Why did Mani Ratnam make Guru?

Why did Mani Ratnam make Guru? From a glowing tribute to the spirit of human enterprise to the grittiest film ever made, the film has received accolades from all over. Genuine or generated..I don’t know. The media savvy of the people associated with the film could be one reason why the film has made it with four and five stars in newspapers and magazines across the board except Outlook. I admire Namrata Joshi for her scathing comments.
Guru is a bad film. Period. The brilliant camera-work by Rajiv Menon, artistic editing and great music notwithstanding. The film falls flat. It lacks character. It is easy to go on to the Reliance website, access the history section and get a lowdown on the rise of the company, the way in which shareholders multiplied…and so on. Why would anyone want to see it on celluloid? The propagandist nature of the film is particularly uncomfortable. Guru is blatant, in places it is even shameless. It is preachy. One does not need Abhishek Bachchan (aka Gurukant Desai) to pontificate on how Gandhi had broken the law 40 years ago only to be matched by an industrialist who flouts custom duties and all the rules, regulations, and laws of the land to end up as a tycoon. The comparison with Gandhi is where the film falters. It can only elicit guffaws and not cheers.
Ratnam also does a U-turn from his heady Yuva days and indulges in visual and verbal left-bashing. (Comrades, do we need any more bashing? Hasn’t enough been done already?) Manik Dasgupta and his crusading reporter Shyan Saxena played by Mithun Chakraborty and R Madhavan respectively are somehow in a rather sinister and cruel manner portrayed as villains who are out to get the man of the moment.
We can surely do without gutless films like Guru. If the mantra is ‘play safe’ then I am afraid, we are only running against time…not with it!