Bollywood Byte

• Feb 2008: Jodhaa Akbar is banned in Rajasthan and MP cos it is historically inaccurate. The inaccuracies have hurt the sentiments of the Rajputs and damaged their legacy.
• Jan 2008: Hindu Makkal Katchi (HMK) file a complaint against Shreya Saran for wearing clothes that offended the Hindu culture on the silver jubilee celebration party of the film Sivaji. The actress has since then apologized for wearing skimpy outfits…
• Dec 2007: Aaja Nachle is banned in many North Indian states because some words in one of its songs has hurt the sentiments of the dalits. TZP is banned in Vadodra because some youth activists are still unhappy with Aamir Khan over his statements on the Narmada dam.

 

It seems a month is not complete these days unless someone in bollywood hurts someone’s sentiments only to be banned/sued/insulted by them.

My question is – are we really that sentimental? Are we more vulnerable than the glass crockery you buy on the roadside at the Sunday market, or a crate of eggs without its lid?

Of course we are not. We sedate innocent laborers and remove their kidneys. We rape women without a second thought. Our politicians spend 58 crore rupees of the state fund for buying marble elephants in Uttar Pradesh when more than half the state’s children can’t even afford to buy marbles to play with. Does this happen in a sentimental society? It doesn’t..

The truth is, we are hypocrites. In fact, Indian should be a synonym for hypocrite. I should write to Oxford with that suggestion.

But then why all these bans and cases? The point is, we like to show we care, when we don’t. And what better way to show we care than to take something awfully trivial against someone well known. Gives you the 15 seconds of fame, and makes the world believe that you actually care. Everybody has an ego to satisfy. All this protest works to satisfy the egos of the jobless people. They feel important when they ban a film, burn an effigy, or vandalize public property.

Secondly, freedom of speech and expression is a farce in this country. It’s like you have the freedom to express as long as you don’t say something against me. What effed up freedom is that? We can’t take criticism, even the biggest superstar in the country, Amitabh Bachchan has to belittle Aamir Khan when Aamir criticises Bachchan’s Black.

Lemme prove that to you by reiterating some of the bollywood controversies in recent memory:

JODHAA AKBAR CONTROVERSY (2008)

The leftover Rajputs in Rajasthan claim that Jodhaa was not Akbar’s wife, but his daughter-in-law. In portraying her as Akbar’s wife, they have hurt the sentiments of the Rajputs and their legacy. As a result, the film has been banned in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

I say:

• F*** you Rajputs. Seriously!
• Firstly, no one can say what happened 400 years ago.
• Secondly, does it really matter if someone potentially got some part of a 400 year old story of your ancestors wrong? If you were to say that my great grandfather had 3 concubines, would it make a difference to me? No! Seriously! I would not care if it were true or not my guess is most people won’t.
• Well you might say that my family does not have a great legacy. To that I’ll say, what legacy are you Raj-fugging-puts talking about? When Jhansi ki Rani and Mangal Pandey were trying to oust the British, you mother f*****s were happily NEUTRAL, you neuters. You guys did not have the balls to fight the British. Don’t give me bullshit about your legacy, cos in my opinion, it’s pretty tainted anyway, aye?

Verdict:

• Rajputs are douchebags, trying to create something out of nothing. Most historical films, including the hollywood classics like Braveheart and Gladiator, are part fact part fiction. These bastards don’t get it.
• I think Jodhaa Akbar should be banned for showing the Rajputs as skillful and honorable people cos from what I see of their present generation and what I have learnt about the laws of inheritance, it seems highly unlikely that the Rajputs had brains bigger than the battery of a wrist watch.
• MP banned the film cos it did not want to lose out on the Rajput votes in the coming elections. Eff you all.. Rajput votes should not be counted in elections as they don’t have the IQ to be considered fit to vote.
• Bollywood should stop releasing films in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh and let those rascals suffer.

 

SHREYA SARAN CONTROVERSY (2008)

The Hindu Makkal Katchi (HMK), some hindu group in Tamil Nadu, believed that the dress than Shreya (marry me please) wore for the silver jubilee celebrations of Sivaji (see photo) offended Hinduism. They filed a police complaint and the issue was even discussed in the parliament. Sugarpop Shreya had to apologize for her ‘inappropriate attire’.

On your left is the objectionable dress. On your right is the dress Shreya wore in the film.

I say:

• You call THAT obscene you dickheads? I don’t see what’s so obscene about this dress. Did you see the dresses she wore in Sivaji itself? Let me show some to you.
  These dresses did not offend Hinduism, did they? You didn’t think twice about booking Sivaji tickets for like 2 months before the film released? Didn’t the trailers offend Hinduism? Of course you won’t dare to ban a Rajni film cos you yourself want to see one, don’t you?
• And to all the MLA’s. Eat shit you pigs. Seriously this country could use some discussion on matters like poverty, instead of Shreya darling’s skirt length.
• And seriously, where does Hinduism say that Hindu women should wear dresses that reach her ankle, if not 2 feet underground? Isn’t Hinduism one of the only few religions that does not dictate what to wear, what to eat, what hairstyle to keep? In fact, is there even a guideline for being a Hindu? There isn’t. Hinduism does not have a religious leader (like the Pope) and neither does it have a religious book that everyone must abide by (like the Quran). Where is it written that a dress like Shreya’s is against the ideals of Hinduism? Show me monkey brains.

Verdict:

• Our politicians are jobless (not that you did not know that already).
• Even the so called devout Hindus do not understand what Hinduism is all about.
• I think all the pretty girls from the North, East, and West should stop acting in South films. Let them enjoy their 200 pounders like Khusboo..!!

 

AAJA NACHLE CONTROVERSY (2007)

The film’s title song had a line that went “mochi bhi khud ko sunaar samjhe” (i.e. even a cobbler thinks he’s a goldsmith). This, according to some small party in Delhi and that bitch Mayawati, the CM of UP (sorry to all the bitches of the world for the insult), hurt the sentiments of the dalits. The film was eventually banned in Delhi and UP and a few other states I think.

Frankly I’ve heard the song a couple of times and I still can’t figure out where the line is. Probably this is the edited version.

I say:

• Hurt the sentiments of the dalits, you think so? Do you think that cobbler on the street thinks about whether Yash Chopra thinks that his/her job is less important than the goldsmith’s? Or does he think where his next meal is going to come from, or maybe where the next reservation is gonna come from?
• You care for dalits you bitch? Didn’t you just buy 58 crores worth of marble elephants to decorate the Ambedkar path in Lucknow when the state is languishing in poverty? Did you just not order 24 crore worth of Israeli security, to be paid for from the state funds? You care for the dalits, you bitch? Who are you friggin’ kiddin’?
• And seriously, how many people would have actually noticed the lyrics and would have thought – hey this insults the cobbler. I’m not saying that the lyrics did not mean anything derogatory to the cobblers. I guess they did. But the question is, didn’t you just make it more conspicuous by telling the whole world about it. Don’t you think the world would have just ignored the lyrics and would have not found anything derogatory in it? I used to sing the song “Roop Tera Mastana” for the longest time without ever paying attention the actual meaning of the lyrics until one fine day I realized the sexual connotation of the song. My point is that not everyone pays great attention to the lyrics of songs anyway, morons.

Verdict:

• The whole hoo haa was nothing put political propaganda, and may be a display of power from shitheads like Mayawati. The whore simply wanted to show that she cares for the dalits, when in reality she won’t give a rat’s ass if these dalits ate less in a day than the rats in sewage that runs through her multi million dollar mansion.
• Delhi and UP are full of douchebags. No one should release a film there. They don’t deserve it.

 

TAARE ZAMEEN PAR (2007) AND FANAA (2006) CONTROVERSY

Some youth group in Gujarat did not allow these two Aamir films (TZP was later allowed) to be released in Gujarat because apparently the people of Gujarat were, take a guess, HURT by the statements made by Aamir Khan in support of the rehabilitation of the farmers who’ve lost their lands as a result of the construction of the Narmada dam. Cinema halls that did try to show the film were vandalized and the film buffs who contemplated going to nearby Maharashtra to see the film were threatened with their lives.

Here is 2 more minutes of fame for our dear jobless protestors.

I say:

• Firstly, what wrong did Aamir say? Did he ever say build/don’t build the dam? Wasn’t he saying something that is only humane – rehabilitate the people whose livelihood is going to be impacted by the dam? Can’t you bastards see that?
• Secondly, if the people of Gujarat are so called hurt by Aamir’s statements, let them choose not go for the film, and let it flop. Why the f*** are you not letting the theaters release the film? Where the heck is democracy? Where’s the choice? From what I know, the common man does not give a damn (pun intended) about all this. He wants his 9-5 job, a pretty wife, cute kids, a bank balance, color TV with DVD player yada yada yada.. he doesn’t care about what Aamir Khan thinks about a dam which more than half the population of Gujarat, I claim, doesn’t even know what is about.
• Thirdly, where were these sentiments when the government was openly pocketing the funds meant for the relief of the victims of the Gujarat earthquake? Don’t tell me it never happened.

Verdict:

• Again, a political move to show the people in Gujarat that the government cares about their sentiments. The funny part is that like most of the stuff above, the real people whose sentiments were supposedly hurt weren’t really complaining. To curb the actual feelings of the people, these so called protectors of the sentiments of the Gujarat people resorted to violence. The question is, who was hurting the sentiments of the people of Gujarat – Aamir Khan or the youth group?
• Gujarat has douchbags. We should not release our films in Gujarat.

 

SHOOTOUT AT LOKHANDWALA CONTROVERSY (2007)

The “Guru Gobind Singh Study Circle Media Study Center” and other Sikh organizations demanded that the film be banned because a scene which shows a group of Sikh terrorists shooting Abhishek Bachchan “tarnishes the image of the Sikh community in the world and affects the minds of the younger Sikh generation”.

Pictures of Sikhs protesting in France for the freedom to wear a turban to school. Source: rediff.com. They want France to give them the freedom to wear the turban, when the religion itself does not. Most of the Sikh male friends that I know do not want to wear the turban nor keep long hair and beard.

I say:

• Screw you GGSSCMSC and your other gay organizations. What do you want? A group of monkeys shooting the cop with a peanut launcher? The baddy has to be of some religion, gender, race. If for once, it’s your religion then what the eff is your effing problem douchebags?
• What do you make of the IQ of the world. You think people are going to say “Hey these Sikhs are terrorists because some jackass named Apoorva Lakhia said so in his movie?”.. wake up morons.. don’t think everyone is as stupid as you.
• Do you know what Tarnishes your image? The fact that even in the 21st century you morons continue to dictate that people of your religion should not cut their hair.. that men must wear a turban that instantly identifies them as a Sikh. The fact that when a French government rightly bans this to promote secularism, you morons riot. Do you even understand why schools have uniforms? Not only so that kids from the same school can be identifiable, but because they want to promote unity, equality. They don’t want Muslim girls turning up in Hijab, Sikh boys turning up in a pathan suit with a friggin’ dagger, or Hindus turning up with kurtas with OM stamped all over them. The idea is that all people are the same. I remember in my school, all kids were the same, except for the Sikh boys, who could be identified from a distance of half a mile because of their turban. It’s stuff like this that tarnishes your image, not some movie.
• Also, you know the fact that Al-Qaeda dickheads wear a similar turban makes you guys look like terrorists more than anything else..

Verdict:

• Again, stupid religious fanaticism. I was gonna say that Sikhs are douchebags, but I guess you know that if you’ve ever heard an Indian joke.

p.s. Something interesting – Chhota Rajan claims that Shootout had distorted facts. This is hilarious – a don claiming that you got some details about my crime wrong. Hmm.. what would he have said – “Hey dude, I did not use an AK47 to shoot that man. It was an AK56 with a silencer. Ok..? Get your facts right. And I did not fire 2 shots.. I fired 20.. understand?”

AAMIR KHAN AND MANDIRA BEDI FLAG CONTROVERSY (2007)

In two separate incidents, Aamir Khan and Mandira Bedi were accused of dishonoring the Indian Flag.

Aamir was the chief guest at an event where they had hoisted 11 Indian Flags. Apparently, as per the Indian Flag Code, the flag has to be taken down before sunset and the event organizers did not do so. So the Local Youth Congress got an arrest warrant against Aamir for dishonoring the flag.

Mandira “noodle strap” Bedi was summoned for wearing a saree which featured the Indian flag near the folds of her feet during her hosting duties at the world cup. The saree, by the way, had flags of all 16 nations. Since the Indian flag is not supposed to be worn on a saree, she’s a criminal. The petition was filed by one Ajay Veer Singh.

The (in)famous saree. Source: ibnlive.com

I say:

• See, how patriotic we are. Great guys great. This is what patriotism is all about – making sure that the flag code is followed because after all the flag is a national insignia. What can be a bigger showoff of patriotism? I bet that if Singh or the Local Youth Congress happen to overhear the National Anthem, they’d probably not bother standing to attention.
• And secondly, is patriotism about national insignia? Is it not about loving your country, loving it’s PEOPLE? Apparently not. I’ve never heard of a single good thing these local groups have ever done, besides burning effigies and vandalizing public property.
• Thirdly, do you realize that the Indian Flag Code is the biggest piece of bullshit written (I guess the whole constitution is the biggest piece of bullshit ever written). It says a lot of stupid things. Until 6 years back, I could not hoist an Indian flag at home. Why? The code says that the flag can only be made of khadi; using any other material/fabric would be dishonoring it. But it’s the 15th of August and I like to carry a paper flag in my hand on my way to the school on the rickshaw. You mean everytime I did that in school, I was dishonoring my flag? You know, I was not! I was expressing my love for the country. I was showing my pride. It really doesn’t matter what the flag is made of, what time is it unhoisted, what angle is it displayed in, how high is it. What’s important is that I respect the country, and the best way to respect the country is to respect it’s people. Let us not use these bullshit codes simply to get an opportunity to get our 15 seconds of fame. There are more important things to worry about. Let’s think of them.

Verdict:

• Again, a simple case of showing: I care for the country when you truly don’t understand what it means to care for a country. These celebs are easy and good targets because it gets the media in and you can get a good chance to show your “I care” facade to the world.

 

DHOOM2 CONTROVERSY (2006)

Some moron named Shailendra Dwivedi filed a case against Aishwarya Rai (muah) and Hrithik Roshan for.. hold your breath “lowering the dignity of Indian women and encouraging obscenity among Indian youth“.

The kissing scene..!!

I say:

• Dwivedi, I’m wondering if you’re single, or divorced, cos obviously you wouldn’t kiss your wife as it would lower her dignity. Sexual frustration would drive her away if it hasn’t already. Kissing lowers a woman’s dignity, are you kidding me you sonovabitch?
• And what’s the thing about encouraging obscenity among the youth? You think we can encourage more obscenity? We rape international tourists dude, “sex” features consistently in Google’s annual list of the most searched words in India. We produces more kids in the world than anyone else. We wrote the Kamasutra, the Bible of sex. We ARE a country preoccupied with sex. Then why can’t we show a kiss on screen? When would this hypocrisy about sex in India stop?

Verdict:

• I’m sure Dwivedi shags off thinking about Aishwarya every morning in the shower. He probably could not take it when Hrithik kissed his fantasy woman. He’s a lawyer and did what he knows best – file a case.
• I hope if his wife has not run away, she does, and sends him photos of her kissing her new boyfriend to Dwivedi every month.

 

RANG DE BASANTI CONTROVERSY (2006)

RDB, if I remember correctly, was delayed by a week cos at one point of time some people were not happy with it. They thought that the film portrayed the armed forces and politicians in poor light.

I say:

• How the eff did RDB portray the armed forces in poor light?
• Secondly, why are the bloody politicians so uplight about how they are portrayed in films? Obviously this insecurity arises cos they are afraid of being busted. If they were good in the first place, they wouldn’t be insecure.
• This also reminds me, there was another film I am forgetting where some Muslims complained that since the baddy is a Muslim, it HURT the SENTIMENTS of the Muslim community.
• I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – the baddy has to be of some sex, gender, race, religion, occupation. What do you want us to do? Have dogs as baddies? Oh then if you own a Boston Terrier, it would HURT YOUR SENTIMENTS if the baddy is a Boston Terrier. F**k you politicians.

Verdict:

• Again, a genuine case of politicians trying to show that they are the boss.. they have the power..!!
• I propose that all politicians are barred from going to a cinema hall.. these bastards do not deserve our cinema. In fact, in the case of RDB, I wish the people in this country took cinema as seriously as many of these controversy inventors feel, and actually started shooting politicians.

 

KHUSHBOO CONTROVERSY (2005)

Khushboo, in a magazine interview, said pre-martial sex, if done with safety and precaution and does not beget a child, is alright and in today’s world, the educated man could not expect his bride to be a virgin. And OMG, it seemed as if the plugs to the reservoir of the Hoover Dam had been removed. Political parties not only demanded a public apology, but also her deportation from Tamil Nadu. They said her statement was against Tamil culture. Newspapers, women rights groups, all joined the party in condemning Khushboo. Poor actress was badly cornered by one and all.

Left: Khushboo going to court. Right: Protestors showing off their artistic side. Source: http://bbc.co.uk

I say:

• Lemme say something to all the opposers of Khushboo – I hope the next time you go home, you see your spouse screwing someone else.
• Seriously, what is wrong with us? Why can’t we tolerate someone else’s opinions? Why do they always have to be something we agree with for them to be tolerated? We are all like mini-dictators in the country. If you’re with me, fine, if not.. “Someone’s gonna get hurt real bad”.
• And these women rights groups are the most horrendously bad organizations in India, I can tell you. Some are fine and great, I agree. But some are just jobless groups of individuals who want to get some ego boost (I know I’m being repetitive, but don’t you see why? There is a pattern in these controversies) by cashing in on the women issue.
• Wasn’t Tamil Nadu’s ex-CM Jayalalitha MGR’s mistress? You people elected her as CM? An affair out of wedlock is fine in Tamil culture, isn’t it?

Verdict:

• I have established before that Tamilians are morons. I have also requested that north Indian chicks not work there and let them enjoy their 200 pounder Khushboo. But I guess even SHE should not be working there. They should probably stick to all male films.
• 9/10 films made there are about a roudy roady hero anyway. Heroines are props there anyway.. I guess they can work without them.. but the question is, what would they talk about in the parliament then?

 

MANGAL PANDEY CONTROVERSY (2005)

The descendants of Mangal Pandey filed a petition in the Delhi high court against the filmmakers of this Aamir Khan starrer for allegedly portraying Mangal Pandey in a poor light.

One of the objectionable scenes in the film is at the very end of this song where Mangal Pandey is kissing his love, a prostitute by profession. Apparently the Pandey dynasty has never kissed so this cannot be accurate under any circumstances.

I say:

• Screw you Pandey Jr. You guys should be happy that someone made a film about your great great great great… grandfather. He was, for the longest time, relegated to one line in the history books all around the country. After this film, he’s finally out of that one line. In fact, the filmmakers have probably shown Pandey as more heroic than he actually was, so shut the f*** up.

Verdict:

• Obviously after seeing the film, the Pandey morons were so embarrassed with themselves for not being as cool as their ancestor, that they thought… hey why don’t we get famous by suing Aamir Khan..!!
• Screw you Pandeys! (can’t say that enough!)

 

NAINA CONTROVERSY (2005)

This one is special. Naina is about a blind girl (Urmila Matondkar) who gets an eye transplant after which she starts seeing dead people. Well, what’s so controversial about that? It doesn’t talk about sexuality or religion! Well.. this one’s hilarious: The All India Opthalmological Society (AIOS), i.e. the society where all the eye doctors in the country meet every week to come up with ideas to charge their patients more, filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi and Mumbai High Courts demanding that Naina be banned because IT WOULD DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM MAKING OR ACCEPTING EYE DONATIONS.

 

I say:

• Oh my effing GOD. I thought education made you smarter. I can understand politicians your youth group people doing stuff like that cos they are largely people who’ve never passed kindergarten, but apparently even 3 + 12 + 4 + 2 + 4 = 25 years of education doesn’t make you any better.
• My question is, dear doctors, you really think people believe what they see in films. You think people go to the cinema hall for education? No bastards no..
• And secondly, how many people saw Naina anyway?
• It’s surprising that considering almost any kind of a specialist these days has serpentine queues in his/her clinic, you have the time to play these law games. I fear for your patients cos obviously: (a) You are not giving them enough time. (b) You are a moron. I think patients would be forced to stop donating eyes more after this act of yours rather than after watching Naina.

Verdict:

• What can I say. This incident just strengthens by belief that education is no good. The Docs prove it.
• I think this is what happened. The docs, in one of their weekly meetings at the AIOS, said, thought of having some fun in life. Being generally ugly looking, no prostitute would screw them for even a million dollars. So they said, what is the most common thing Indians do after sex – tada.. file a case.. Let’s do that dudes.. woohoo!!

 

LAJJA CONTROVERSY (2001)

A group of BJP workers in MP burnt effigies of Madhuri Dixit (my first love) and Rajkumar Santoshi for uttering “objectionable dialogs” against Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the film.

The objectionable dialog is right in the beginning of this video. Since we are on the topic of God, God bless YouTube.

I say:

• If I remember correctly, the dialog that was the point of contention was something like “agar Sita Ram se door rahin, to Ram bhi to Sita se door rahe. To agnipareeksha Ram ko bhi deni chahiye” (If Sita was away from Ram, then Ram was away from Sita too. So if Sita has to prove her chastity, then so should Ram).
  My point is – what’s wrong? How is it against Ram? Is religion about following everything blindly? Can we not question the actions of our so called “Gods” in our mythologies.. This Hinduism that we are talking about has had the worst form of intra-religion discrimination known to the world where you even consider a class as untouchable. This religion is surely questionable.

Verdict:

• Burning effigies should be included in the olympics cos it is clearly our favorite sport.
• I’d like to request everyone to question religion. It is not the be all and the end all. It is not perfect. Question it, like you’d question science.
• Hindus are douchebags!

 

GADAR CONTROVERSY (2001)

This is like one of the earliest controversy known to me. Some Muslim groups objected to a coupla scenes in the film:

• One where Ameesha darling is praying to Allah with sindoor on her forehead.
• One where Sunny Deol applies sindoor on Ameesha sweetheart’s forehead and says “ab ho gaye Sikhni” (now she is a Sikh).

The objection was that Muslim girls do not wear sindoor and that marrying someone from another religion does not change your religion. The groups took to violence, vandalizing the theaters that were showing the film, buring scooters in the parking lots, breaking glasses. I don’t know if the scenes got cut from the film though I’m sure there was a demand for it.

The objectionable scene #2 is roughly at 7′40″ into the video. There’s lot’s of Ameesha to enjoy before that.

I say:

• Ameesha I love you.. please marry me.. please please please.
• Secondly, I’m no expert on religion, but does Allah really care if the girl who’s praying to him is wearing a sindoor or not? We live in a friggin secular country you morons.. can’t we show even a rice grain bit of tolerance?
• Thirdly, I agree that marrying someone of a different religion does not alter your religion. But the point is, why the heck should films be all about fact? Why? Where is the thing called cinematic liberty? When someone can be reborn and take revenge against the guy who killed him in the previous life, why can’t we have a scene like Gadar’s (which I have to say was probably the best scene of the film). Why do we insist that everything on celluloid must mirror real life. If that’s what you want, why have movies altogether you donkeys.

Verdict:

• Well, what verdict can I give.. Gadar had the last laugh in this case. Before this atrocious controversy, the film was trailing Lagaan at the box-office. Thanks in part (or maybe largely) to this controversy, the film became the biggest grosser ever until Dhoom 2 overtook it in 2007.
• But in any case, I’m more and more convinced that we don’t deserve good cinema. Also, I’m more convinced that burning effigies should be included in the olympics.

 

WATER CONTROVERSY (2000)

How can we forget this controversy? Deepa Metha’s film about the inhuman treatment of the widows in pre-Independence India invited the wrath of the Hindu fundamentalists in Varansi, where the film was being shot. The morons there did not let the shooting happen and Mehta had to shoot the film in Sri Lanka years later.

 

Shabana Azmi shaving off her head for the “controversial” role. Source: bbc.co.uk

I say:

• Again.. why are we freakin’ ashamed to admit that yes, we were wrong in the past. Are you trying to tell me that sending an 8 year old to a widow house and making her live the life of a rat is alright at any point in time in human history. By opposing Mehta’s film, are we not condoning what was done in the past.

Verdict:

• The point is these sadhu sants (religious figures, that is) do not want to admit that the religion did something wrong in the past. They want to show that the religion has always been correct. Bastards. These sadhu sants are actually the very reason that religions break us and not make us. They are behind most of the communal violence. They are the most religiously intolerant people when they should be more cos supposedly they are closer to GOD than the rest of us.

 

… etc etc

These are not all my friends. But don’t worry, I won’t subject you to any more, but mention them very briefly:

• 2005,2006: Some animal rights group demands that RDB and Paheli be banned because they did not treat their animals well.
• 2007: Some groups opposed the film Nishabd cos the love story of a 60 year old and an 18 year old was against the Indian culture.
• 2002: Gandhi supporters opposed the film The Legend of Bhagat Singh cos it showed the Father of the Nation in a bad light. Even Bhagat Singh’s family took the film to court for showing that Singh had a love interest.
• 2007: Some groups demanded a ban on the film Saawariya because it showed prostitutes in a bad light.

Ok, I made the last one up, but I think it’s truly legitimate.. the lighting in the film was really bad..!! Kinda dark at places.. so everyone in the film, including the prostitutes were portrayed in a “bad light” in some way!!

In Conclusion…

My study shows that people of almost all major states and religions in India are douchebags. So per my advice, it seems that we should not release films in the whole country, except for maybe places like Nagaland. That won’t be good busines

But well, that’s not my purpose of writing this. My purpose is to make people realize how ridiculous these controversies are

Please remember that I am not condoning film-stars and films, and I’m not saying that they are free to do whatever they want to in the name of creative liberty or freedom of expression. They are not. I don’t condone Salman Khan killing the endangered chinkara. I don’t condone Shakti Kapoor for asking a girl for sex in return for getting her a film. All I am saying is that:

• This great country does give it’s citizens the basic Freedom Of Speech and Expression. Cinema is a form of expression and so the FOSE applies to cinema as well. All I am saying is we need to be more tolerant of others, their views, their opinions. Every person does not need to agree with us. We can agree to disagree.
• Cinema comes with something called Cinematic Liberty. In fact, it comes with every art. A painter can paint a man blue, a tree purple, a man with a face bigger than a torso, and that is fine. It’s a part of creativity. Let us not confine art to the laws of what is real and what is plausible or else their would be no art.
• History is never perfect, and to be honest, history is an opinion, a widely held opinion, rather than a fact. That is why history often has multiple versions. It is not necessary that the widely held opinion is right. In fact, the earlier in history we go, the more uncertain things get. Let us give our cinema that liberty to twist history a little for cinematic grace.
• If you care, don’t do propaganda, actually care. If you care for the dalits, think of ways to get them the basic necessities of life (are you listening Mayawati bitch). If you care for the country, don’t piggy back on the flag code, but love it’s people. If you care for your religion, follow the good things of the religion and question what is wrong in it. No religion is perfect. Tolerate other religions as every religion I know says so. Don’t go around banning films just to prove a point. Your hypocrisy is damaging our society.
• Lastly, please please please realize that people no as easily swayed by cinema as you think. People go to the cinema hall for entertainment, and not education. Swades did not lead to 100s of NRIs coming back to the villages to do social service; Rang De Basanti did not lead to murders of our politicians (I so wish it did). There may be a couple of exceptions like the kid who hurt himself trying to fly like Krrish, and these one off incidents are inevitable in any society. But let us not forget that cinema in our country, and probably everywhere in the world, is about entertainment. People seldom take what they see on screen, out of the cinema hall. What people do care about is what the politicians say and do. So when the politicians say that the North Indians have no business to be in Mumbai, people take that to their homes and their families. So rather than our films, censor or ban such people from the public life.

 

 

With that, I rest my case. May all these baseless controversies be put to rest.