Slumdog Millionaire kids still living in abject poverty, no one has called from film

fp_2085189_barm_slumdog_pro
The young stars of Slumdog Millionaire were flown from Mumbai to LA for the Oscars in February where they were thrilled by the glitz and glamor and seemed to have a great time. They also enjoyed a few days at Disneyland afterwards.

At least two of the lead child actors shown in the film continue to live in poverty in the very rough conditions that some people say were glamorized in Slumdog. Ten-year-old Azharuddin Mohammed and his family live under a tarp. His father has tuberculosis and may die soon. His mother is blind in one eye, but her condition could be fixed with a simple operation. Nine-year-old Rubina Ali is faring slightly better. Her family has a tin shack and she recently earned thousands for shooting a soft drink commercial with Nicole Kidman. She still has raw sewage running directly in front of her family’s shack, though.

There was a lot of controversy over the fact that the children were paid less than $3,000 a piece for their role in a film which went on to win multiple Oscars and gross $292 million worldwide. Director Danny Boyle assured everyone that the families would be given apartments and that trusts were set up for the children to be turned over to them when they completed school. It has been six weeks since the Oscars though, and the children are still living in the slums of Mumbai. Their families say no one from the film has contacted them at all. The financial support provided by producers has barely extended beyond the initial meager acting fee.

Dressed in the most expensive clothes they had ever worn, Slumdog Millionaire’s child stars thought their life of poverty and deprivation was over after the film’s haul of eight Oscars. They had been promised new homes, money and an education. But six weeks after being flown to Hollywood and lavished with praise Rubina Ali and Azharuddin Ismail feel angry, bitter and betrayed.

Mention the name of Danny Boyle, once seen as the hero who would rescue them from the slums, and disappointment is etched across the face of the two children plucked from poverty to star in his hit film. Boyle and producer Christian Coulson stand accused of betraying the film’s most vulnerable young stars.

Public promises of new homes, money and education have failed to materialise. No one from the production company has been to visit, nor have they bothered to phone.

Rubina and Azhar, who played the youngest Latika and Salim, are still living in the slums – a year after filming their critically acclaimed roles, they are resigned to the likelihood that they always will. If the children are disappointed, their parents are furious.

“We have been abandoned by Danny Boyle and his associates,” said Rafiq Qureshi, the father of Rubina. “He promised us a lot when the film won at the Oscars but since then no one has come to visit us.

“We’ve been given no money and no house. There is no trust fund that I’ve been told about. The monthly allowance promised to Rubina and Azhar stopped before they even went to the Oscars.

“I feel betrayed and hurt. All these promises came to nothing.”

Boyle and Coulson repeatedly made public promises of education, money to buy a house and a trust fund for the children, claiming it was one of their top priorities.

“We have paid painstaking and considered attention to how Azhar and Rubina’s involvement in the film could be of lasting benefit to them over and above the payment they received for their work,” said Boyle in a statement at the time of the Oscars.

“The children had never attended school, and in consultation with their parents we agreed that this would be our priority.

“Since June 2008 and at our expense, both kids have been attending school and they are flourishing under the tutelage of their dedicated and committed teachers.

“Financial resources have been made available for their education until they are 18. We were delighted to see them progressing well when we visited their school and met with their teachers last week.”

The reality, according to Rubina’s father, is somewhat different. Education at the government school is free. The only expense spent by Slumdog’s producers is on an autorickshaw to take them to school, costing £1 per day.

Despite grossing over £185 million worldwide and winning eight Oscars the impoverished families of Slumdog’s youngest stars claim they do not even have enough money to buy simple medicines.

And despite repeated public guarantees the financial security promised to the children and their families has yet to materialise.

Last month Rubina and Azhar were sent by their desperate parents cap-in hand-to Sonia Gandhi, India’s most powerful politician, to plead their case for a new home.

“We don’t have a good house to live in. We have made the country proud by acting in a film that won eight Oscar awards. We feel that we have done a good job for our country so we want Sonia to give us a good house,” said nine-year-old Rubina.

Travelling to Delhi to meet Gandhi, the President of India’s ruling Congress Party, the two destitute child-actors and their families claimed they had been badly let down after their work in the multi-award winning film.

“The film’s producers promised us a new home and that my child would receive a trust fund for her education, but nothing has come of this,” said Mr Quershi.

“We were paid £700 for my child’s one month of work and other provisions such as traveling costs were provided, but what we were promised and what we have received does not match up.”

On numerous occasions Coulson and Boyle promised the now famous children would be given money for a house and a trust fund that would be made available to them when and if they stayed in education until their 18th birthday.

“These are bricks and mortar flats. They will have electricity, running water and good sanitation,” said Boyle a month ago.

“They will still be close to their friends and extended family. Their community is very important to them, and they don’t want to move too far away from them.”

Mr Qureshi, 36, is furious at what he sees as a betrayal. He has refused permission for Rubina to act in other films unless she is paid in advance.

“When my child began filming at the beginning of 2008 we were led to believe that £35,000 would be split and used to buy my family and Azharuddin’s family two homes,” he said.

“And we also believed that the same amount would be put aside in a trust fund to be split between Rubina and Azharuddin when they reached 18 and left school.

“I have seen no papers, I have no bank details, no one from Celador or Fox-Searchlight has been to my home to see me.

“I have given up on them because they seem to have forgotten about us. I should have known better than to trust them.”

[From BARM/Fame. Article written by James Nye at Barcroft Media]

Maybe now that Boyle’s broken promises are getting press he’ll step up to the plate and actually arrange the apartments he repeatedly promised for these families. It’s outrageous that these children were brought to the Oscars and to Disneyland and that they can’t even return to one bedroom apartments with running water. Many people say that it’s not up to Boyle to provide financial assistance to these families, but surely he could at least give them the cheap apartments he promised.

If Doyle doesn’t help these kids, they may be able to work their way out of the slums on their own. They recently walked the runway for Indian designing team Ashima and Leena. Now that it’s known that they’re still struggling they may get more opportunities.

Photo and story credit: BARM/Fame Pictures

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

40 Responses to “Slumdog Millionaire kids still living in abject poverty, no one has called from film”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. guest says:

    That’s digusting and Mr. Boyle et al should be ashamed of their disgraceful behavior towards these poor children. That said, HEY MADONNA POOR KIDS TO ADOPT HERE

  2. Chiara says:

    The LA crowd is great at fund raising. I hope attention given these kids helps gain funding … not just from Boyle but others.

  3. kiki says:

    why are you blameing Boyle?
    there was a film some years back BORN IN A BROTHEL about Indian children they did a recent update on the kids who were actually poor slum kids whose mothers prosituted themselves. Some of them did well studying in the USA getting professinal carrer there was one girl whose mother did not want her to leave her even thou the child was smart and could have gone far in her life if it werent for certaind circumstances holding her back. ( family pressure ) guess what shes doing now? a whore just like her mother. Bottom line you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink

  4. whatever says:

    It breaks my heart to read and hear such stories..with all the money boyle grossed dor the film, the least he can do is provide better living conditions and education for these kids..It is not even going to cost him a 10th of what he made..I hate it when the rich become selfish and only think about themselves..He may not be entitled to give them more but the least he can do is donate to better the life of these kids..That is what a decent human being would do and hope more attention is given on this..

  5. Tess says:

    I hope nobody seriously thinks that these kids should ever, under any circumstances depend on Hollywood’s deep thinkers and quiet do-ers to help them climb out of poverty.

    Maybe a quick “drive-by” intervention, while the cameras roll.

    But after that: Bye-Bye….move on…get outa my face.

  6. geronimo says:

    Well that’s a very one-sided article. Do we wait to hear Danny (the man apparently reponsible for all India’s ills) Boyle’s side of things on this or shall we just not bother and go ahead and condemn him?

  7. lizzie says:

    I’m all for boycotting any future Danny Boyle projects. If he can’t help two young children who helped make slumdog such a great success, why should we continue to spend our money on viewing his projects and making him even more wealthy?

  8. mxml says:

    I wonder how accurate this is. If they were promised certain things then they should get it, but I doubt it was part of any contract they wrote up. I usually don’t defend rich people who are accused of screwing over poor kids, but there is always another side to the story. I am withholding judgment until I hear more.

  9. mmm says:

    If you’ve ever heard Danny Boyle in extended interviews about the movie, he has always seemed to express very genuine enthusiasm and respect for India. I would like to hear his side of the story before any sort of judgement on this.

    Danny Boyle is likely not the one with ‘millions in profit’ either, it is likely the the distribution studio or the production company (which is not the same as Danny Boyle.) I’m not absolving him of any responsibility (as Boyle has at the very least profited in non-material ways with this project), but people are really oversimplifying this based on hearsay.

    At the very least, at least Boyle decided to film a story on location in India, instead of your typical Hollywood cash-driven crap. It was a risk to do this project, and it almost went straight to video.

  10. lisa says:

    I would hate to know this is true especially after they paraded the kids around at the oscars.

  11. Kaiser says:

    No, I agree with CB – It’s Boyle’s responsiblity because he was the one who came out as ‘Slumdog’ was being promoted to assure everyone that the kids would be taken care of.

    Yes, Boyle didn’t personally pocket the $290 million gross, but he AND the producers made promises to these kids & their families – in public.

    Some of Boyle’s remarks at the time still bother me, actually. The stuff about a trust for the kids when they turned 18, all of that. The fact that nothing has been done confirms my worst fears.

  12. Leandra says:

    It may be only married couples who are allowed to adopt from India. Of course those Slumdog children have been forgotten. They’re not of interest anymore if they’re not profit objects. Poor kids, them and all the others who have to live in such deplorable conditions.

  13. dada says:

    That is disgusting. I don’t normally comment on these celebrity sites, but knowing how these children have been treated I want to state publicly that this consumer and their friend base will never, never again purchase any material created by Danny Boyle, nor the companies which produced “Slumdog.”

    Anyone else?

  14. JaundiceMachine says:

    The Caste System is still alive and well, folks.

    Thank god for imperialism.

  15. dancingnancie81 says:

    i’m curious as to where the original 3 grand went… certainly not to buy curtains?

  16. OXA says:

    The Indian Government came out, when the kids returned from the Oscars to a big parade and said they would be moving the families to new apartments.
    I dont believe what the fathers are saying, The same father beat the kid that was too tired and jet lagged to shown off like a trophy by his father.

  17. Mairead says:

    The whole feckin’ lot of them are doing my head in at this stage. If the producers and Danny Boyle have no intention not to live up to their public promises than I agree that is despicable. Can’t say that I’ll boycott their future films though – that is an honour especially reserved for Roman Polanski.

    However, there are certain aspects of the stories that aren’t ringing true here – how much exactly were they paid? Was it £3000 or £700 plus travel and expenses? Was there REALLY an agreement for £17500 each for two of the children plus a house for one month’s pay in what was then a low-budget film? I actually don’t believe them when they say that they were promised the sun moon and stars when they signed their children up for the film.

    And if one of the children reportedly earned “thousands” for a commercial (and commercial work the world over is paid really well, as there is a guaranteed audience; films not so much unless there is a distributor on board)- why was that money being put to use in moving to a flat? They going to hold onto that, whilst they continue to get paid per interview from foreign newspapers and magazines? Once they move out of the shanty town, there goes that little earner I suppose.

  18. rbsesq says:

    I keep getting stuck at the beginning of the post, CB, when you say that some people claim that Slumdog “glamorizes” that life. Am I out of touch? What kind of idiot would think that the horrible things that happened in the movie glamorize a life of poverty?! I was horrified from the very first flashback and stayed that way through the whole movie. It was raw and desparate, but in no way glamorous.

    As for the rest, I agree that there are two sides to every story, and I would hope that Boyle will stand behind his promise.

    However, I would like to point out to everyone who is so horrified that these children live in these conditions, there are millions of children who live like that everyday all over the world, and we never give them a passing thought. If the media dropped this story tomorrow, you’d forget about these kids by the end of the weekend, too.

  19. Annie says:

    I’m inclined to agree with rbsesq. We’re up in arms, but where was this passion when millions of children suffer from the same fate or worse all over the world?

  20. lb says:

    C’mon, nobody’s employer looks after them for life.

  21. yae says:

    Those children helped earn that man alot of $. It is very difficult in India to just find a job and pop out of poverty. Hindu customs are that your social status is part of your “karma”. Many that are poor are seen as paying for past-life transgressions. Parts of India are heartbreaking. Children of the beggar-classes are sometimes thrown under cars by their own parents to permanantly maim them, making it easier for the child to get $$ for a forced lifetime of begging.
    Those children should have been compensated properly. No American child actors have to finish school before they get $$. This is as sad as it comes.

  22. hatsumomo says:

    Im going to wait to see if there is two sides to this story. Something about this story just dosent ring true. And i believe everyone’s anger is misplaced.
    First, why didn’t these kids parents get them out of the slum from the get-go? Where has all 3000 gone to if it wasn’t the parents presumably squandering the money?
    Second, keep in mind this was originally a low budget movie to begin with- I believe those kids did get paid for a month of work based on their skills at the time( none of them acted before this movie). Part of the lure of using unknowns in a movie is that they don’t command the high prices of established stars. This movie wasn’t expected to become a hit. and they don’t command residuals that George Cloony gets..
    Third, Do you think it would have been better for everyone involved if the set had just never gone to India in the first place? after all, the major argument here is that now you have exposed the kids to something better, the director of the movie should take it upon him self to maintain their desired lifestyle? That makes absolute no sense! So would everyone generally agree that it was better to have never given them work? or expose such poverty to the rest of the comfortable world thru a fiction movie? Cause admit it, if it wasn’t for this movie NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVER CARED!!!!

  23. raunnie says:

    This situation is grossly unfair. Action must be taken. Perhaps Celebitchy could find a way to petition the starmagazine,people, intouch magazines to do some major stories about this issue. If Jennifer Aniston’s bikini waxes, Pete Wentz partying with hookers, Bruce Springsteens dillidailliances with red heads and Jessica Simpsons weight gain are “issues”then surely, this would be worth reporting in a big way. Celebitchy writers could write to the mags as well. Together we can make a difference to help these children who got totally ripped off from their rightful earnings in this profitable movie.

  24. yae says:

    hatsumomo: read my above post. Parents cant just “get” their children out of the slums. It doesnt work that way in India.

  25. eternalcanadian says:

    I read about this at other places and frankly was disgusted. How is it that Hollywood, or people that make movies, pay and are paid millions of dollars, especially when the movie does very well and wins awards, that they completely forget about or ignore the very people that helped make those movies a success? That they don’t even bother to follow-up on those people and if they’re still living in bad conditions why aren’t they using some of the millions of dollars they made off the movie to help them out of the slums? Makes me feel stupid for having watched this movie and cheered for it at the Oscars and then to read this sort of stuff. It is like those academic research projects where researchers go and research the homeless, drug addivts, prostitutes, or people with disabilities, then as soon as they get that PhD they forget about them. That’s called getting ahead at the expense of others. So not cool. Ugh.

  26. Bina says:

    The $3000 probably went towards paying off their debts. Maybe some food/medical treatment. But didn’t the father of one of them say the kid only got $700? Anyway, these kids and their families are Muslim, not Hindu, (and poor Muslims are at the bottom of the heap anyway) but whatever Rubina was paid for her appearance in the fashion show (and it wouldn’t have been more than Rs. 10,000), there’s no way that would cover even the first month’s rent on a decent apartment.

  27. chartreuseoak says:

    Yeah, I watched Slumdog Millionaire and thought, “Man those Indian slums were so glamourous, I wish I lived there.”

  28. FF says:

    I was wondering if those kids were still in the slums because I thought it would be particularly cruel to show them the highlife and then return them to poverty. Guess I got my answer.

    I’m sure something more could be done on an individual scale – surely the cost of living in India isn’t that high.

    Wonder what Boyle and co’s response will be?

  29. lrm says:

    I thought I read that recently,the Indian govmt had already offered them flats,b/c they had ‘made the country proud’,or something like that?
    so many conflicting stories and messages here….

  30. Hieronymus Grex says:

    If you’re surprised by this, you haven’t been paying attention.

  31. vivian says:

    I kinda agree with Mairead. No way were these kids promised 35.000 before filming. I think it is too early to say if and when Boyle will act on his promise. I’d say let’s give him a break and see what will come out of this. I don’t think we’ve heard everything yet. These kids deserve a better life. But I have lived in India and yes, 3000 can move you out of the slums if you know what to do with it. It’s definitely a country where even a bit of money can make your life much better. They should get a bonus payment or a home but let’s also please be real : plenty of out-of-work actors would love a home, too, when a film they’ve been in becomes successful, even if they’re not in the slums.
    I think the real problem here was bringing the kids to the Academy Awards when that money could have been better spent on improving their lives. But I guess it was the sheer euphoria of being nominated that made the producers not think straight. It’s nice they were included but was it wise? Maybe not. Making it possible for them to get to school was a good start, let’s see what else they will do, once all that money has really come in.

  32. allison says:

    they had BETTER get those children out of the slums immediately. This is ridiculous. Those children should not be ignored!!!

  33. heh-heh says:

    Is it wrong for me to HATE this movie without even having seen it?

    I think of this movie (and its accolades and successes) as a kind of corporate smokescreen to distract us from the relentless bad economic news. There is no way that watching a two-hour version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” is worthy of a Best Picture nod; this is just a ploy to reinforce this fantasy that one little person can still strike it rich in an age when the biggest banks in America are crumbling.

  34. ChristinaT says:

    i don’t see how boyle ISN’T responsible… it’s not like those kids made a cameo in the movie, they were a pretty huge part of it… the movie made hundreds of millions, BECAUSE of their contribution… so why should they still be living in abject poverty? it doesn’t make sense… if an american were in a hugely successful blockbuster film, they certainly wouldn’t be living under a tarp…

    if posters here can’t form an opinion about this from the heart, that perhaps danny boyle, even though not responsible for all of india’s ills, could extend a hand to children in who’s lives he was personally involved… then maybe you can make a more objective conclusion, that they should be paid equitable for their work… work, which obviously was good enough to make him a great deal of money… why not go ahead and pay for that?

    my conclusion is that this guy is a disgusting jerk… it wouldn’t take much to lift this family from abject poverty, but apparently he’s unwilling make even the smallest effort to help… just disgusting…

  35. Codzilla says:

    heh-heh: A two hour version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”? A corporate smokescreen? Please. Regardless of anyone’s opinions about this situation, the idea that this movie glamorized the slums to “distract” us from our real-life economic crisis is ludicrous. The slums were portrayed as a dire, horrible place to live. And the game show element helped tell the characters’ life story.

    If you’ve admittedly never watched the film, why would you knowingly make such uninformed claims about its content?

  36. ChristinaT says:

    this is just plain sad… like i said, if the same situation occurred in america, you’d be sure there’d be dozens of lawyers involved clawing to get the actors a fair share of their money… because the cast is powerless, in this case, they are being conned… plain and simple…

  37. Blah blah blah says:

    I think I did see on TV or somewhere that the money that one or both of them did already get went to one of their parents medical expenses/medical debts or something.

    Really my memory is foggy, but I thought I saw something about all of this already a while back. Dude said he had a trust fund for them/was holding a lot of the money until they turn 18 to make sure they get a continued education or something/etc.

    I think maybe something should be done to improve their living conditions, but I think a big problem with giving them the actual money is that it’s not going to be THEIR money–they’re only kids. The parents will be left to handle the money and there is WAY too high of a likelihood that it will be mishandled. What is the point of paying these kids now if they don’t see much of anything from the money they earned? You can’t rely on the parents to be responsible or to save anything for the children’s futures.

    I hope that the situation is resolved in a really responsible way.

  38. Shaun says:

    I will never EVER go to another film done by Danny Boyle if this is, in fact, true. That’s like making World Famine commercials only to sell ad space.

  39. katrina says:

    I’m not sure who is ultimately responsible for the welfare of these kids (ie. Boyle, the production company, etc), but any way you look at it this film has grossed $300 million+. The makers of this film have a moral responsibility to get those kids’ *entire families* out of the slums–they exposed them to a different world than they’d ever known, and therefore should help them adjust both monitarily and emotionally.

  40. Joe Pini says:

    Why rich people want to become more rich and to get more than enough when they have surplus of things/money in their accounts? Thing of others and God will pless you more in whatever you do. You try to help others so that you`ll be blessed more.

    If this compay or person intentially doing this must fill guilty of what they are doing.Please, help others so that you`ll be blessed.