Fans, Families and Censorship 1. Some critics trace the origins of the problem to the mid-sixties and implicate A. Nageswara Rao and N.T. Rama Rao, in addition to Krishna etc. For example, see Kannala (1986). 2. I am grateful to Gudipoodi Srihari, journalist and Ramesh and Swamy Naidu of State Wide Chiranjeevi Youth Welfare Association for alerting me to the controversy within the Censor Board. I must add that I have done injustice to both their versions and made a brutal summary of what is supposed to have 32 happened. See also India Today (Telugu), 6-20 May 1995. 3. In almost all the statements made by Chiranjeevi fans during the controversy, they attacked the BJP, BJMM and 'intellectuals', implying journalists like Gudipoodi Srihari who wrote the first critical review. Chiranjeevi said the controversy was the result of a 'communal political party's attempt to capture public attention' (Interview, Hyderabad: July 20,1995). It is as if the leftist women's groups did not make an intervention. 4. Mahila Margam, April-June 1996, p. 53. 5. Mahila Chetana, Anuradhapai Dadiki Karanamaina Visha-samskruthini Roopumaapudam (Pamphlet). The title of the pamphlet translates as follows: 'Let us fight to destroy the poisonous culture that is responsible for the attack on Anuradha'. 6. All statements of Sandhya quoted in this paper are based on a personal interview by the author at Hyderabad, conducted on October 5, 1996. 7. Andhra Pradesh Chaitanya Mahila Samakhya, 'Asleela Sahityanni, Cinimalanu, Vyaparaprakatanalanu Nishedhinchali' (pamphlet). The title translates as: 'Ban Obscene Literature, Films and Advertisements'. 8. Interview, Hyderabad: November 13, 1996. 9. Vijayalaxmi's statements quoted in this paper are based on an interview at Hyderabad on December 1, 1996. 10. Mahila Margam, April-June 1996, p. 23. 11. Based on a personal interview at Vijayawada on December 19, 1996. 12. Andhra Jyoti, 24 April 1995, p. 12. 13. Srihari's statements quoted in this paper are based on a personal interview at Hyderabad on November 24, 1996. 14. Interview, Madras: January 22, 1995. 15. Chaitanya Mahila Samakhya, op. cit. 16. It is worth noting that at least one participant in the workshop where a draft of this chapter was presented mistook Sandhya's comments on the mother-in-law sequences for Vijayalaxmi's. The confusion was caused because I did not mention Sandhya's name before the statement. 17. Strangely enough, the onus of questioning the BJP's claim of protecting tradition fell on the film's supporters. The film's script-writer, Posani Krishna Murali, cited Telugu folk songs which transgress the incest taboo in an attempt to take the sting out of the BJP attack. See Superhit, May 12,1995, p. 10. 18. See Prasad (1994: pp. 300-301) for a discussion on the preservation of class/caste endogamy in Hindi cinema. In fact, as far as Alluda Majaka is concerned, it is possible to argue that 'social order' or the endogamy of the elite is not threatened. See Section II below. 19. Upper caste Reddys attacked Dalits in Chunduru village (Prakasam District) on August 6,1991, killing 13 Dalit men. Subsequently, the attack was justified by upper caste who claimed that Dalit men had for years harassed upper caste women (suggesting that the Dalits therefore deserve to die). See Balagopal (1991) for details of the massacre. 20. See Section titled "Mandal and Chunduru' in Tharu and Niranjana (1996: pp. 237-243) for the discussion on the construction of the upper caste, middle-class woman as the victim of the lower caste male. 21. Text of press-note released ^y Akhilandhra Chiranjeevi Yuvatha on April 24, 1995 when a rally was organized in Hyderabad by fans in defence of the film. 22. Akhilandhra Chiranjeevi Yuvatha, cited above. 23. Akhilandhra Chiranjeevi Yuvatha, cited above. Journal of Arts & Ideas