed the Geneva Convention are obliged to search out such criminals and try them.
The European Court of Human Rights also made similar observations during the trial of Fred Margus, a Croatian army commander accused of killing Croatian-Serb civilians during the war in the early 1990s.
The Court found that there was a growing tendency in international law to view granting of amnesties in respect of grave breaches of human rights as unacceptable.
Not only that, under long-settled rules of international law, any court may exercise universal jurisdiction over “acts amounting to crimes against humanity, such as widespread or systematic murder, torture, forced disappearance, arbitrary detention, forcible transfer and persecution on political grounds, and heads of state and former heads of state do not enjoy immunity under international law - whether in international or national courts - for crimes under international law, including crimes against humanity and torture.”
So, Bangladesh has every right now to go to the international court and demand trial of the Pakistani soldiers who committed all kinds of war crimes including genocide, rape and looting. The Delhi tripartite treaty would not stand in any way to bar it.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, who worked as the president of UN's war crimes court in Sierra Leon, in a report in 2015 titled "REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES TRIBUNAL OF BANGLADESH" had rightly put the context to the tripartite agreement when he said Bangladesh holocaust came before the world had any will to intervene in faraway countries of which the major powers knew little.
“This was the era of impunity – for mass killings in Indonesia, for General Pinochet's tortures, for the Argentinian Junta's death squads, for Idi Amin's butchery in Uganda, Mugabe's massacres in Matabeleland, for Papa Doc and (for thirty years) for the genocidal behaviour of the Khmer Rouge,” he wrote.
It was not until 1994 that the Nuremberg legacy began to be delivered -- for the mass murders by Milošević in the Balkans (the ICTY), and the genocide in Rwanda (the ICTR) and later for Charles Taylor (the UN Special Court in Sierra Leone) and, finally, for Pol Pot's lieutenants in Cambodia.
“Now, with the International Criminal Court (ICC) established with 132 member states, it is broadly accepted that crimes against humanity committed in civil war should receive punishment, however belatedly,” Robertson maintained.
Bangladesh can still carry out Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's original resolution when he said, “How can you expect me to abandon it? Three million people were cold-bloodedly murdered. Two hundred thousand girls have been raped by the Pakistan army. Ten million people had to migrate to India and another 15 million moved from place to place out of fear. The world should know what has happened” (New York Times, July 21, 1972).
And why an amnesty cannot be used to bar trial for genocides had been eloquently conjured up in 1764 by Cesare Beccaria, an Italian criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician, who is widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment.
He said "The conviction of finding nowhere a span of earth real crimes were pardoned might be the most efficacious way of preventing their occurrence."
So Bangladesh has every moral right to hunt them down and drag them to trial.

News Analysis Explain what is 'Hanadar Bahini'

Sharier Khan

On Sunday, the BNP, Jatiya Party and the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh issued their statements on the occasion of Martyred Intellectuals Day without naming the Pakistani army and their local collaborators who spearheaded the killing of the intellectuals.
In her statement BNP chief Khaleda Zia said the intellectuals were killed by the “Hanadar Bahini” (occupation forces) and their collaborators.
Jatiya Party chief and Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Raushan Ershad also mentioned Hanadar Bahini.
The Jamaat acting secretary general in his statement said the entire nation remembers with due respects the intellectuals who embraced martyrdom on December 14 [1971], without mentioning who killed them or why.
For BNP and Jamaat, shying away from mentioning Pakistani forces is nothing new. But we would like to know why BNP, Jamaat and JP feel shy about pinpointing who the killers were and who their collaborators were.
What could be the reason? Is it that they feel mentioning Pakistan's name or its collaborators -- the Razakars, Al Badr and Al Shams -- would be improper?
Is it possible that mentioning Pakistan's name might offend Pakistan and BNP, Jamaat and JP do not want to 'hurt' the feelings of their friendly nation?
Is it possible that they believe the Pakistani army or the collaborators were not involved in the killings?
Or is it possible that BNP, Jamaat and JP just want to wash off our hands from the history and say: let's forget the past and let's look to the future. No point in bringing the murky part of history.
May be the BNP, Jamaat and JP believe all of the above. But then they must explain why they want to pay homage to the martyred intellectuals. If they must pay their homage then they must recognise who killed them and why they were killed. They must also explain who are these 'Hanadar Bahini'? Until then, their homage means nothing to this nation because it's shrouded in self-contradiction, deceit and greyness.
When the Pakistani forces killed our people -- they did not feel shy. And today Pakistan still arrogantly denies committing atrocities during the 1971 war.
It's sad to see that a major party like BNP is harping the tune of Pakistan. By saying Hanader Bahini once again, BNP, JP and Jamaat are denying the country's history.
The word “Hanadar Bahini” was ironically introduced in the country by General Ziaur Rahman, a sector commander in the Liberation War who rose to power following the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in August 1975.
Though a freedom fighter himself -- Ziaur Rahman -- who took over presidency in 1977 --changed the reference of Pakistani forces and Razakars or Al-Badrs from all occasions, news and even text books. The word Hanadar Bahini replaced the Pakistani forces.
Ziaur Rahman also reinstated Razakars into the mainstream politics and brought them into his cabinet; lifted ban on Jamaat-e-Islam's politics; built children's park in the place where Pakistani forces surrendered to Indian forces in the Suhrawardi Udyan; erased records of rape victims who were rehabilitated after independence and took many other measures that would only make Pakistan happy.
It was his twisted politics that made pro-liberation forces look guilty and pro-Pakistani forces heroes.
But times have changed. Replacing “Pakistani forces” with “Hanadar Bahini” did not change the history -- but has left Ziaur Rahman a controversial freedom fighter today. We all know who the Hanadar Bahini was.
Our politicians must realise that the treacherous politicians who still regret the birth of Bangladesh have no future in this country. The people of this country are proud of its history and know who killed the intellectuals; the roles of Razakars or Al-Badr and they do not like political parties who still feel shy about the country's history.
The BNP must be black and white on this issue. And Jamaat could redefine its politics by admitting role of its leaders in killing the intellectuals and people of this country. Or else these parties themselves will rapidly become history in this country.