What bureaucracy does to a country

A hilarious example of what bureaucracy can do.

A Team comprising of a Writer, a Producer, a Director, etc applied to the Government of India for financial assistance with the script to produce a Movie on Mahabharata.



All of them committed suicide later and the reason will be very obvious once you have read the reply from Govt.



Dated ............ .........

Subject: Mahabharata





To: The Writer, Film Director & Film Producer, Mumbai



Ref: Film story submitted by you, regarding financing of films by Government of India , Your letter dt. ............ . ......... .

The undersigned is directed to refer the above letter and state that the Government has examined your proposal for financing a film called''Mahabharat' . The Very High Level Committee constituted for this purpose has been in consultation with the Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Women and Labour Commission, in addition to various Ministries and State Governments and have formed definitive opinions about the script. Their observations are as below :

1. In the script submitted by you it is shown that there were two sets of cousins, namely, the Kauravas, numbering one hundred, and the Pandavas, numbering five. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has pointed out that these numbers are high, well above the norm prescribed for families by them It is brought to your kind attention that when the Government is spending huge amounts for promoting family planning, this will send wrong signals to the public. Therefore, it is recommended that there may be only three Kauravas and one Pandava.

2. The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs has raised an issue whether it is suitable to depict kings and emperors in this democratic age. Therefore, it is suggested that the Kauravas may be depicted as Honourable Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and the Pandava maybe depicted as Honourable Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). The ending of the film shows the victory of the said Pandavas over the said Kauravas. The ending may be suitably modified so that neither of the Honourable Members of Parliament are shown as being inferior to the other.

3. The Ministry of Science and Technology has observed that the manner of birth of Kauravas is suggestive of human cloning, a technology banned in India . This may be changed to normal birth.

4. The National Commission for Women has objected that the father of Pandavas, one Sri Pandu is depicted as bigamous, and also there is only one wife for the Pandavas in common. Therefore suitable changes maybe made in the said script so that the said Sri Pandu is not depicted as bigamous. However, with the reduction in number of Pandavas as suggested above, the issue of polyandry can be addressed without further trouble.

5. The Commission for the Physically Challenged has observed that the portrayal of the visually impaired character 'Dhritharastra' is derogatory. Therefore the said character may not be shown as visually impaired.

6. The Department of Women and Child Development have highlighted that the public disrobing of one female character called 'Draupadi' is objectionable and derogatory to women in general. Further the Home Ministry anticipates that depiction of such scenes may create law and order problem and at the same time invite strong protests from the different women forums. Such scenes may also invite penal action under SITA (Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act), therefore they may be avoided and deleted from the film.

7. It is felt that showing the Pandava and the Kauravas as gamblers will be anti-social and counter-productive as it might encourage gambling. Therefore, the said Pandava and Kauravas may be shown to have engaged in horse racing. (Hon. Supreme Court has held horse racing not to be gambling)

8. The Pandavas are shown as working in the King Virat's employment without receiving any salary. According to the Human Rights Commission, this amounts to bonded labour and may attract provisions of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. This may be corrected at once.

9. In the ensuing war, one character by name Sri Abhimanyu has been shown as fighting. The National Labour Commission has observed that, war being a hazardous industry, and the said character being 16 years old, this depiction will be construed as a case of child labour. Also there is no record of his being paid any compensation. This may also be deemed to be violatory of the provisions of The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Such references in the film may be removed.

10. The character 'Sri Krishna' has been depicted as wearing a peacock feather. The peacock is our National Bird and wearing dresses made from peacock feather is an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. This may not be depicted.

11. Smt Maneka Gandhi has raised very serious objection for using any elephants or horses in war scenes, since there is every scope for mistreatment and injury to the said animals. The provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Act, 1960 would be applicable in the instant case. Suitable changes may be made in the script to address the objections raised.

12. In pursuance of the Memorandum of Ministry of Finance regarding austerity measures, it is informed that in the battle field sequences, only ten soldiers may be allowed for each side. Also, all the characters may be shown to have obtained a valid licence under the Arms Act, 1959 as well as the Indian Arms Act, 1878.You are therefore requested to modify the script along the lines indicated above and resubmit it to the undersigned at the earliest for reconsideration.

Sd/- Illegibal

Joint Secretary to Govt. of India

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

A hilarious example of what bureaucracy can do.

A Team comprising of a Writer, a Producer, a Director, etc applied to the Government of India for financial assistance with the script to produce a Movie on Mahabharata.



All of them committed suicide later and the reason will be very obvious once you have read the reply from Govt.



Dated ............ .........

Subject: Mahabharata





To: The Writer, Film Director & Film Producer, Mumbai



Ref: Film story submitted by you, regarding financing of films by Government of India , Your letter dt. ............ . ......... .

The undersigned is directed to refer the above letter and state that the Government has examined your proposal for financing a film called''Mahabharat' . The Very High Level Committee constituted for this purpose has been in consultation with the Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Women and Labour Commission, in addition to various Ministries and State Governments and have formed definitive opinions about the script. Their observations are as below :

1. In the script submitted by you it is shown that there were two sets of cousins, namely, the Kauravas, numbering one hundred, and the Pandavas, numbering five. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has pointed out that these numbers are high, well above the norm prescribed for families by them It is brought to your kind attention that when the Government is spending huge amounts for promoting family planning, this will send wrong signals to the public. Therefore, it is recommended that there may be only three Kauravas and one Pandava.

2. The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs has raised an issue whether it is suitable to depict kings and emperors in this democratic age. Therefore, it is suggested that the Kauravas may be depicted as Honourable Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and the Pandava maybe depicted as Honourable Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). The ending of the film shows the victory of the said Pandavas over the said Kauravas. The ending may be suitably modified so that neither of the Honourable Members of Parliament are shown as being inferior to the other.

3. The Ministry of Science and Technology has observed that the manner of birth of Kauravas is suggestive of human cloning, a technology banned in India . This may be changed to normal birth.

4. The National Commission for Women has objected that the father of Pandavas, one Sri Pandu is depicted as bigamous, and also there is only one wife for the Pandavas in common. Therefore suitable changes maybe made in the said script so that the said Sri Pandu is not depicted as bigamous. However, with the reduction in number of Pandavas as suggested above, the issue of polyandry can be addressed without further trouble.

5. The Commission for the Physically Challenged has observed that the portrayal of the visually impaired character 'Dhritharastra' is derogatory. Therefore the said character may not be shown as visually impaired.

6. The Department of Women and Child Development have highlighted that the public disrobing of one female character called 'Draupadi' is objectionable and derogatory to women in general. Further the Home Ministry anticipates that depiction of such scenes may create law and order problem and at the same time invite strong protests from the different women forums. Such scenes may also invite penal action under SITA (Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act), therefore they may be avoided and deleted from the film.

7. It is felt that showing the Pandava and the Kauravas as gamblers will be anti-social and counter-productive as it might encourage gambling. Therefore, the said Pandava and Kauravas may be shown to have engaged in horse racing. (Hon. Supreme Court has held horse racing not to be gambling)

8. The Pandavas are shown as working in the King Virat's employment without receiving any salary. According to the Human Rights Commission, this amounts to bonded labour and may attract provisions of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. This may be corrected at once.

9. In the ensuing war, one character by name Sri Abhimanyu has been shown as fighting. The National Labour Commission has observed that, war being a hazardous industry, and the said character being 16 years old, this depiction will be construed as a case of child labour. Also there is no record of his being paid any compensation. This may also be deemed to be violatory of the provisions of The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Such references in the film may be removed.

10. The character 'Sri Krishna' has been depicted as wearing a peacock feather. The peacock is our National Bird and wearing dresses made from peacock feather is an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. This may not be depicted.

11. Smt Maneka Gandhi has raised very serious objection for using any elephants or horses in war scenes, since there is every scope for mistreatment and injury to the said animals. The provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Act, 1960 would be applicable in the instant case. Suitable changes may be made in the script to address the objections raised.

12. In pursuance of the Memorandum of Ministry of Finance regarding austerity measures, it is informed that in the battle field sequences, only ten soldiers may be allowed for each side. Also, all the characters may be shown to have obtained a valid licence under the Arms Act, 1959 as well as the Indian Arms Act, 1878.You are therefore requested to modify the script along the lines indicated above and resubmit it to the undersigned at the earliest for reconsideration.

Sd/- Illegibal

Joint Secretary to Govt. of India

In the often-murky waters of political commentary, this article shines as a beacon of clarity. The writer's writing style is refreshingly direct and remarkably insightful, capable of distilling even the most convoluted political machinations into understandable terms. It's a voice that not only informs but empowers, cutting through partisan rhetoric to focus on tangible realities. The structure is intuitively logical, carefully organizing arguments and evidence in a way that progressively deepens the reader's understanding of the political issue at hand. This thoughtful arrangement allows for a comprehensive grasp of the intricate relationships between policy, power, and people. Furthermore, the exceptional clarity with which the political arguments are articulated is truly commendable. There's no room for misinterpretation; the issues are presented with such transparent precision that the article serves as an essential guide for navigating and understanding today's political environment.

 

[Priyani Gupta]

Your article is an exquisitely sarcastic yet thought-provoking piece of satire. Beneath the humor lies a sharp, almost painful reflection of the systemic overreach and bureaucratic red tape that often stifles creative expression in India. The fictional government response you’ve crafted is so absurd, yet so plausible, that one cannot help but laugh—until the laughter gives way to a more uncomfortable realization about how true it all feels.


Logically speaking, the Mahabharata is a cultural and literary epic that predates modern governance, legislation, and sensibilities. Applying present-day administrative filters—like the Arms Act or child labour laws—to an ancient mythological narrative is as impractical as it is comical. And yet, the government's "replies" in your piece reflect an eerily realistic mindset: one where departments and ministries feel compelled to dissect, sanitize, and dissect again—often missing the forest for the trees.


Practically, your satire exposes a grim truth about India's bureaucratic machinery: that it often values procedure over purpose, rules over reason, and control over creativity. The very idea that twelve different departments could jointly “review” a film script about the Mahabharata feels far-fetched—but also sadly believable, considering how creative endeavors often get caught in political and legal crossfires.


Appreciatively, I must commend the layered brilliance of your writing. While the humor lands perfectly, it’s your underlying critique that leaves a lasting impact. The suggestions—from turning Kauravas and Pandavas into MPs to regulating Krishna’s peacock feather under wildlife law—are hilariously on-point but also reflective of a deeply risk-averse and image-conscious establishment. You've not just written a satire—you’ve painted a bureaucratic caricature so vivid it could hang in a museum of governance absurdities.


Now, for the slightly controversial part: satire like this is necessary, but it's also a mirror we’re often afraid to look into. Because while it mocks the system, it also reminds us that we, as a society, have allowed this culture of overregulation and hypersensitivity to flourish. Whether it’s banning a scene, renaming a character, or pulling a film off screens due to public outrage, we’ve all become complicit in creating a climate where creativity has to walk on eggshells. The tragedy, as your piece suggests, isn’t just in the bureaucratic process—it’s in the fact that these creative minds “committed suicide,” metaphorically or otherwise, under the weight of institutional absurdity.


In conclusion, this article is more than just funny—it’s necessary. It’s a piece that should be read not just by artists, but by administrators and policymakers alike. Because if we don’t begin to laugh at ourselves—and then reflect—we risk becoming a nation where myth cannot be told, truth cannot be shown, and committees must first edit stories before they can be lived.




Hashtags:
#SatireWithPurpose #BureaucraticAbsurdity #CreativeFreedom #MahabharataModernMess #IndiaCinema #FreedomOfExpression #GovernmentSatire #ArtVsSystem #MythologyVsModernity