Friday, June 23, 2006

BOO THE BAN

Are Indian Christians more Christian than the Pope and the Vatican? They have tolerated the 'Da Vinci Code' but these guys can't. On the other hand when Jayalalithaa had said a few years ago that the Pope had no business to criticise the functioning of a democratically elected government, the same group of faithful were the first to take offense. Whats worse this time is even Muslims have shown some fake solidarity in the hope that the the favour will be returned when its their turn.

(Please dont say banal things like there are moderate voices too.... thats a given. I KNOW....Thank God!)

There are a few minority pressure groups close to the DMK who have forced the government to take this absolutely gutless decision. Fear law and order problems? Then get your police force to tackle it not buckle and ban.

Despite the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the right to free speech and expression, theatre owners in Hyderabad are not taking the risk of releasing the film because they fear violence. The case is being heard in a court in Tamil Nadu also. Lets see what this court says. We interviewed a few people outside Sathyam theatre and one guy said, "If it hurts the sentiments of a community, then its good that the film is banned." To him I wanted to say... Dont like it? Dont watch it. Simple. The choice is YOURS.

(Of course, the only reason the movie should be banned is because I hear its a CRAP film! I haven't seen it... Remember? Its banned!))

36 comments:

Arif Syed said...

Ms. Zoyab: The question to be asked is "Has the point of criticallity been reached in our democratic society in India". The short answer is no. Ours is a young country and a young democracy. Self criticism is easier accepted in advanced democracies such as the United States (albeit it is a younger culture). There are too many centrifugal forces at this point in time in India.

Take the example of Iraq. Democracy cannot be forced on a society where democratic institutions do not exist and u see the result of such force. Atleast we have made a beginning and survived as a democracy which is an astonishing achievment given that only half the people in our contry can read and write. To accept controversial issues such as this film or say Euthanasia or say legalising marijuana ( I am not equating these issues- just anologies) will take some time, maybe another generation. In that context its perhaps better to be safe than to be sorry. Nationbuilding is an arduous task.

Alaphia said...

You are right Dr. Arif - nation building is an ardous task. By buckling under the pressure of hooligans who threaten to burn down theatres, you take the nation two steps back in that ardous task.. Let there be dignity to their protests... and we can listen. But I've seen these protesters up close and may i add have been at the receiving end of their rowdy behaviour... So i know that they are insincere and most ungodly. Let them not hijack what you and me should be watching/reading/thinking. Besides... where do you draw the line. Tomorrow it will be something else... is the majority to be held to ransom by such ugly behaviour? And let dignity please return to their protests... then we can certainly listen, understand and empathise... Not this way... we cant. we musnt. Is banning Fanaa justified simply because some loudmouth ass politician decided Aamir Khan's remarks hurt Gujarati pride??

Anonymous said...

Regarding Fanaa i do really agree with you Ms Zoyab but regarding The De Vinci Code i have a different opinion.

If some one ask me whether i would like to watch the movie i would jump up and say yes. I had read the book, may thrice and i loved it. I would be really glad to see that in screen. But somewhere i feel that people protesting to ban the movie are not completely wrong.

For example if tomorrow someone plans to write a story or show a movie, which raises fingers on Yours and My God then certainly we would protest. Matter here is not "who is more Christain" matter is India is not only Your and Mine its of all Indian and everybody has a right to protest, right to demostrate and ask for a ban.

Lets not talk about the credibility of the book, lets not talk about the politics behind the curtain, lets just put our hand on our heart and ask, is it right to hurt someone's sentiments about their God? We never know who feels how much about his God.

These are sensitive issue let everybody to have a say and then let the law decide.

Sanjib Kumar Roy
Port Blair

4WD said...

Wow. you have serious commentors. Its a really crapioso movie. So slow. I went to sleep. The movie should be banned because of The cheezy hairstyles.

Arif Syed said...

4wd: On a lighter side I liked your proposal to ban the movie for its "cheesy hairstyles".....thats funny.

Alaphia said...

Sanjib... coming from a journalist... tut tut.. I thought you would be all for free speech. You're quite far away to do it... but if it was possible, i would ask you to ask one of those protestors the story of the Da VInci Code... lets see if they can tell you. Nobody should insult anybodys god... I dont believe that was the grand design of the film-maker - to insult Christianity. Like i keep saying, if they find it offensive, let them not watch it.

4WD - Thanks .. thats another reason to give the film a pass.

Dr. Arif - you didnt say anything to my comment.

Arif Syed said...

Ms. Zoyab: I am against any bans in this issue. But thats just my personal opinion. Its true that individuals should be allowed to decide what they want and dont want to see. Thats an ideal situation. Having lived in 4 different countries I am yet to see such a utopian society though. But we all live in hope. Let me suggest the book "The Best Democracy money can buy" by Greg Palast.

Alaphia said...

Dr. Arif - I will look out for it. Thanks

bnap said...

Hello Alaphia,
A nice dissective view of the issue has emerged in just over 3-4 messages.Well, you are absolutely right,Alaphia,when you say that all these protestors are just plain insincere and have other darker motives.Not many of them would even know the story.
And TN banning it is absolutely ridiculous.I never knew that a democracy would be so fragmented.After all,though India is a federal state,such decisions would better taken for the nation as a whole.TN bans it whereas another state runs it.I do not understand how we are so different from the others.
Again to summarise,a very sorry state of afairs.Instead of discussing the issue threadbare,our politicains are playing their favourite game once more, vote bank politics.
Call this the height of secularism.

Alaphia said...

Hello BNAP,
Glad you agree with me on this one. Incidentally Karunanidhi himself has scripted highly provocative dialogues on Hinduism and idol worship... and despite protests at the time the film wasnt banned. Ironic for him to be banning Da Vinci Code.

Arif Syed said...

Ms. Zoyab: Somehow we all assume that Democracy is a perfect system and it works in all societies. The fact is it has been proven time and again not to be true (I do believe in it though). Islamic societies were the first to come up with this system (Even George W quoted this). Unfortuantely some religious zealots have hijacked the religion.

Take some of our neigbours such as Singapore or South Korea. Today they are apparently democratic. If you were to read their history you will realize how brutal they have been in the past. So is true of Europe at one point.

What is amazing about India is that the Democracy actutally is exactly what is keeping as together as a nation. It is essential for our survival. However it is also acting to slow rapid development. So you are right when you say the nation takes 2 steps forward and then is pulled back 1 step.

Sanjib Kumar Roy said...

Wow ..we have many many opinions ...Al ur blog is superhit.. it got more readers than audience of The De Vinci Code

but as i have already said i would go with the protesters (of course not with the politicians behind them).

BNAP, AL have u ever tried to tell the story of The De Vinci Code to a Catholic Christian.

I agree the book has a lot of information in it but the concept .really really hurts feeling of some people ... i have seen them feeling uncomfortable while discussing the story of The De Vinci Code.

Forget about people behind the demonstration, forget about the crediblity of the story, forget about "dept of Christainity". Try to tell the story to an orthodox Catholic friend and then decide.

As far as i am concerned, though i like to see the movie, i would stand with the person, who doesn't want to hear New Episodes about his God, in public.

I feel bad when someone draws cartoons of "Prophet Muhammad" and i feel bad when someone get hurt to see a movie made on his God.


Of course banning the movie because of the cheezy hairstyles is really great.

Sanjib Kumar Roy
Port Blair

bnap said...

Hello Alaphia,
You have raised a perfectly valid point i.e., the obvious double game being played by the CM of TN.Doesn't insulting Hindus mean much?
bnap

Toe Knee said...

As an "orthodox Catholic Christian" myself, let me just say I am very unhappy the film has been banned in TN and other states.

Were it not the controversy, the film would have probably flopped in India and few would have taken note of it.

By protesting against it, some Catholic groups have ensured that 'Da Vinci Code' stays put in the limelight.

It's been a month since its release in Delhi and my friends tell me they are still finding it difficult to get tickets for it.

I can understand this kind of craze for the 'Spiderman' and 'Superman Returns' genre of movies but 'Da Vinci Code' owes its success in India wholly to the Catholics.

I am not going to watch the movie myself but wish that the decision of whether to watch it or not had been left to the viewer.

rajesh said...

"To him I wanted to say... Dont like it? Dont watch it. Simple. The choice is YOURS"

Oh yeah! Why dont you extend this logic to drugs. Why should the government ban the sale, availability and use of drugs. Dont want it? Dont buy it. Simple.

Why shd we ban pornography, prostitution, etc? The 'good' people can ignore it. Simple.

This is the spurious thinking that has become a fad among the so-called 'liberals' in this country.

When Khusboo famously advised the young men not to expect their brides to be virgins, when she gave her approval for pre-marital sex, this was same 'freedom of speech' gang that supported her. Tommorrow some other 'celebrity' will okay 'incest' and 'necrophilia'...How far can we go? Doesn't freedom come with responsibility....I mean how far can we bear the hurt and fool ourselves in the name of basic freedom when someone breaches mutual tolerance and mocks our beliefs?

What is the meaning of 'freedom of speech' when someone doesnt even have the sensitivity and decency when voicing an opinion. Would Khusboo tell her future sons-in-law the pieces of advice what she generously gave to the public?

This movie questions the basis of a wide held belief of many people of a particular religion...suppose the movie was about some respected Indian leader...Gandhi, Nehru, Indira...or lets go granular...say, its about our father, mother or siblings....will you still trumphet the 'freedom of speech' tune? Why the heck do courts allow defamation suits then?

A fictional work, done for the sake of money, about a great figure of human history should not be negative....you just cant write anything about revered individuals or for that matter, anyone and get away with it.

Simple.

GeekBeyondRedemption said...

Some of you should go read 'Fahrenheit 451'. Ban every movie that hurts someone's sentiments, and soon you'll be banning EVERY movie that's not a chick flick - oops that probably hurts the MachoMale(tm) sentiments.

Rajesh: Legalizing drugs is an alternative that needs to be seriously thought about and discussed. Do you know what happened when Prohibition was enforced? Do you know why it was repealed, both in various places in India and the US? Do you know why the crime rate is lower in Amsterdam, where Marijuana is legal, than in Ney York, where it is not?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Francois Voltaire

Rajesh: What you propose is a slippery-sloped compromise that will end up with some group or the other proposing to ban this thing or the other.

Sanjib: I read the book, and I don't understand why you think it is against Catholic Christianity. Sure it says that the Catholic church as an institution has been corrupt and is covering up things. But surely, anyone who believes that the Bible is the word of God, and Jesus is the son of God, will not be misled by clearly false propaganda right?

Actually as an atheist I find all this quite amusing! As if there's enough food, water, shelter, and education, people are fighting over the misrepresentation of the life of a black man who died 2000 years ago. Issues over nude paintings of fictional women goddesses are just as funny.

Go read what the Buddha said - http://www.carnatic.com/karmasaya/index.php?Selfish

You don't need to be a Buddhist to recognize the truth in that.

Heart Stealer.......... said...

hmm i don knw abt the indian christians but TN christians r damn eager 2 watch dat movie..only the politicians oppose it more thn christians...

Alaphia said...

wonderful wonderful... im really excited to see all these varying shades of opinion. See... this is a democracy... Rajesh... I disagree with you ENTIRELY. Your arguments are equally specious and I thought it ironic that your blog is loftily called 'Truth' while you seek a ban on the 'freedom of speech.' Should i just block you out? ... No i wont... you have a right to say it. I rest my case. Simple.

Dr. Arif, Democracy is an ongoing experiment...and however flawed I think its our best bet.

Toe Knee - your comment vindicates my post. You're exactly the sane, balanced, moderate voice that we should be hearing more of. You're exactly the guy whose faith must be so strong that Ron Howard with his silly film cant shake.

Geekbeyond redemption - Thank you. I AGREE.

Heartstealer... keep your eyes on the court.

Sanjib - Toe Knee has spoken... Theres no denying that it must hurt some people... but you still cant threaten violence and force your stand down everybody elses throat.

Alaphia said...

BNAP, The TN CM claims to be an atheist and is a Brahmin basher...

bnap said...

Hello Alaphia,
Isn't it a classic case of contradiction that he is an atheist as well as he claims to be a protector of religion.I wonder why he is so overtly concerned about Christain faith while at the same time ridiculing the practices of other religion.
bnap

Pradeep said...

Hi,
may we should tell Dan Brown to write a story about Raman Getting married with a prostitute. and take that as a film and release that in India......with a tag (the story is fictious)We should see.... the reactions..
--------------------------------
Are Indian Christians more Christian than the Pope and the Vatican?

if u know about christians in India you would not have use these words

pitty to see these words from a NDTV journalist......

dont use these kind of sentences in the name of democracy...

Not every christians follow pope..
most of christians in india are protestants or or moderate penatcost...

u should visit the ACA church in pursawalkam (chennai)...

see this what christians are..

this topic should have been discused in ur blog ...

disapointed with the way u biased the disscussion with ur way...

Sudhir said...

Hey,

Agree with u in a lot of ways.

Good to know, that you are anchoring the Southern Edition now as well.

The only note of consolation, is that according to most sources, the movie sucks anyway.

Fair enough, I guess.

rajesh said...

[i]See... this is a democracy... Rajesh... I disagree with you ENTIRELY. Your arguments are equally specious and I thought it ironic that your blog is loftily called 'Truth' while you seek a ban on the 'freedom of speech.'[/i]

To defame others, to draw cartoons on Prophets, to mock at other's belief is not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is linked to intention. When someone pokes a knife into your belly, you wont be thinking if he has the constitutional right or legal freedom to do it. You will defend what you consider is precious to you.

Yes, my blog is called Truth. Truth is inclusive. It speaks of Love and not of divisive/humiliating/insensitive activities all in the garb of freedom. Please understand that Absolute Freedom can never be implemented. No one will give you freedom to abuse freedom.

[i]Should i just block you out? ... No i wont... you have a right to say it. I rest my case. Simple.[/i]

Why would you? I didnt insult you or hurt you. But if you wanted to block, you have every right too. Think about it, I never said Khushboo didnt have the right to say what she said. But only that she gave irresponsible statements. Again, if some Sankaracharya or Shahi Imam gives some defamatory comments on the other religions, will you still go around preaching Voltaire's maxim. Please understand the value of Freedom. Utopian liberalism is not possible Alaphia.

[i]Rajesh: Legalizing drugs is an alternative that needs to be seriously thought about and discussed. Do you know what happened when Prohibition was enforced? Do you know why the crime rate is lower in Amsterdam, where Marijuana is legal, than in Ney York, where it is not?[/i]

DO you have ANY idea how legalizing these activies brings in more number of clients. Now that it is legal, every college kid thinks drinking is fashionable. Tmmrw, it will extend to drugs if you legalize it. After that sex trading. How about asking the government to construct brothels and run it for perverts and padeophiles? Does that sound okay? Reducing crime by means is not the solution...we need long term solutions not fire-fighting.

The efforts shd be help the people who are struck into this mire. Legalizing is encouraging it. Legalizing is like resigning to fate but you cudnt give those women who are struck in their dens and brothels.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Mind you, if you cross limit of decency, you may have to defend yourself from me" - Rajesh Lakshman

cynicalcount said...

Rajesh man you are a riot. I wanted to restrain myself but your last comment was truly a gem.

Rajesh i would advise you better get your head examined soon. You seem to have lot of misconceptions about what khusboo said. Either you have a habit of making stories or else you have a poor level of understanding. There are so many points in which you are contradicting what you say. Who are you to define morality, decency ? You seem to have a warped understanding of moral values. If one goes by our logic , tomorrow no book or movie is safe . Any tom, dick and harry will object to one thing or the other.Then you will say its not objectable.

As far as Da vinci code goes, If there is God i think he is above all this. He cares a damn about what others portray him to be. Someone paiting cartoon or saying he married will not make a iota of difference to anything. It seems to me the real problem is all those converted christians in india want to show how much they believe in Christ by indulging in such tactics. Everyone knows most of these converts live in AP and TN and they have lot of clout in government circles. I spoke to many christian pastors and archbishops who just laughed it off and didnt think that the movie deserved to merit any response.

Rajesh come out of your imaginary world.

GeekBeyondRedemption said...

Rajesh: you really truly *believe* that your point of view is the only one worth existing. Congrats you're possibly a new Prophet

Legalizing stuff is the first step toward the LAW being able to control it. As opposed to criminals controlling it. Only when something comes under the rule of law can it be regulated and people educated.

You know, you didn't answer any of my questions. Merely posed rhetorical questions of your own. Please verify the crime rates and how society is affected by all this crime, before you start proposing solutions.

And you're right - prostitution should be legalized, prostitutes should get legal protection and not prosecution. Because whether you like it or not, now and forever, there have been men visiting protitutes. As long as it is illegal, there will be criminals running the show. Again, you would like to stuff your morality down my throat. And I don't see how that is in any way justified.

Long term solution for prostitution? You do know what is referred to as the oldest trade in the world right?

Every college kid has always thought that drinking was fashionable and something that the rich could do. That's a matter for education and culture.

Rajesh says:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Mind you, if you cross limit of decency, you may have to defend yourself from me"

By whose definition of decency? Yours, mine, Gandhi's, Hitler's? Freedom of speech must be defended as an absolute. If you don't like what I'm saying, you're entirely free to ignore it. And what you have said defines freedom of power - 'He who has power can speak, he who does not must listen.'

Again, if you'd read the link to Buddha that I sent you, perhaps you would understand better.

Alaphia said...

Pradeep,
You throw more heat than light on the subject. Also, far be it for you to tell me how to use my space.

Rajesh,
Im not sure what your main point is - is it freedom of speech should come with responsibility? If yes, then i agree with you. I also agree that Utopian liberalism is not possible. On the other hand, if the Shahi Imam or the Shankaracharya made defamatory remarks, I would ignore them and yes still preach Voltaire's maxim.

bnap said...

Hello,
Alaphia,I agree with you that Utopian liberalism is not possible.
Let there be a restrained knowledgeable discussion.It does not look nice if one person inposes his point of view on the entirety.What is applicable to one religion should apply to all.
bnap

rajesh said...

[i]Rajesh man you are a riot. I wanted to restrain myself but your last comment was truly a gem. You seem to have lot of misconceptions about what khusboo said.[/i]

Oh yeah? You were holding the mike when she said what she did? I know. What did she say brother...Please clarify it for the benefit for this country.

Who are you to define morality, decency?
[I'll answer in the later part] In any case, im happy that you acknowledge that there is something called 'decency'.

GeekBeyondRedemption said...

[i]Rajesh: you really truly *believe* that your point of view is the only one worth existing. Congrats you're possibly a new Prophet.[/i]
Nope! I only said that being sensitive, being considerate, having evidence/proof for what we say....is all we need for exercising our freedom.

[i]Legalizing stuff is the first step toward the LAW being able to control it. As opposed to criminals controlling it. Only when something comes under the rule of law can it be regulated and people educated. You know, you didn't answer any of my questions. Merely posed rhetorical questions of your own. Please verify the crime rates and how society is affected by all this crime, before you start proposing solutions.[/i]

Are you people so naive to think that illegal trading will cease once this 'profession' is legalized? If you legalize this slavery, there will be parallel illegal machinery that will supply women, drugs and liquor CHEAPER than the 'legal' ones. it will be worst than status quo. Only that there will be now a legal and an illegal type of sex workers. What is needed is not legalization of this sick trade....but ways to help these women come out of it and adopt a new life...a new vocation...to come back to mainstream society where they truly belong. Just because there are severe difficulties in doing this, you end up patronizing the activities?

[i]Long term solution for prostitution? You do know what is referred to as the oldest trade in the world right?[/i]
What next? Brothels for padeophiles and government sponsored 'drug' dens? So that everything can be 'under control'.

[i]Every college kid has always thought that drinking was fashionable and something that the rich could do. That's a matter for education and culture.[/i]
culture? what culture? or cultural sensitivies are you talking abt? You are out and out for absolute individual freedom even if it is hurts himself or insults a good portion of the society.

[i]By whose definition of decency? Yours, mine, Gandhi's, Hitler's? Freedom of speech must be defended as an absolute.[/i]
Good question. Decency is a vibrant construct determined by the society, cultural influences, traditional mores, religious beliefs, etc. It varies from one land to another. It is true that notion of 'decency' will vary from one individual to another. Yet, there will be a common denominator for a group/community/nation/civilazation/etc....a consensus of sort..of etiquette and manners and of living. It is something like a nation's constitution, drafted based on consensus. If you want to brush it away with 'absolute right of individual freedom', what is the meaning of society or its laws then? Any mature person can kill himself...any mature person can use drugs...i mean, what is legal and illegal then...if you go by individual freedom and no society responsibility.

If you don't like what I'm saying, you're entirely free to ignore it.
Of course. Not if you are going to comment on me without proofs...or on leaders without evidence.

On the other hand, if the Shahi Imam or the Shankaracharya made defamatory remarks, I would ignore them and yes still preach Voltaire's maxim.

You would. But what if someone doesnt...in his/her world of reasoning and logic. The ones who flew the planes on 9/11 weren't from Algerian slums and Egyptian ghettos. They were adults. Mature men. And they could think. And they did what they did. All our social logic end up reflecting personal beliefs. Total individual freedom is a dangerous thing as much as societal tyranny.

cynicalcount said...

Rajesh , What you are doing is also same..i.e writing boring essays without any proof. Since you were there when khusboo made the statement why dont you enlighten us ignorant folks.
You and your ilk has a habit of twisting everyones comments and inventing stories based on it.

Anyways the basic question here is if today a film is objectionable to xyz tomorrow it might be another movie to some abc..How far will you go to satisfy such issues ? Your logic is saying ban this movie , someone else logic says ban that movie. You think there is a end to it? It will only open a pandora's box if you preach such control. Are we living in some banana republic that everything needs to be controlled ?

You have to give responsibility to people and then they will own it happily. The more you suppress anything , more people will want to do it. Rajesh if you are so against freedom its better you shift to some islamic republic. There is a saying " the more someone shows himself to be a holy man , the more chances he is a thief."

GeekBeyondRedemption said...

Rajesh: You persist in conflating things that I'm not talking about.

Freedom of speech and freedom of action are very different things. What I say cannot affect you unless you choose to let it affect you. What I do will affect you regardless of your choice. Please don't compare the director/author of Da Vinci code, or Kushboo with the guys who flew planes into skyscrapers. It shows an appalling lack of respect for human life.

Rajesh says:
"Nope! I only said that being sensitive, being considerate, having evidence/proof for what we say....is all we need for exercising our freedom."

For whose definition of sensitive/considerate? Yours? That's why I'm saying you're convinced of your *beliefs*. You refuse to even acknowledge that my standards for sensitivity could be markedly different from yours.

Me? Naive? Good god man. Please read what I've written carefully. I can provide evidence of how legalizing and ensuring safety for sex workers has actually improved their lives. And you're telling me I'm naive? And you think the sex trade can ever be made to go away? Wow! And again you seem to think in dichotomies - unregulated illegal sex trade, or government sponsored brothels for pedophiles. Do you see no middle-ground? Do you perhaps think that banning cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, are good ideas too?

If there were a 'legal' means of getting things, the law can ensure that the 'illegal' means of getting things are more difficult and more expensive. You can be quite sure of this. Study the income of criminals - cut most of those line of income off, what will they do?

And 'patronizing' ?! What you cannot stop, you must ensure safety for all participants. That is truly the governments job.

Tens of thousands of people get killed all over the country every year. Cause? Traffic accidents. Given your opinion perhaps you'd be in favour of closing all roads, and stopping all vehicular traffic?

Rajesh says:
You are out and out for absolute individual freedom even if it is hurts himself or insults a good portion of the society.


Absolute individual freedom of SPEECH. Not action. There's a rather large difference there, which you seem to refuse to accept. Insults are things which you choose to accept. I could say that you are the stupidest, most moronic person, I've ever had the pleasure not too meet. And if you choose to be insulted by that, then I'm probably right.

Any mature person in a sane state of mind can do to himself whatever he wants. Sure, this is not quite in keeping with your world-view. But I guess I'm not bothered too much about the whole karma thing. And as long as the guy's not screwing up the rest of us, he can do what he wants.

In any case, I doubt you can even see that people other than you can have a reasonable, sane, and valid point of view. Guess I'll just be feeding a fire so I'll stop with this.

Arif Syed said...

Ms. Zoyab:

"Liberty means Responsibility. Thats why most men (/women) dread it" - G.B. Shaw

Srini said...

Alaphia,

I can see each comment is like a post here and would be glad if certain more burning issues get such response too. No offence of course.

I think you are prefect in saying "Don't like it. Don't watch it." The Punjab government banned it! For GOD's sake (no RELIGION's)I never knew it was a Christian state. I admit that to hurt minority sentiments is bad, yet is the movie genuinely hurting minority sentiments? I too haven't seen the film, nor am I likely to but if it can actually divide opinions so either it must be the work of outrageous genius or insanity, or (no offence again)the people's faith is flimsy, bound to change with every cloud pattern.
It's better we'd mature in appreciating things as work of art - if we can't stomach something as true - or as you say just discard it. It's a personal issue and going gaga over it in public, creating fresh cases where there are already many for entertainment reasons and making it seem like a threat to the secular Monolith of Indian Democarcy is farcical and unwarranted.

rajesh said...

[i]Rajesh , What you are doing is also same..i.e writing boring essays without any proof. Since you were there when khusboo made the statement why dont you enlighten us ignorant folks. You and your ilk has a habit of twisting everyones comments and inventing stories based on it.[/i]

Yes, yes we've twisted her statements coz she was on the verge of toppling Julia roberts and we didnt want that to happen. And of course some of us personally have great differences with her family for the last 150 years.

[i]Anyways the basic question here is if today a film is objectionable to xyz tomorrow it might be another movie to some abc..How far will you go to satisfy such issues ? Your logic is saying ban this movie , someone else logic says ban that movie. You think there is a end to it?[/i]

"HOW" we go about deciding what is acceptable or not TO A SOCIETY is a different issue. There are various mechanisms to do that. (e.g censor board is one, parliament is another)....but what you are struck with is "WHY we shd go about it at all".


[i]You have to give responsibility to people and then they will own it happily. The more you suppress anything , more people will want to do it.[/i]
Simple question. Then why the heck the government shd ban drugs.


[i]Rajesh if you are so against freedom its better you shift to some islamic republic.[/i]
im not against freedom. but against misusing it or taking it for granted.

[i]There is a saying " the more someone shows himself to be a holy man , the more chances he is a thief."[/i]
I dont know why you had to say this...nowhere i claimed to be holy. and the tendency to generalize only shows the frustration and impatience in a person. Unlike you, I am ready to understand the other point of view and oppose it or its consequences if I find it harmful to the society at large.

[i]Freedom of speech and freedom of action are very different things.[/i]
Honestly, I like this statement ver much. A person can think anything, say anything but cant Do whatever he wants. We can certainly build our society based on this principle, but there will an inherent dichotomy in such an environment, as it delinks thought/speech and action. This will create sociological problems in the long run. For instance, under this rule, you cannot punish Shah Imam/Sankaracharaya for inciting violence...but you will gladly hang their followers who were brainwashed to start a riot.

Rajesh says:
That's why I'm saying you're convinced of your *beliefs*. You refuse to even acknowledge that my standards for sensitivity could be markedly different from yours?
yes, i am arguing for people in a society need to be more sensitive and exercise their opinions against existing belief systems or tradition only if they have sufficient evidence.

[i]Me? Naive? Good god man. Please read what I've written carefully. I can provide evidence of how legalizing and ensuring safety for sex workers has actually improved their lives. And you're telling me I'm naive? And you think the sex trade can ever be made to go away? Wow! And again you seem to think in dichotomies - unregulated illegal sex trade, or government sponsored brothels for pedophiles. Do you see no middle-ground?[/i]

Whose middle-ground? Yours or mine or XYZ's.

[i]Do you perhaps think that banning cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, are good ideas too?[/i]
Asolutely!! We've put in place a minister who took on the bollywood and showbiz industries (btw, his act was supported by a large number of doctors).


[i]If there were a 'legal' means of getting things, the law can ensure that the 'illegal' means of getting things are more difficult and more expensive. You can be quite sure of this. Study the income of criminals - cut most of those line of income off, what will they do?][/i]
They will bribe the government agency that is supposed to run the 'legaliztion' process for sex workers. They will start doing things legally thereafter.

[i]And 'patronizing' ?! What you cannot stop, you must ensure safety for all participants. That is truly the governments job.[/i]
Like I asked earlier, is this applicable to other crimes: robbery/infanticide/murders/corruption/etc. Corruption has always been there...why dont you legalize it, so that we will at least give the extra money.

This attitude is nothing but resigning to fate because the struggle ahead is hard.

[i]Tens of thousands of people get killed all over the country every year. Cause? Traffic accidents. Given your opinion perhaps you'd be in favour of closing all roads, and stopping all vehicular traffic?[/i]
Are you comparing the slavery of prostitution to road accidents? Thatz odd.

[i]Absolute individual freedom of SPEECH. Not action. There's a rather large difference there, which you seem to refuse to accept.[/i]

I accept this. I like the fact you understand the constraints of absolute liberalism.

[i]Any mature person in a sane state of mind can do to himself whatever he wants. Sure, this is not quite in keeping with your world-view. And as long as the guy's not screwing up the rest of us, he can do what he wants.[/i]

I understand. So you are not against suicides, euthanasia...or perhaps the famous german case where a cannibal killed his victim after getting the full consent of the latter.

we are understanding different viewpoints..so i welcome more comments...we are using alaphia's blog space, but i think she will permit that...i'm not forcing anyone to respond...for, as long as you are convinced i think you shd well.

Parakram said...

so Al, hornets nest huh? “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Churchill. Its a democratic right to protest and its a democratic right to protest those protests.
Im amazed at how so many people above are shocked at the Ban. The fact is that 90% of the decision making power in India rests with country bumpkins. The idiots protesting are the remainder of the country bumpkins who've put them up there in the first place, so why are all you eloquent and obviously intelligent people going at it hanmmer and tongs? Please understand YOU DO NOT MAKE THE DECISIONS, it doesnt matter what you say/think/believe. You have the say of 2% of the vote. U dont count.
Im Christian and I believe. But I am educated enough to make my own conclusions, I know that the first 5 centuries after Christ are seeped in mystery. I know that the Bible as we know it was put together by a gentile roman emperor. I knew this even before Dan Brown thought up (some say plaguerised) the book. It doesnt bother me. But then again, im an educated and opinionated man.
Nevermind what Khushboo says, the people above should have the intellect to make up their own minds, if you want a hymen-intact wife find one, if you dont care if your wife's been passed around the block a few times over, good for you.
For everyone out there looking to see if Im a liberal or a conservative tough. I know people find the best way forward for themselves, regardless of what mama and papa say or what 'celebrities' believe. I know because I did.
PJL

rajesh said...

[i]I know people find the best way forward for themselves, regardless of what mama and papa say or what 'celebrities' believe. I know because I did.[/i]

Good for you that you did before it was too late...unless of course you've a 17 old teen kid who thought that if "sucessful ppl"/celebrities like khusboos and shah rukh khans say chain smoking and sleeping arnd is okay, then it must be okay....till oneday they end up with hiv in the blood or cancer in the throat or standing in the long queue to join the alcoholic anonymous clubs in their localities, like many "mature" ppl do these days.

with due respect to your intellectual prowess and historical understanding of christianity...unlike you we are simple people who goto our temples, churches and masjids outta simple belief...and it doesnt alternate with varying reports of scientific analysis/discovery of archeological scrolls and underwater cities.

Yes, yes you "believe" after many readings and evaluations. John 20:29 should be of some help to you. But of course, I'm not sure if you will accept a verse commisioned by a 'Gentile' emperor and translated into English under the orders of another 'Gentile' King.

Parakram said...

I Agree, if I were a 17yrs old, wet behind the ears, kid I would be in no position to say what I did. Fact is im 28, have lived in 5 different countries and live in the 6th now and have for many years.
I believe I would have a broader understanding of peoples views and on what has and has not worked in different countries.
About contracting HIV/Aids or throat cancer - like I said, im an educated man, and like I said, damn what the celebs say I know what is right for me, I know what is good for me, and I would be a damn fool if I let someone else make my decisions for me.
Just coz ure folks tell you something is good and right doesnt make it so, because contrary to popular belief, THEY DONT KNOW IT ALL!!! If I recollect correctly, my grans thought rock music was from the devil in the 60's and we know now that Satan/Shaitaan had nothing to do with it.
Also, if you read my comment a second time you will realise I was exhorting the intellect of everyone who commented before me.