/> Director Bhavna Talwar whose Dharam was the closest candidate for Oscar-ship this year is very very angry and upset.

"How long can we take this kind of politicization of our Oscar entries? There has to be some accountability on these matters. Every year we send the wrong film. The jury members are serving their own agendas.

Who wants to stand up for a Pankaj Kapoor and a Bhavna Talwar, yaar?! The chairperson of the Oscars jury Vinod Pande called up my producer yesterday to say Dharam was the film that deserved to go.

He kept saying he was sorry, and that he called for an open ballot among the jury. Isn't that against the rules? The rules call for a secret ballot. Why was that rule flouted?

And as the chairperson of the jury isn't it Mr Pande's duty to stand up to a film that he believes in ? We lose out every year at the Iscars because we chose the wrong films for the wrong reasons. It's time someone spoke up.

Because at this rate we'll never be anywhere near the Oscars. You ask moviegoers, they'll scoff at the decision. It's all about personal agendas. Strings are being pulled all the time.

And if Mr Sudhir Mishra thinks the film is technically sound then please have the balls to enter Eklavya in the technical sections in the Oscars."

Bhavna is unsure about her next move. " I won't let this go. In recent times every year the wrong film has gone. The Film Federation Of India is embarrassing not just the film industry but the country.

Yes, Lagaan and Shwaas deserved to go. Other than these films, we've been sending the wrong films to the Oscars. I've seen Eklavya. I was bored. I couldn't connect with any of the characters.

What was that whole ending about? What's the film saying? My Dharam has a much larger statement to make. At the Venice film festival I was with Danny Houston and Michelle Yo. They loved Dharam.

We went to Palm Springs festival which is the precursor to the Oscars. Which significant festival has Eklavya gone to?

A film may not be a matter of life and death. But come on, if we send films like Eklavya they're going to say we don't know how to make films. Apart from big budgets and big stars what does Eklavya have?"

Jury-member Sudhir Mishra would rather not have Bhavna Talwar or any other filmmaker question the jury's decision on which film goes to the Oscars.

Says Sudhir, "I can tell you in no uncertain terms that there was no politicization this time. I feel Eklavya stands a good chance of making its to the Top 5 nominations for the Oscar for best foreign-language film.

And I say this in all honesty. Technically, Eklavya is an impeccable film. And it's a very Indian work. Mani Ratnam's Nayakan was a good film.

But I don't think it could be sent to the Oscars because it was influenced by The Godfather which is their film. Originality counts. So does the technical excellence.

Also Eklavya is a short film, under two hours. Foreign reviews have been very generous to Eklavya. There are lots of meritorious elements in this work...So I think it's unfair to question the selection."

When asked if he approved of the choice on a personal level, Sudhir Mishra dodges the question. "There was an overall approval of Eklavya being selected, and I went ahead with the choice.A jury always works through consensus."

As for the two other strong contenders namely Talwar's Dharam and Shimit Amin's Chak De India, Sudhir agrees Amin's film is a good attempt. "It's a very Indian film. But sports films of this nature are not very unusual to an American film.

As for Bhavna's film that too was a strong contender. It's a pity that in a country with such such diverse culture, cinema and languages we are allowed to send only one film to the Oscars. We need to send at least four entries every year and then let them select one.

We need to petition for that because there are four very specific and productive film industries in India."

Reverting to the issue of jury wisdom Sudhir recalls, "At the National awards two years ago everyone questioned our decision when we selected Saif Ali Khan as best actor.

Everyone said he was no actor. He won during a year when there the usual award winners like Mamoothy, Naseer and Mohanlal were not competing.

But Saif was pitched against Shah Rukh who was also very good in Swades. By giving Saif the award the jury liberated the National awards from the idea of particular kind of cinema and performance monopolizing the awards.

After the National award Saif was suddenly acknowledged as a brilliant actor. My point is, there was no politicization of the awards then, there's no politicization in the selection of Eklavya for the Oscars.

That way I'm really proud of the industry. It has never tried to pressurize or persuade me for any jury decision."