Interestingly, the primordial encounter of all the three directors with filmmaking happened at more or less the same time. Ray came into limelight with his first film 'Pather Panchali' in 1955. In the same year, Sen made his first film 'Ratbhore' which was a cinematic disaster and which Sen wanted to forget. Though Ritwik came out with his outstanding film 'Ajantrik' in 1958, he had already completed 'Nagarik' in 1952, which, unfortunately, could not be released then. Needless to say that the first creative venture of Ritwik as a director was far superior compared to the run-of-the-mill fare from Tollygunge studios, in early 1950s.

Beginning with the release of Ray's Pather Panchali and its all-round recognition worldwide, a massive transformation was brought about in the consciousness of the Calcutta film aficionados. That was a period when the city in particular and the state in general were responding to the demands of the time, following the impact of Partition in 1947 and the influx of refugees from the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. My own family migrated in March 1950 and I stepped into adulthood in the bustling Calcutta of late 1950s.

Organising film festivals and the coming of Italian films of the neorealist school gave a big boost to the emerging young film-going brigade, who took active part in politics as also in cultural activities. The CPI supporters dominated the cultural field till early 1960s, before the split in the party in 1964 with the forming of the CPI(M). The symbol of stability of the Congress government in the state, Chief Minister Dr. Bidhan Chandra Ray, was no more. He died on July 1, 1962. In such a situation of social and political turmoil, marked by acute unemployment, youth unrest and rise in corrupt practices, Mrinal Sen's 'Akash Kusum' was released in 1965.

This was Sen's seventh film and the most focused on the problem of a youth from an ordinary middle class family struggling to get a suitable status in society. The story was by Ashish Barman who had collaborated with Sen in an earlier film 'Punascha' released in 1961.

By that time, Ray had released his film 'Mahanagar,' which also focused on the problem of joblessness in that period and how, a working woman resigned from her job to protect her dignity. Ray was responding in his own way to the criticism by his friends, including those in the Left, that the film icon of Bengal was not reflecting the agony of the times in his films. Sen picked up the story to be more vocal than Ray in depicting the ground reality of West Bengal which was witnessing a food shortage situation at that time. The Gandhian Congress leader Prafulla Chandra Sen was the Chief Minister and there was all-round agitation in the state against the government policies. At the national level, the ruling Congress government was facing challenges after the death of the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in May 1964 and the country’s economy was going downhill in 1965.

The crux of the film was the struggle of a lower middle class young man to become rich through devious ways. The hero Ajoy falls in love with a rich girl Monica and in order to impress her and her father, he introduces himself as an upcoming businessman with the help of his close friend. Ajoy basically is an honest guy but his desire to upscale himself in society compels him to resort to fraud which he thinks just ad-hoc until things work out. But things don’t go as planned, as Ajoy's perfidy is found out and Monica rejects him. Sen underscored throughout the film the perspective that the hero was not bluffer; he had only ambitions which he tried to fulfil, but failed.

The film released in July 1965 created immediate controversy and a debate began in the 'Letters to the Editor' column of The Statesman, after its review which was not very appreciative of the film, especially the ending. Barman, the story writer immediately defended the ending. Lot of letters were published defending the film or disagreeing with the ending. But suddenly, the readers saw the letter from Satyajit Ray himself. Ray attacked the topicality of the film itself and said: “May I point out that the topicality of the theme in question stretches well back into antiquity, when it found expression in that touching fable about the poor deluded crow with a fatal weakness for status symbols?” This was too harsh a comment by the doyen of the Indian film and it was a direct attack on the director's capability itself. So, Sen reluctantly joined the debate along with his story-writer Barman, who was a good friend of Ray and was associated with him earlier in script-writing.

Sen's joining infuriated Ray further and in a long reply he said: “If Akash Kusum has any contemporaneity, it is on the surface - in its modish narrative devices and in some lively details of the city life. But where is the topicality of the theme and where it is in the attitude of the makers?” Sen replied and many others also joined the debate. But in his next rejoinder to Sen, he was more personal and his letter ended with his statement “A crow film is a crow film is a crow film.”

I also contributed to the debate by mentioning in my letter published in The Statesman on the last day of the debate 'A film is a film is a film' contradicting Ray's position. The debate was closed after the publication of a number of letters in The Statesman. The film-society members and the people associated with the industry continued to discuss the issue of this fight between the two stalwarts of film world for months.

During that July to September of 1965, I was a regular visitor to Mrinal Sen's small flat at Monoharpukur Road behind Deshapriya Park in Calcutta. I was then the general secretary of South Calcutta Film Club, the third film society in Calcutta after Calcutta Film Society founded by Satyajit Ray in 1947 and the Cine Club of Calcutta. Mrinal Sen was the president our Club, so I had free access to the morning adda at Sen's flat whenever he was free from his usual work schedule.

Soumitra Chatterjee played the role of Ajoy in Akash Kusum while Shubhendu Chatterjee played the role of Ajoy's friend Satyen who helped Ajoy by allowing him to use his office and pretend as if it were his own. The two actors were regulars in that adda during those days, as also Ashis Barman. Sen looked a bit strained. He was not feeling fine by joining the debate and writing against Ray. But Subhendu and Ashis Barman were much angry at Ray's letters. How can Ray use such language against the film and its writers? Soumitra was silent most of the times and as a thorough gentleman with great respect for Ray, he was only saying this debate should end.

Interestingly, the same evening when The Statesman announced the closure of the debate in its morning edition, the two film icons met at the screening of a film. According to biography of Mrinal Sen written by Dipankar Mukhopadhayay, Ray jovially told Sen: “What a pity it came to an end. Why did you stop it like that? I could have written many more letters." Sen reportedly replied: “Well, I have neither your support base, nor your manpower. I am all alone, but rest assured, I would have replied to all your letters.” During the next few weeks, during our adda, there was never any mention of this Akash Kusum controversy, Sen got busy with his new film productions, as did Ray. But I could make out that Sen was nursing the feeling that Ray was out to prove his class superiority in dealing with him.

Ray, though has ancestral roots in Mymensingh, the part of East Bengal, belonged to the nineteenth century Calcutta aristocracy with links with all top families of Bengal, including Tagores. He had an impeccable command over English and Bengali language as also western and classical music. The casual remark of Ray that “I could have written many more letters” at the evening of that screening at the films society gave the impression to Sen as if Ray was saying how long you would continue with your laboured English writing, I can go on and on, I am the master of this language .

The controversy was over for the time being. But it seemed that Ray was not in a mood to position Mrinal Sen near him in terms of a film-maker. After more than twenty five years, in 1991, the year before Ray died, the Ray-Sen controversy appeared in media in a broader form with Ray challenging the very story-telling power of Sen in his films. In a personal letter to his friend and leading film critic, Chidananda Dasgupta, Ray said that “the makers of so-called art films were more interested in attending foreign festivals than building up rapport with their audience at home.” None of them, even Mrinal, know the art of story-telling.' He also said the filmmakers were also ignorant of the craft of cinema and Mrinal is a prime example of such a shoddy film-making'.

This was a devastating comment against a filmmaker who is earning laurels from the foreign festivals and is respected in the country for his contribution to filmcraft. The letter, though private, came out in a daily in October 1991 less than seven months before Ray's death in April 1992. Sen was upset but he knew Ray was critically. Sen did not respond. He was still unable to fathom why Ray who had always been nice to him and helpful, took such a position about assessing his film craft capability.

Mrinal Sen had a long life compared to Satyajit Ray who died only at 71. Sen died at the age of 95 as a contented man who got all the awards of the country he could aspire for.t from large number of international festival awards.. A youth from a struggling middle class family could take on the scion of one of the Renaissance families of Bengal on his own terms. With Ray's birth centenary celebrations concluding this May, Sen's pre-centenary celebrations are set to begin. A jolly coincidence in the spirit of their creative duelling. (IPA Service)