Open letter to Vinod Chopra from Sajid Khan

shaktikapoorfan |

370 | September 27, 2007 at 11:09 pm | 5,890 views | NaachGaana Bol| Share

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Congratulations for the selection of Eklavya – The Royal Guard as India’s nomination for Oscars.

I saw your comments about films made by you and others in the recent past and what may/may not be worthy enough for recognition at the heartland of India and at the highest level. I am quite sure that you have made some highly respected films in the past and I am also certain that you have the greatest knowledge of films made across the globe.

I am also absolutely fine if you comment on films made by lesser mortals like me or others who may have had an accomplished body of work behind them. Even if you have deep rooted statements to make about my knowledge of cinema, technique, intelligence, calibre and personality in general – I take all of that in good spirit (and humour). After all it’s a free country (and may I add, democratic too?) and we all have a right to speak out!

But doesn’t that hold that for me too?

Shortly after Eklavya – The Royal Guard was announced as the chosen one for India’s nomination, I was asked a simple question if it was a deserving entry or not. I answered in negative. For me, Chak De India or Dharm were better candidates. It was as simple as that with me sharing my point of view. Did I start talking about your intelligence of cinema, skills and personal preferences etc.?

And by the way, how could I do that for a person who has ‘produced’ successful films like Parineeta, Munnabhai MBBS and Lage Raho Munnabhai?

But shall I add that I am yet to see a blockbuster ‘directed’ by you which has touched hearts of millions across the globe and brought in ‘moolah’ as well!

Can I also add that cumulative global revenue of all the films directed by you (Eklavya – The Royal Guard, Mission Kashmir, Kareeb, 1942: A Love Story, Parinda, Khamosh, Sazaye Maut, An Encounter with Faces) do not even come near what my debut film Heyy Babyy has earned (and still counting)?

Hence, can I add that me, a much lesser in age and far lesser experienced individual in movie making, has probably more box office sense than you?

Sure, you have a strong 25 years experience in film making and claim to have known and heard of a legend like David Lean.

My question to you is – “Are you alone?”

Isn’t David Lean the same person who won two Oscars as a Best Director for The Bridge of River Kwai [1957] and Lawrence of Arabia [1962]? Isn’t he the same person whose first directorial venture was In Which We Serve [1942] and the last as A Passage to India [1984]?

And by the way, he is called Sir David Lean and not David Lean. Alas, he is no more! Anyways, he would have been pained to see his name being dragged. Of course, I could have possibly got all this information from the powerful medium of Internet (may be even you could have!) but I am not telling.

What I am just saying is that there are possibly other deserving souls apart from you in the country who know, read, decipher and understand international cinema. And may be capturing good looking frames may not just be the right definition of making interesting cinema.

However, I love cinema and my country (in no particular order) as much as you or any respecting person would. I genuinely wish you all the best for taking Eklavya – The Royal Guard to the highest platform and bringing us laurels. A choice has been made and my sincere congratulations to you for that. I hope to see the film breaking into Top-5 at the least.

With best wishes,
Sajid Khan

Open letter to Raj Thackeray…. From one ‘Marathi Manoos’ to another…

Sajid Khan: I was misquoted on Housefull fetching 60 Cr + business

Vidhu Vinod Chopra apologises for shouting at journalist

Go watch it… I’d say please watch it… The duo of Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Rajkumar Hirani now has Santa Khan for company.

Vinod Chopra location scouting in New Mexico for Broken Horse

There Are 370 Responses So Far. »

inetk 27 September 2007
11:42:08 pm

A surprisingly restrained retort from an otherwise abrasive character! I hope VVC doesn’t respond back – again – and concentrate on promoting his film for the Oscars!

Qalandar 27 September 2007
11:44:57 pm

lol

som 27 September 2007
11:48:03 pm

i think vvc litle overreacted .people like sajid, farah and anupam just expressed their opinions which i guess they had the right to do so.IMO there is nothing wrong in that.why should you bother who said what about ur movie whether it is the perfect choice for the oscar or not.

HAL 27 September 2007
11:50:09 pm

Please inetk. VCC couldn’t afford ’sarcasm’ but end up making frank right-across-the-face comments! Pure fun that guy.

sandy 28 September 2007
12:07:07 am

Vidhu Vinod Chopra is just another Mani Ratnam, when it comes to making cinema that is totally pretentious and overrated!

Of course,as a person, I’d take Chopra over Mani anyday, for the simple fact that the former is damn interesting to talk to.

sandy 28 September 2007
12:09:25 am

Mani is a weak, tentative yet arrogant communicator, traits which his cinema always betrays.

Sunny 28 September 2007
12:13:55 am

LOL..this was great! And I absolutely agree with everything this piece has to stay. specially this part “And may be capturing good looking frames may not just be the right definition of making interesting cinema.”..so true!! People confuse technical prowess with good cinema making skills all the time.

Tango 28 September 2007
12:14:58 am

Yeah “A surprisingly restrained retort from an otherwise abrasive character!”

Correct as I too expected an over-the-top responce from Sajid Khan.

I think VVC is over-reacting because his problem is that ( like Ghai) makers in his banner are getting far more success than him and at the same time making quite good movies too.

som 28 September 2007
12:16:01 am

sandy, vvc is the guy i believe always craves for international recogniztion.he gives too much importance to their reviews.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
12:54:54 am

@Sandy: Your hatred for Mani is amazing. If you think he is so inconsequential then why do you keep taking potshots at him?

On topic: Sajid Khan’s “look at the amount of money my film has made” line of defence is childish.

jeegs 28 September 2007
01:05:52 am

i Agree with Sajid khan here people went on criticising him and Farah even when they were just saying there opinion and if they are criticised than 90% of people should be coz they think Eklavya is not the right film to be send.

BTW Bhavna Talwar has done a great thing by questioning the jury itself . i still dont understand how can some one who made films like Sins and Red swastik decide which film should go to oscar and not.

HAL 28 September 2007
01:19:57 am

I understand when one finds Mani ‘overrated’, but certainly not pretentious. He is probably one of the very few non-judgmental film directors from mainstream Indian cinema!

Sunny 28 September 2007
01:21:49 am

Aarohi–I agree with what Sandy said about Mani. He’s easily THE most overrated director in Indian cinema, although Sanjay Leela comes very close. No one says he’s inconsequential, and that’s the reason we voice our opinion, I don’t consider any of Sandy’s comments potshots though. It’s like a Jimmy Shergil vis a vis Aamir/SRK..no one cares about Jimmy..so no discussion..but if you talk of Aamir in MP, some will say brilliant while some will say overrated…if you talk of SRK in CDI..same thing will happen again…people have their own opinions….these are not potshots in any sense.

As for Sajid’s retort, it didn’t come as a surprise for me..people with good comic timing are usually more level headed and sensible than pseudo-intellectuals like VVC.

beldevere 28 September 2007
01:25:40 am

Ouch! He pretty much puts a dagger in vvc heart. A very good retort except for the box office moolah part which he could have avoided.
Btw, my fav part here is the David lean part. Atta boy sajid

beldevere 28 September 2007
01:30:33 am

Sunny, for once I disagree with you. I think Mani is easily one of the best directors around. Performance wise, he gets the best out of all actors. Kamal in nayagan, rajni in talapathy, arvind swamy in roja, ab Jr in yuva, etc etc.
I don’t about his personality though, so I will go with sandy on that

Sunny 28 September 2007
01:32:38 am

yeah beldevere, the BO part could have been left out.. but still this was a very sensible and might I add amusingly sarcastic retort as opposed to the totally below-the-belt and undignified remarks VVC had made.

rks 28 September 2007
01:41:12 am

Sandy: “Mani is a weak, tentative yet arrogant communicator, traits which his cinema always betrays.”

This is a pretty strong statement to make about a person whom you talk for half an hour or so? Probably he is not comfortable with strangers..

Sunny 28 September 2007
01:47:02 am

beldevere–I agree there buddy, but that holds the same for SLB too na. He got AB’s best perf of this Decade in Black, he got SRK’s best perf of this decade in Devdas..but I find him overrated too . As for Mani, the performances of actors in his films have more to do with the script and characterization rather than the direction. I don’t consider Yuva a great perf of AB by any means, it was the bad boy attraction of the character that made it feel like one. Ajay and Vivek’s perf were better there IMO. Guru was a good performance, yes..but even here the bourgeois GuruBhai appeal had a major role to play. Nayakan, well…have u ever seen Kamal Hasan any less than superb in a good script? Talapathy..the character/script again. Rajkumar Santoshi is not a great director coz he got that lifetime performance out of a non-actor in Ghayal…it was the character..the dialogues again.Ohh! i’m just rambling now..you know..you’ve just given me an idea for my next post..yay!!

sandy 28 September 2007
01:47:55 am

“@Sandy: Your hatred for Mani is amazing. If you think he is so inconsequential then why do you keep taking potshots at him?”

Who is taking potshots? I just don’t share your and others enthusiasm in valorizing Ratnam and his half-baked works, masquerading as ‘relevant’ cinema. So I speak up whenever I can, living in the hopeless desire that some day perhaps Mani’s work will be judged for what it is only truly worth.

In any case, no director is beyond the pale of criticism. Certainly not Mani!

Sunny 28 September 2007
01:53:58 am

“In any case, no director is beyond the pale of criticism”..well said Sandy ji.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
01:56:34 am

On a topic about VVC and Sajid Khan, you find a way to bring in Mani. If this is not a potshot then I don’t know what is. And, I am least bothered about whether Mani is good communicator or fun to interview. It’s difficult to find a good film to watch, who’s bothered if the director can give a good speech or engage one in conversation or is a good unpretentious human being.

@Sunny: Comparing Mani and SLB, I would not go that far. Let SLB make 10 more movies then we can talk about it.

beldevere 28 September 2007
01:57:42 am

Sandy,
Have you seen any of mani’s tamil movies. I have always thought his tamil movies were way better. Sunny, I don’t agree with you fully that just a script and characters make it. I have never seen anyone show married relationships as well as Mani. Nor capture a child parent relationship as poignantly as in anjali or km.
Btw srk was way better in swades and cdi then devdas. And. Black according to me is definitely not ab’s best performance.

abzee 28 September 2007
02:00:25 am

Sunny- To suggest that every good performance in a Ratnam film is thanks to the script and/or characterisation is a statement that comes with a lot of baggage. By that definition, aren’t all good performances well-written parts. When was the last time you felt someone acted wonderfully in a poorly written part? Au contraire, one can seriously goof up a great part with bad acting, bu very rarely the other way round. Even if one were to agree with your statement, the larger generalisation that it presupposes suggests that Coppolla, Scorsese or the likes of Hrishikesh Mukherjee at home shouldn’t be credited for the performances in their films…cuz most of the time, if not all the time, these directors make films with fully realized and developed characters.

abzee 28 September 2007
02:04:28 am

Sandy’s dislike or inability to appreciate Mani Ratnam is something that I’ve resigned to live with. I love her too much to hold that as a grudge. I prefer to look at the wonderful qualities in her, especially her forthrightness in putting me in my place.

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:05:49 am

Aarohi–I wasn’t comparing them, I was using SLB as an example in my response to beldevere. And even if I were to compare them…so? I honestly don’t understand this notion of going ‘too far’ when comparing two film entities. Maybe you need to ‘boldly go where no man has gone before’

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:08:23 am

abzee–I’m not saying Mani is a bad director, please, all I’m saying is that he is overrated, that’s all. All I wanted to say with those perf/character argument was that it’s not as if Mani is this great director who gets the best perf out of everyone. It’s as simple as that.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
02:13:18 am

@Sunny: you can go as far as you like. I said, I won’t go that far.

Comparions are pointless and show me one director of any worth who is not overrated.

zero 28 September 2007
02:13:53 am

I’ve had a chance to catch Mani Ratnam once when he had paid a visit to Cinema Paradiso (a DVD rental shop), Bangalore. There was an elderly gentleman who asked him about his various foreign inspirations (or something similar) and said that he could see a clear connection between Yuva and Amores Perros! Mani’s response to this was rather cold, after which I didn’t gather the inclination or courage to walk up to him and talk!

But, the point to note here is that, in general, the gulf that divides a star and fans (and their notion of the star) is huge. I don’t mean to be dismissive of cordial behavior, but when I meet a Kundan Shah (I am picking this example because I got a chance to meet him sometime last year), I’d want to talk at length about Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro, but he wouldn’t be half as inclined and very understandably so…

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:16:30 am

“Au contraire, one can seriously goof up a great part with bad acting, bu very rarely the other way round”

And if you read this comment of your’s again, you’ll see it kinda agrees with what I said. Yeah, one can goof up a great part with bad acting..if you put a Fardeen Khan in Guru/Yuva you have a goof up at hand. If you put a Salman Khan in Devdas you have a goof up at hand..despite of being well written well developed parts! But when you put a Bacchan in Black or SRK in Devdas on a Kamal Hasan in Nayagan..there can be no goof up. It’s not just the director’s credit. And I’ll add again, I’m not saying this to discredit Mani or SLB totally, they are good, yes..all I’m saying is they are overrated…why is it so hard to digest?

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:20:03 am

Aarohi–that was a failed attemot at humor bro. Of course, if you really think so highly of Mani..I wouldn’t want you to go that far, why should you. But if I disagree, I have the freedom to atleast say so, it’s only fair..right

Aarohi 28 September 2007
02:20:04 am

Salman Khan in Devdas might have been an interesting choice.

Sunny bro, no offence but SRK in Devdas was a very bad perf IMO. SRK crossed all the limits of hamming. May be SLB had given him the licence to ham.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
02:21:20 am

@Sunny: I am sorry, I wasn’t attempting any humour. Just a case of bad writing.

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:21:46 am

Aarohi–no offence..lol. SRK is not my chacha pal. You have your own opinion….fine. I just disagree.

Tango 28 September 2007
02:22:21 am

Zero if you meet Shyam Benegal you will see what a down to earth, simple and open-to-discussion person he is.

I was shocked at his humbleness.

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:23:39 am

Aarohi–that ‘bad attempt at humor’ part was directed at my own Star Trek statement pal..not yours.chil..you misunderstand me everytime

Tango 28 September 2007
02:24:31 am

I also found Govind Nihalani quite a normal person, though could not interview him.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
02:25:55 am

Sunny bro, I thought you said I can’t write. Now, you are saying I can’t read. C’mon man.

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:28:44 am

Aarohi–LOL, actually I should have quoted my own statment before the ‘bad attempt at humor’ part…my mistake

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:30:56 am

Tango–I had no idea you were an active journalist. I thought Sandy was the only one. Is anyone else in this forum into active journalism? Man I feel so ignorant and stupid!!…don’t even know what my fellow members do.

zero 28 September 2007
02:31:16 am

Tango,
My point was rather the contrary. Even keeping aside the point that the man shouldn’t be confused with the artist, it’s rather ‘normal’ for an artist to be cold about discussing some aspects — particularly those aspects that are beaten to death, already — of his work…

sandy 28 September 2007
02:34:18 am

Hal: You see it as non-judgmental; I see it as non-committal, that’s precisely where our impressions are formed about Mani.

I cannot possibly be impressed by this ‘neutrality’, a tasteless timidity, of which Guru, of course, is a shining example!

And If I may say so, in his choice of raging political themes, I disconcertingly detect, a shrewd marketing guy counting the ‘mani’ he can make (the fact that Mani is actually a MBA post grad won’t be an unnecessary detail to provide here).

Aarohi 28 September 2007
02:34:21 am

Zero: couldn’t agree more.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
02:36:25 am

Mani is out to make some money. You can’t hold it against him.

sandy 28 September 2007
02:48:58 am

Abzee: The love is mutual. You’re the only guy in this world who I can forgive for not liking CDI!

abzee 28 September 2007
02:49:21 am

“You see it as non-judgmental; I see it as non-committal”

Wow. For a minute there, I thought it was the Merovingian speaking(where some see coincidence, I see consequence; where others see chance, I see cost).

Seriously though, and this despite my hatred for commerce grads and MBAs, you cannot be using Ratnam’s MBA degree against him. But even if one were to agree that he is too timid to voice an opinion(reading between your lines), there’s still too much in Ratnam’s work to appreciate- as a visual artist, a binder of song and narrative, an eye for behaviour and most of all a nonchalant ease in establishing characters. A case in example for the last quality would be to see just how quickly Mani establishes ABjr’s street ruffian character within a fw scenes. Other directors would’ve taken atleast half the running time to do that. Mani, with his deft handling, immediately formalizes us with the remorseless cold character that Lallan is.

zero 28 September 2007
02:49:31 am

Sandy,
I adore artists who value their art more than anything else and those who burn their fingers monetarily in making films they believe in, but reaching out for the audience (even in picking themes) and making films keeping the commerce in mind is no sin at all.
Take someone like Hitchcock. An epitome for this sort of “grammar” (!) in making films. But, one can’t hold it against Hitchcock to have valued (and ‘manipulated’) the audience and box office so much…

Aarohi 28 September 2007
02:53:33 am

Hatred for commerce graduates and MBAs!!

This is the first time I have heard of this type of hatred.

abzee 28 September 2007
02:57:28 am

Sandy- I’ve been afraid to put up my CDI piece precisely because I don’t want to hurt you. I must make it clear though that I don’t have much problem with CDI the film. It is the politics of the film that is extremely troubling to me, and in times that we live in, even more so. It is the disguise of Nehruvian secular ideal that the film wears, while subliminally propagating an Aryan outlook that is disastrously dangerous.

Sunny 28 September 2007
02:59:36 am

abzee–hatred for commerce grads and MBAs??? I’m one dude! Why so..? If I may ask…

abzee 28 September 2007
03:01:17 am

Aarohi- I’m a secular libertarian in all things, but yes I have had very bad experiences with commerce grads and MBAs…hence, the quirky hatred. LOL! But just like there are exceptions to every rule, there is JayShah who I absolutely adore. Woh aur AkshayShah, mere chhote bhaiyyon jaise hai.

Achilles 28 September 2007
03:02:29 am

“my hatred for commerce grads and MBAs”

LOL … this beats my hatred for over priviledges unworthy celebrity sons

MBAs at least rule the world … unlike the bogus sons

Sunny 28 September 2007
03:04:19 am

“It is the disguise of Nehruvian secular ideal that the film wears, while subliminally propagating an Aryan outlook that is disastrously dangerous.”

I must have watched a different movie, coz neither did I notice the Nehruvian disguise nor the Aryan outlook propaganda. Anyway..this is not the thread to discuss CDI, I’ll wait for your piece, if you ever put it up.

sandy 28 September 2007
03:07:33 am

“Hatred for commerce graduates and MBAs!!
This is the first time I have heard of this type of hatred.”

Aarohi: You’ve pulled my statements out totally out of context and used it for your convenience.
Typically, Yudhishtir’s ‘Ashwathama mar gayaa…haathi’!

Aarohi 28 September 2007
03:10:43 am

@Sandy: I am sorry for being unclear. I was referring to Abzee’s remark.

abzee 28 September 2007
03:12:03 am

Sandy- It is I who made the comment about ‘hatred’, and all the comments in relation have been directed to me. Aap kyon bewajah mere hisse ki gaaliyon ko apne sir le rahi hain?

abzee 28 September 2007
03:18:03 am

“coz neither did I notice the Nehruvian disguise nor the Aryan outlook propaganda”

I can understand if you didn’t notice the Aryan outlook(I’ve come to believe nobody besides me has noticed it, ofcourse I haven’t read Satyam’s piece yet) but if you missed the Nehruvian secular model, then I’m inclined to ask- What Did You See? Everyone’s been going gung-ho about how CDI is a film that teaches us to be one- nation before state and wot not. That is the Nehruvian secular model my dear friend. Surely you didn’t just see CDI as a sports film, cuz frankly if it were just a sports film I wouldn’t have had any problems with it…but because it addresses issues that are much more greater(and does in a fashion more troublesome than RDB), I am left with no choice but to judge it for those propositions as well.

Sunny 28 September 2007
03:18:21 am

“Aap kyon bewajah mere hisse ki gaaliyon ko apne sir le rahi hain?” LOL

sandy 28 September 2007
03:21:45 am

Abzee: Please put up your CDI piece. I have no problems with anyone expressing an ‘alternative view’ on even a monstrously successful film like Chak De. Criticism, done in good faith, and with the intention of evoking healthy skepticism, is not something I will ever stand in the way of.
However, what mildly bothers me is that you chose to gloss over every flaw in Guru. I have no issues with the exacting standards you are placing on CDI’s shoulders but what is disconcerting is that you didn’t feel the mildest strain on your critical faculties to accept Guru’s embarrassing second half.
I’d hate to believe that this is double standards at play.

sandy 28 September 2007
03:23:37 am

Aarohi: Sorry abt that, didn’t notice.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
03:26:00 am

Sandy: No worries at all.

beldevere 28 September 2007
03:28:30 am

abzee – nehruvian.. . wow – ek film hai bhaiyya. i enjoyed it to the core.

but just for debate sake – is there a reason why you find nehruvian philosophy disturing. country before state is a good thing – isnt it. we already have too much chauvinism in some states. being a non-kannadiga in bangalore – i still believe bangalore is best because its so cosmopolitan here and seldom do i see chauvinism displayed here

HAL 28 September 2007
03:28:45 am

My two paisa:
I’m a bit too apprehensive about using an “overrated” tag. In most cases, I avoid it. Sometimes yes, I plead guilty. After all it’s a subjective view on a widely prevalent collective notion built by various other subjective views. As I much as I love parallel cinema from Ray, Ghatak, Sen, Shaji, Adoor, Nair, Ghosh or Kasaravalli, I would also like to see non-judgmental commercial directors in Mani’s vein, or else cinema isn’t interesting or exciting. I would like to see an impressive oeuvre with Iruvar, Nayakan, Mouna Ragam, Kannathil muthamital, etc. Even a dumb film like “Thiruda thiruda” is worth a watch. A film like “Anjali” on autistic kid with a 2 yaer old is something thats not within a tom, dick and harry. Moreover, Mani’s films are refined and subdued for the very cause of avoiding unobjectionable or resistive reaction from the audience, that glossy or unique mani-esque style is either a plus or minus (depending on how you look at it). Moreover, Mani hasn’t made a pathetic film yet. Even his fake effort, “Guru” was interesting just for his direction at different places, that alone made the price of my ticket worth it. Although I hated the film in entirety! Now, Compare him to Benegal or Nihalani, Mani’s intensity and political correctness isn’t prolific, but his versatility and approach speaks for itself. This is not to say I would place him above or below. I would just name him among the interesting directors we have in India. Other than a Vishal baradwaj, or an odd Kamal haasan directed flick, I haven’t seen any ‘exceptional’ mainstream cinema like an “Iruvar”, “alaipayuthey” or “Kannathil muthamital”. Although there were offbeat films like Black Friday, HKA, Main Meri Patni Aur Woh, etc for affluent cineastes. In plain words, I would be very sad and bored with only one effective kind of cinema. I watch RGV’s Satya, or such kind of films as much as Nagesh kukunoor, or that kind of cinema…or a Deepa mehta film, or an Ashutosh Gowarikar, etc. That said, From different styles of filmmaking, I would definitely take Mani’s style for wholeseome value, and I don’t see why anyone would not want more of him. And, if I were to rate him, I would do it with a “similar” director. How inappropriate it would be to compare a Lynch against Tarantino, or a Scorsese against Allen? Chalk and cheese. How does a VVC or SLB way of filmmaking compared to Mani’s? Their ways of filmmaking are different. Like how a depalma’s and scorsese’s varies in a Gangster flick. OR how a Terrence Mallick narration in “Thin red line”, as against Spielberg’s “Saving private ryan”. Of course, their’s is infinitely superior in terms of an universal appeal. But for Indian standards, our Manis, Vishal baradwajs, Nihalanis etc are different and distinctive in their own way. Good or bad is a matter of how you critique ‘em. But I would be sad if Mani’s style is extinct. Moreover, “pretentiousness” is never an issue with Mani. It’s rather the lack of it. The ability to offer provocative, complex and deep understanding in an issue is what Mani lacks (for which reason, he is basically attacked by Tamilians)! But when did he ever meant to do that? He focusses on the narrative more than the “correctness” of different themes. that said, I respect cinephiles like Sandy or Sunny, if they don’t prefer a Mani. It’s perfectly fine with me. But, I’m just giving out my stance and yes, defending Mani (an alternative view point if you will). Moreover, I have also seen many purists who find Mani interesting. So, at least for us, he is certainly not “overrated” by any means.

As for Mani’s temperament, he abuses his assistants, and a very arrogant guy from what I have heard. Very unlike Mahendran(Mani’s favorite), who is a symbol of humility and modesty! I was surprised when I met him. He was down to earth and simple! Actually, he was surprised that people recognize him instantly. But again, I don’t think Sandy mixed this with her opinion on Mani’s kind of filmmaking. She just finds VVC more interesting. (actually I agree here)

sandy 28 September 2007
03:31:11 am

correction: I meant “provoking healthy skepticism” not evoking

Sunny 28 September 2007
03:33:10 am

abzee–ok..my dear friend, you’re going on the same tangent again as you did yesterday about getting facts straight on a different thread. And I’m inclined to correct you again!

‘Indian state shall not privilege any religion and that followers of majority religion shall not have more privileges than the followers of minority religions in terms of citizenship. Also that state shall protect all religions equally without any distinction.’

THIS is what we know as NEHRUVIAN model. The united states/provinces and India before states was Vallabh Bhai Patel’s brainchild.

“What did you see?”..well I didn’t see the Nehruvian model… my friend.

“Surely you didn’t just see CDI as a sports film”–yes my dear friend, I didn’t..and even if I did…is there any harm in it?

“I am left with no choice but to judge it for those propositions as well.”–Well…that’s your choice and your prerogative, but don’t thrust you judgement on me..please. I didn’t see what you saw, maybe I’m blind…or maybe I’m not an intellectual film critic as you are..fine. Please refrain from such arrogance in future.

sandy 28 September 2007
03:37:53 am

Sunny: Chill, that’s the abzee talks, no need to take any offense!

sandy 28 September 2007
03:38:47 am

*way

Sunny 28 September 2007
03:42:42 am

Sandy–I don’t normally take offence at anything..I’m quite chilled out..n I have absolutely no beef with abzee. A similar kind of thing happened yesterday too, and we resolved it in the right manner.. fortunately. But when you talk without knowing something.. again n again, at the same time hinting at the other person’s ignorance while being wrong on your part..it does tend to annoy me just a bit.

Ravi 28 September 2007
04:48:55 am

Can I also add that cumulative global revenue of all the films directed by you (Eklavya – The Royal Guard, Mission Kashmir, Kareeb, 1942: A Love Story, Parinda, Khamosh, Sazaye Maut, An Encounter with Faces) do not even come near what my debut film Heyy Babyy has earned (and still counting)?

So, this makes this idiot a frikkin intellectual, expressing your opinion I agree with but this is taking it too far. You comment on something, that guy hits back, now just shut the F up instead of doing a crappy open letter.

zero 28 September 2007
04:52:07 am

Re: “What Did You See? Everyone’s been going gung-ho about how CDI is a film that teaches us to be one- nation before state and wot not. That is the Nehruvian secular model my dear friend.”

Abzee,
Firstly, I really liked CDI, but that’s about it; am no flag-bearer of the film.
And, I wasn’t especially gung-ho about the politics of the film (I found many of Satyam’s criticisms valid), but it definitely didn’t hit me as a film that “teaches us to be one- nation before state and wot not.” For me, it came off as a “message” about how Indian sports should work — teaching the players not to think that they represent their respective states. Surely, to be accommodate “federalism” in national sports is a stretch, isn’t it?
Anyway, I’ll read your piece before discussing this at length.

And, between Mani Ratnam and Vidhu Vinod Chopra… I’d shout my preference from the rooftops!

beldevere 28 September 2007
04:53:30 am

HAL neatly written. happen to agree with you pretty much. I do believe Mani is one of the best directors in India today – but also I believe that if you just took his hindi movies – he is just a so-so guy. Hence i give the benefit of doubt to sandy – though i didnt get a response on whether she was commenting on his Tamil movies also or just his hindi ones.
Its not just the language – i think its the sensibilities. For eg. Azhutha ezhuthu was a much better movie than Yuva – i thought. I think Mani is one of the best Tamil movie directors – there i have said it…lol

Sunny 28 September 2007
05:02:16 am

ZERO–”but it definitely didn’t hit me as a film that “teaches us to be one- nation before state and wot not.” For me, it came off as a “message” about how Indian sports should work — teaching the players not to think that they represent their respective states. Surely, to be accommodate “federalism” in national sports is a stretch, isn’t it?”..excellently put.

HAL 28 September 2007
05:10:15 am

“She just finds VVC more interesting. (actually I agree here)”

Correction:

“She just finds VVC more interesting in his interviews. (actually I agree here)”

HAL 28 September 2007
05:12:29 am

Beldevere,

Yes. I actually don’t think he is comfortable doing hindi films. But in any case, I find him to be one of the most interesting and creative directors from whole of Indian mainstream cinema. (from just his tamil works)

Aarohi 28 September 2007
05:20:27 am

There is some merit in the thought that MR’s Tamil works are better than his Hindi works. But I don’t think he is hampered by the language. It’s just that while making the Tamil films he was in better form a s a filmmaker. Also, dialogues of Mani’ Hindi films were far better than those in majority of Hindi flicks made by people who are supposed to be more familiar with Hindi.

And, who are the directors in Hindi filmdom who are better than Mani?

Sunny 28 September 2007
05:21:39 am

beldevere–great point there on Mani’s Tamil Vs Hindi movies.I stand corrected, I should have said he’s THE most overrated director in Bombay cinema instead of Indian cinema, my mistake. I for one haven’t seen much of Mani’s Tamil works except for Nayagan, Alaipayuthey, Anjali and Roja..and these were damn! good movies. I find him overrated in the context of Bollywood, I mean you surely can’t expect anyone to call him great shakes for Dil Se, Yuva and Guru?

Sunny 28 September 2007
05:24:52 am

…forgot to add Thalapathy, not great but good nonetheless.

beldevere 28 September 2007
05:51:48 am

aarohi – i think its not just the language or the dialogues. I think the culture is also important. some things are more acceptable in tamil and not in hindi (thevar magan and virasat). or take for example sangamam. it was a great movie but i dont think the concept would work in hindi.

zero 28 September 2007
05:59:11 am

Whoa, Beldevere, when one mentions Sangamam and Thevar Magan in the same vein, God kills a dozen puppies.

Jokes apart, Mani’s Tamil films are among the most “universal” of Tamil films. I don’t mean it particularly in the complimentary sense actually.

And, I agree with Aarohi about the dialogues in Mani’s films. The dialogue by Kashyap was probably the best thing about Yuva (not to say that it was better than Aayidha Ezhuthu).

satyam 28 September 2007
06:31:07 am

First off on this piece:

1)Sajid still hasn’t answered why he and his sister did this double team and spoke out on Eklavya when no one including this brother/sister pair have exercised this freedom of speech in the past!

2)Whatever VVC’s issues might be, whether he’s self-congratulatory or not etc etc has nothing to do with the fact that for the first time ever I’ve seen people disagreeing with a selection so publicly or the media making an issue out of it. That CDI wasn’t selected is I’m sure purely coincidental here!

beldevere 28 September 2007
06:37:46 am

so tell me where this sajid/farah deal was published. frankly like i said in the earlier thread on this topic – dumbness all around.

satyam 28 September 2007
06:42:44 am

Sandy: Being a “monstrous success” (CDI) hopefully does not prove anything in matters of quality!

Also not quite sure where you get the authority to be the ‘moral police’ in this sense so that someone criticizing CDI on political grounds or any other grounds dare not do so if the same person has not found similar problems in Guru!

at the very least I don’t see how one logically follows from another!

Isn’t it far easier to say that you have liked a film so much and are so personally attached to it that you see any serious disagreement on it as a personal attack? Specially when it comes from people like myself or Abzee who did not find similar problems in Guru? I noticed (and of course ignored) all the really non-serious attacks you started in my CDI thread (the piece I put up on the film) from attacking Abhishek to Rathnam to what not.

Finally why are Guru/CDI twinned in your mind in this sense? So that one who praises the former and not the latter is by definition ‘biased’? Just because you found flaws in the former and not the latter or perhaps found equal flaws in both or what have you does not make you the standard. That is your opinion. Why should others who disagree automatically become unfair or biased? Specially when they’ve written lengthy essays laying out their positions which is all that one can ask for from anyone.

satyam 28 September 2007
06:43:39 am

And I will yet again quote some older relevant comments:

http://www.naachgaana.com/2007.....e-india-3/

“Tied to this is the whole question of bias. I actually flatly disagree with some of the assertions being made here. To me the whole notion of ‘bias’ is actually quite irrelevant in these matters. The only thing that counts is whether one has made a case for one’s positions. This does not mean that everyone should agree with it but that everyone should argue with it on the merits or demerits. Where ‘bias’ really counts is in matters relating to the box office because here claims are ‘factual’ in nature and therefore every view cannot be equally valid. But in an analysis of a film there is no ‘right’ reading. Within limits of course. This is not a prescription for ‘anything goes’. An argument must maintain a certain ethics and a certain discursive consistency. As I’ve said earlier I may believe that the moon is made of green cheese but I might have to prove this at some point. On the other hand I might feel that living like Crusoe on the moon (with the right apparatus) is a great idea. This might be debatable. In any case this is not a factual claim.

The idea that because I do not like SRK and think highly of Abhishek basically neutralises all my views on both matters is a somewhat fatuous one. Let’s take a quick example: Jonathan Rosenbaum, a critic I enjoy reading more than most others, and someone who gives me more to think than just about any others, is someone who’s never had very high regard for Kurosawa. The latter, one of the most feted directors in movie history and Rosenbaum more or less considers him not that great. An even more specific example would be his reading of the celebrated Rashomon which he considers a failure more or less.

Should I then consider Rosenbaum ‘biased’ when it comes to Kurosawa and stop taking him seriously on the director? By the same token should I stop reading Pauline Kael on Antonioni and Resnais because she considers them pretentious? By this token one should either like every star, director, film and so on or else be simply considered biased on those subjects and therefore useless. Does Rosenbaum have a ‘double standard’ when it comes to Kurosawa? What’s the point here? It is precisely that these critics always make a case. I adore Kurosawa more than perhaps any other director, I enjoy reading Rosenbaum more than any other living critic, even when he’s writing on Kurosawa. It is not about ‘consensus’. We don’t have to believe the same things as long as we engage in meaningful discussions.

How does one have preferences in the arts and in life? We have our favorite writers, stars, paintings, and what not. Are we simply biased towards the rest? I am not much of a fan of the Victorian novel. I recognize the achievement but I am still not a fan. Does this make me biased? Am I overpraising Saramago because I love him as a writer? Do I have double standards because I seem to enjoy Beethoven but not Mozart as much? One could multiply these examples infinitely. In plain language (yet again) I am not a SRK fan, and I am usually not a fan of his brand of cinema barring exceptions. I also do not think as highly of Pacino as do a number of other people. In the meantime I am a great admirer of de Niro. So am I simply biased here or using double standards?

My critics in this regard might do far better to actually engage with the arguments. I could call a number of people biased for their Guru views or what have you but I don’t. Aamir’s fans or RDB’s fans have never called me biased for the same reason. No one called me biased when I didn’t seem to think very highly of Omkara or Saif’s performance in the film. Why is it that these charges only erupt when SRK’s films are the subject? Isn’t it because the SRK machinery that ‘polices’ all discourse on SRK and gets defensive about the slightest thing that is not to its taste on this matter and consequently prefers this name calling at every turn?”

goodfella 28 September 2007
06:54:07 am

This retort is as childish as it gets. VVC’s was fairly foul-mouthed and misguided as well, but at least he made some sensible points. This piece by Sajid Khan made me laugh more than his movies.

satyam 28 September 2007
06:56:18 am

Finally to compare Rathnam with VVC irrespective of context is not in my view a serious opinion.

And he’s actually the least pretentious director around relative to stature. Check out all the statements everyone from the likes of Karan Johar to the likes of VVC give out. You’d think they were all Fellinis!

Rathnam throughout Guru gave nothing but the most modest interviews (though I’d be happy to be challenged on this) and said almost nothing when the film was successful. I have never seen a pretentious interview of his though again perhaps someone could alert me to one.

Now on his cinema, very bluntly, if one cannot appreciate the achievements of Mouna Raagam, Nayagan, Thalapathy, Alaipayuthey, Iruvar, Kannathil Muthamittal, Yuva/Ayudha Ezhuthu (this is a double film really) and some others I would respectfully suggest that the problem lies with oneself not with the cinema.

This is not to say that everyone is forced to like the same directors. As in the above example Jonathan Rosenbaum does not like Kurosawa too much, he also has many reservations about Fellini incidentally, but he does not say they do not know how to make movies, or are overrated or what have you. Recently when he expressed a dissenting view on Bergman it was still a well thought out position and wasn’t just ‘dissing’ the filmmaker.

Now I might be termed a little arrogant for calling such views ‘non-serious’. However to be clear on this I do not at all mind someone who does not like Rathnam, I wouldn’t even mind anyone who didn’t like Ray, but the ‘dissent’ should take more serious form. And to say that CDI is the best film around while Kannathil Muthamittal is a poor film with terrible politics is not serious. Unless one can actually make a case beyond mere shenanigans which I have not yet seen.

I am all for minority positions. I am in a minority of one a lot of times! But one must try to explain oneself. To just throw out such statements sounds awfully silly.

Sandy, I am not ‘targeting’ you but as a ‘reader’ you ought to know better.

beldevere 28 September 2007
06:56:56 am

satyam – you are essentially doing what you are accusing others of in the last para. you write some very good posts but when it comes to SRK or Abhishek – your bias totally takes over from your logic. And since at least SRK is probably the most discussed actor in this forum – you feel SRK partisans are ganging up or whatever! not something which you are ever going to agree to but hey thats ok – at least makes the debates entertaining

satyam 28 September 2007
06:57:09 am

Goodfella: Agreed!

satyam 28 September 2007
06:58:57 am

Beldevere: Nothing to respond to there. Just revisit my above comments on bias and keep doing so till you absorb them.

beldevere 28 September 2007
07:03:33 am

satyam – there is nothing to respond when truth is told. i dont need to absorb anything from you – especially your intellectual arrogance. got a lot of that myself – thank you very much

GF – childish i agree but definitely good copy. something like the amar singh – srk spat

satyam 28 September 2007
07:09:09 am

Beldevere: since I am the only person you routinely attack here on ‘logical’ grounds or on grounds of bias my ‘logical’ (!) conclusion is that you find everyone else here totally logical and unbiased! You should more fruitfully engage with them.

As for myself as I’ve forever stated whatever I write wouldn’t offend so many so much if there wasn’t at least a kernel of truth to it!

beldevere 28 September 2007
07:18:43 am

i could repeat the last para to you – but whats the point. with arrogance comes adamance.
who i engage with and what i engage on is my choice right.
now lets get back to the topic on hand instead of being silly like vvc and sajid…;-)

Qalandar 28 September 2007
07:26:05 am

Re: “The united states/provinces and India before states was Vallabh Bhai Patel’s brainchild.”

This is incorrect. More accurately, Nehru, patel (and virtually all of the maisntream nationalist politicians) were agreed on this, and it’s quite remarkable to give Patel the sole credit for it, especially given that as a polity contemporary India bears the mark of Nehru more than of any other single person, be it Gandhi or Patel.

beldevere 28 September 2007
07:30:05 am

q – that is very interesting. i am not a history buff – but this is the first time i am hearing that view. Lot of folks (usually my dad’s generation) have told me that Sardar patel was the real guy behind indian polity until he was sidelined by nehru. i have had some comparisons made between sanjay gandhi and patel actually – 2 leaders who should have been but never were

Aarohi 28 September 2007
07:33:42 am

From whatever I have read about Sanjay Gandhi, I thank god that he didn’t really come to the helm of affairs.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
07:36:04 am

Abzee: Perhaps I shouldn’t say anything until I have read your piece, but I will note that it seems from your comments that you draw an equation between an “Aryan ideal” and the “Nehruvian ideal”. Except in the broadest structural sense (which sense would, of course, hardly be true ONLY as applied to Nehruvianism), this is a highly problematic assertion. I can totally agree with your point that CDI peddles a Nehruvian vision (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this is good or bad), but I do note that it is hardly the only or the first film to do so (Lagaan manifestly did so too to an extent), but if CDI is read to peddle a kind of “Aryanism”, I don’t know which Bollywood film would be exempt. None of this would necessary deflect a critique of course, and hence I am eager to read your piece.

More broadly, as sandy has made clear (and as I would have guessed even had she not said so) I doubt she is the sort to get offended for such reasons. Even if any other NGite were to take offense, that is IMO not a good enough reason to avoid posting — self-censorship and the desire to avoid ruffling feathers can be as pernicious as government censorship (witness the case of the mainstream American media).

Ravi 28 September 2007
07:39:44 am

Beldevere, there is a difference between Patel and Sanjay Gandhi, please do not put them in the same sentence that is an insult to Patel.

Sanjay Gandhi was nothing more than a goonda, maybe had a very few good ideas for the good of the country but his main thing was power and the blatant misuse of it, one is a freedom fighter who cared about the country and another is a rogue who scared his own mother(the ultra powerful Indira who scared the rest of the world) and misused power like crazy for personal and party purposes.

He went on a rampage during emergency and created havoc.

beldevere 28 September 2007
07:44:46 am

yes Ravi – i have heard that. but i have also heard that he was a good administrator. the argument usually made for him is that sometimes in a democracy, you need a dictator to get things done. of course, it brings its own share of baggage.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
07:47:24 am

beldevere: Quite frankly, it has become the fashion among certain segments of Indian society to bash Nehru for every conceivable thing, and to give the credit for national survival to one man uber alles: Patel. There ought to be no sacred cows in secular politics (be it Nehru, Gandhi, whoever), so I certainly do not have a problem with people criticizing Nehru — but many who do so seem to possess scant familiarity with the man’s life, writings, etc.

It is also worth noting that it is a question of the mood of the nation: in contemporary India, specifically with the urban middle classes, Patel better reflects the zeitgeist than Nehru does. That wasn’t always true, and that might not be true in 2030 (then again, it might be). Nehru was undoubtedly more solicitous of minority rights than Patel was, but it is a false dichotomy to counter this aginst nationalism: there is no necessary dichotomy between nationalism and building a relatively pluralistic state (abzee, based on my reading of his comments above, might disagree that Nehru was even relatively pluralist).

[Aside: the interesting thing about Nehru is that he gets it from all sides these days: many in India blame him for virtually everything that has gone wrong in the country (even as they give a free pass to people like Indira Gandhi, whose impact was quite destructive IMO); when he was alive the Communists and "left" routinely attacked him for being "petit bourgeois", beholden to nationalism, etc.; and to this day based on my conversations with Pakistani intelligentsia, Nehru evokes more hostility and irritation than Patel or anyone else (that's one for another day).]

Sanjay Gandhi was, in my view, a fascist. I don’t say this to jeer at him or use that word loosely. But, based on his career, his actions, I sadly conclude that he was so (no denying that he was more competent than most politicians).

Qalandar 28 September 2007
07:48:30 am

Ravi: well said, I agree completely with you on Sanjay Gandhi. And while I am ideologically unsympathetic to Patel, his contribution deserves to be acknowledged, and it would indeed be a grave disservice to him to compare Sanjay Gandhi to him.

rks 28 September 2007
07:49:41 am

“especially given that as a polity contemporary India bears the mark of Nehru more than of any other single person, be it Gandhi or Patel.”

That is because, they died early. Nehru lived on more to live his stamp as Statesman. Nehru stamp from my understanding was economic(social view point rather than capitalist); Five year plan and other economic model India adopted were largely influenced by famous statistician PC Mahalanobis.

Regarding uniting India, my understanding is that main guy was Vallabhbhai Patel (He was the Home Minsiter). Most of the States joined with little coaxing but Hyderbad, Kashmir and Jungarh were the main problematic states and Patel used stick and carrot policy to make them join Indian State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....n_of_India

Aarohi 28 September 2007
07:55:12 am

@Ravi: That’s what I have read and heard.

Ravi 28 September 2007
08:00:08 am

As usual RKS spot on, very hard to disagree with you on anything.

You get to keep the moniker “The most level headed guy on NG”.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
08:00:50 am

Re: “Nehru stamp from my understanding was economic(social view point rather than capitalist)”

I don’t completely agree. Nehru’s most enduring legacy (especially now that the economic one has been discredited) is the POLITICAL one, his contribution to “the idea of India” so to speak. One book I’d highly recommend in connection with this, and that is written by someone who is no “mere Nehruvian” is “The Idea of India” by Sunil Khilnani. Remember that in the early 1950s most foreigners felt Pakistan had a far better chance of surviving than India, and that numerous writings have persuasively argued that the “India consciousness” was quite weak for the most part, now that independence had been won. Nehru’s ideology deserves recognition for its contribution to ensuring fragmentation did not happen. This is always about more than any one person, be it Nehru or Patel, but the “idea of India” that serves as a foundation for Indians today is largely Nehruvian.

Re: “That is because, they died early.”

Could be for any reason (in fact that proves my point; Nehru’s stewardship lasted for 17 years, crucially important given how early the others died off, especially given the troubles of other post-colonial countries where leaders died early). In any event Nehru was a far more inclusive figure, and Patel far more divisive: in the traumatized post-1947 environment, Patel would have been the wrong choice and was unacceptable to large segments of Indian society. Patel’s “iron” might have been useful as a tactic to get the princes to accede, but it would IMO be the wrong way to go for a democratic leader in a country as diverse as India.

On the integration of the Indian states: there’s no evidence that in the absence of Patel Nehru would have been willing to let the country fragment. In fact his actions in Goa in 1961 — when he sent the army in despite intense criticism at the UN — as well as his resort to military force to counter insurgencies in Meghalaya, Nagaland, etc., show the contrary. The dichotomy is in many ways a false one: on the subject of keeping post-1947 India together one way or another, there is not much daylight between Patel and Nehru at all. [On Kashmir in particular, a wealth of scholarship suggests that it was Nehru and NOT Patel who was keen on it initially.]

Ravi 28 September 2007
08:07:05 am

1961 Q bhai , Patel did that lot earlier with Hyderabad in particular , Nehru was indecisive and Patel waited for Nehru to be out of the country before sending in the army to Hyderabad and taking care of the problem then and there.

One thing I admire Nehru for , he treated all women the same irrespective of their nationality , he slept with all of them, unfortunately leading to his death(which is arguable).

But, one thing for sure even though I do not like Nehru I would say that the foundation laid by him made India what it is right now, a thriving democracy inspite of lot of flaws that exist, just look at our neighbor to see how better of we are.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
08:09:12 am

I have heard this “so what if he is a dictator he is a good administrator” line for Modi as well.

beldevere 28 September 2007
08:11:42 am

ravi, rks, Q – very very good thoughts. Was just thinking – in modern history very few people have got the chance to lead a new country and establish it. Whatever his weaknesses may have been – have got to hand it to him. Tremendous job to get India to where it is. Chak De India!(couldnt resist that as this is a film forum )

beldevere 28 September 2007
08:14:03 am

true aarohi – but think about this – Gujarat is one of the best states in terms of growth etc. But balance it with this story i heard from a friend yesterday.

There was this India standing in a phone booth in Abu Dhabi and suddenly a sheikh comes there and wants to use the phone. The indian says ‘give me a min’ and the sheikh takes a cane and whips him on the head. Freedom is something which lot of us take for granted. I wonder how it is to be a Muslim in Guj today

Qalandar 28 September 2007
08:15:35 am

LOL beldevere: let me also conclude (and get back to work!) with a film reference too: I completely agree that CDI incarnates a Nehruvian vision of India to an extent. Except, I don’t see that as a bad thing. That vision is hardly perfect, far from it, but it is preferable to the alternate visions on offer, at least where mainstream ideas are concerned.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
08:18:17 am

beldevere bro, u don’t miss any chance.

Thought provoking comments guys. While attacking Nehru is the in thing, his leadership soon after independence did make a significant contribution to a lot of things that are good in today’s India. Specially when we see the dominance of the broker-politican and goonda-politician nowadays.

rks 28 September 2007
08:20:47 am

Thanks Ravi.

Q:My views are more of general perception and some reading. Of course my reading is not extensive as yours. Agree on Nehru being inclusive but don’t know about Patel’s divisive nature (IMO debatable).

Nehru has done lots of things but three blunders (political/foreign policy) attributed to Nehru.

1. Going to UN and asking for plebiscite in Kashmir.
2. Forward policy against China. Ultimately leading to India’s defeat.
3. Pseudo NAM, though India was firmly behind USSR (India’s voting at UN).

ps: I want a post on use of word politics in cinema context. I keep on hearing politics of RDB, CDI. Sometimes I understand sometimes I disagree.

Ravi 28 September 2007
08:23:31 am

Good points RKS, and exactly my bone of contention with Nehru among other things.

But, still made India what it is right now.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
08:30:02 am

Re: “There was this India standing in a phone booth in Abu Dhabi and suddenly a sheikh comes there and wants to use the phone. The indian says ‘give me a min’ and the sheikh takes a cane and whips him on the head.”

Anything is possible, but I find this hard to believe, having grown up in that country. I have heard such stories about Kuwait.

Re: “…don’t know about Patel’s divisive nature (IMO debatable).”

One example: After 1947, Patel strongly recommended that all Muslims be fired from government jobs and deemed ineligible for such employment. Nehru refused. Patel in early 1948 gave a public speech in which he hinted that Muslims leave for Pakistan, as “un ke liye yahan hawaa garam ho jaayegi” (btw, that’s the famous line which explains why the film Garam Hawaa is called what it is — this is NG after all!): Mahatma Gandhi was so upset by this he threatened to go on a fast! Finally, Nehru and Gandhi were both upset with Patel’s handling of communal violence in and around Delhi.

The above notwithstanding, Patel is a very important figure in the history of modern India, and he also at times showed the greatness of spirit to rise above sectarian differences (e.g. his handling of the Ayodhya controversy would put our contemporary leaders to shame). As an Indian I value his contribution in those matters for sure. The above was not intended to say he should be ignored or discarded, but I merely wished to back up my claim that he was a divisive figure (i.e. one can love him, but that’s a different story). [I have used "minority" examples, but Ambedkar's writings make it pretty clear that he too would have had grave issues with Patel, and I suspect even more so than with Nehru; the whole "left-bloc" within the Congress would have had the most problems, and had that coalition fractured the Congress would not have remained long in power; on the other hand we might have seen earlier development of a multi-party system, which would have been a good thing].

Btw, what on earth do you think sajid khan would make of the direction this thread has taken?! LOL!

rks 28 September 2007
08:31:34 am

According to My Father.
The road leading to Taj in Agra was encroached on both side outside Air force campus (only route from Airport). When Sanjay Gandhi saw this, he asked the use of Bulldozer to remove that encroachment.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
08:35:31 am

Qalandar: These are eye opening examples on Patel. I wasn’t aware of these. Does ‘Sardar’ touch any of these?

btw, that Garam Hawaa bit made my day.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
08:38:19 am

rks: Sanjay Gandhi initiated nasbandi abhiyaan during the emergency is legendary.

satyam 28 September 2007
08:41:36 am

In the context of this political debate (but what isn’t political?!) Nihalani’s dev as well as Thakshak offer interesting commentary on the meaning of a sign like ‘Nehru’ or ‘Nehruvianism’. The two films could also be subtitled ‘Nehruvianism and its other’!

The Rahul Bose recital of the Tryst with Destiny speech, in an under construction building site, late at night, in a moment of solitude more or less (with only his friend as audience) is one of the most electric moments in Hindi cinema. And Nihalani caps it off perfectly with a very humanistic gesture.. a very poor, very old ‘gatekeeper’ who has been asleep on his rudimentary bed nearby, unnoticed, until of course he wakes up..

Qalandar 28 September 2007
08:50:31 am

PS: It is also worth noting, in the interests of fairness, that scholars like Rafiq Zakaria (among others) have disputed that Patel was anti-Muslim. Check his book “Sardar Patel and Indian Muslims” out (I had already noted the Ayodhya issue in my earlier comment).

goodfella 28 September 2007
09:21:34 am

Satyam – That scene in Thakshak is, indeed, electric, and as always with Nihalani, supremely well-written.

rks 28 September 2007
09:35:57 am

Q:
I did find Garam Hawaa link attributed to Muzzaffar Ali. The sentence is very much like what I said “Carrot and stick” policy. Does it sound good? No but as administrator you need calm.
Somnath temple was similar to Ayodhya dispute but was resolved by Patel rather amicably.

Regarding historical books, I have following theory
1. History is written by victors or person of influence in their era.
2.After their era it is interpreatation done by scholars and prone to bias or inadequacy of data.

Inclusive: Take for example reservation policy. One way to look at it is that you are trying to uplift the poorer section of society. Hence inclusive. Other way to look at it is that it is creating division in society by giving preferential treatment. hence sowing seeds of discontent. So eventually it is divisive in nature. The same theory could be applied to Article 370 or uniform civil code.

Tango 28 September 2007
09:40:36 am

rks- Yeh Sajid -VVC ki baat Somnath-Ayodhya tak kaise pahunch gayee bhai

Abhi kuch der pehle tak to sab kushal mangal tha

Ab iske baad kya Karunanidhi aur Vedanti ki baat hogi

Topic ko pakdo bhai logon

Ravi 28 September 2007
09:44:22 am

History is written by victors or person of influence in their era.

Exactly RKS, that is why the history of the world is very pro western.

All our glory which was before when most of these countries did not even exist was not documented, the AD history which is very documented and marketed is what is looked upon the rest of the world as history.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
09:47:40 am

LOL Tango.

Topic to ab pahuch se kaafi door dikhai deta hai.

Rocky 28 September 2007
09:48:00 am

GF – childish i agree but definitely good copy. something like the amar singh – srk spat

LOL !!!!!

Qalandar 28 September 2007
09:49:07 am

Re: “Regarding historical books, I have following theory
1. History is written by victors or person of influence in their era.
2.After their era it is interpreatation done by scholars and prone to bias or inadequacy of data.”

I don’t disagree with this — but it’s an operative condition of historiography, and I take it you’d agree with me that the “solution” is not to accept “received wisdom” as history…

Don’t think there is in fact any solution, but I think that it is incumbent on everyone to try and be sensitive to THEIR OWN biases; i.e. recognizing that an ideologically neutral position is not possible, one should exercise vigilance and argue/discuss in good faith. For that reason I posted those links to Zakaria arguing against the criticism of Patel (since my own sympathy for Nehru means that I should examine my views on Patel even more carefully)…

Aarohi 28 September 2007
09:49:40 am

Guys, did anyone catch Johnny Gaddar here?

sandy 28 September 2007
09:49:44 am

“Finally why are Guru/CDI twinned in your mind in this sense? So that one who praises the former and not the latter is by definition ‘biased’?”

The only two people on the forum to have liked Guru and disliked CDI are you and Abzee(though he’s reiterated that he found the film quite enjoyable if he discounts some political issues he had with it.) Fair enough.
As for your opinions on CDI, your position, unfortunately, is quite vulnerable on this front. I mean if you are unbiased on CDI, then I must be Ratnam most zealous fan!

I just find this ‘choice’ of dismissing CDI and loving Guru a bit puzzling, and you going hysterical on this won’t alter my view.

Coming to the ‘case’ you made, there’s nothing really that holds here.
This is what you said:
“A nation that constantly mistrusts its minorities is a problematic entity but one where the minority has to undergo a ritual to prove its loyalty is even more problematic. Kabir goes through such a ritual but in doing so confirms the logic of his accusers”

This is actually poor reading on your part. Because the film is actually appealing exactly against this kind of prejudice where the minorities are put under the scanner. It brings out the utter stupidity of a country’s psyche that puts patriotic Muslims in this sort of predicament.

Also, I don’t quite ‘get’ your disappointment with CDI about not ‘developing its interesting strands’, because the film achieves perfectly what it sets out to do. Anyway, which are these strands?
Neither Jaideep Sahni nor any creative person associated with this film has any doubts that this is really a story about one man’s journey to redemption. The film never once strays from this position and its sharp takes on social issues, so admirably done, is actually a result of an instinctive screenplay, rather than a deliberated one. Which it exactly why, it does not enforce a moral responsibility upon itself beyond a point.

Where I do agree with your argument is regarding how the film, ironically, and by my guess, inadvertently, reinforces the stereotype about India being and belonging to the Hindi heartland. There’s indeed only a token representation for South, and all this while the film is precisely asking us to think beyond states. But again, my guess is that Jaideep being better acquainted with certain Northern states and their cultural ethos, preferred to give it more representation. I don’t think see this as a ‘motivated’ decision at all. It’s hardly the sort that problem that causes a spoke in its cinematic wheel.

Ultimately, no one is saying that CDI is a path breaking film. No, it isn’t. Technically, it follows the same structural and thematic pattern of all major sports films in the world, which means it isn’t breaking any moulds.

But certainly, nothing stops it from being one of the most entertaining and socially impacting films in recent time.
One has to be living in India to know this ‘buzz’

Tango 28 September 2007
09:52:08 am

aarohi- today Neil Mukesh makes his debut so a song from his grandpa( tweked alittle)

“Chodo kal ki baatein , kal ki baat purani, Maye daur mein likhein ge Abhi-SRK ki nayee kahani”

rks 28 September 2007
09:52:34 am

tango: LOL.

Very well said by Sajid “After all it’s a free country (and may I add, democratic too?) and we all have a right to speak out!”

“But shall I add that I am yet to see a blockbuster ‘directed’ by you which has touched hearts of millions across the globe and brought in ‘moolah’ as well!”
Now I start to disagree….

Tango 28 September 2007
09:55:10 am

rks & Rocky

Voted the most corrupt beurocrat by his collegues in UP , Akhand Paratap sing is in CBI custody. bada paisa banaya saale ne

And Amar singh’s land allotments ( and also of many other’s in posh colonies of Lucknow) are now being inquired into.

Rocky 28 September 2007
09:55:21 am

Ravi- Re.-One thing I admire Nehru for , he treated all women the same irrespective of their nationality , he slept with all of them, unfortunately leading to his death(which is arguable).

LMAF,
Nehru has done more harm to the country than the Sardar would have let him.

Tango 28 September 2007
09:56:38 am

**bureaucrat** and **enquiry**

Aarohi 28 September 2007
09:56:48 am

LOL Tango.

btw, Hum Hindustani is the first film I remember watching as a child.

Rocky 28 September 2007
09:58:01 am

Tango, UP IAS mein Thakuron kee lobby kaafi strong hai !!

Tango 28 September 2007
10:00:05 am

I think Parinda and Eklavya were both very good movies.

Ravi bhai chee chee chacha ji ke baare mein aisi baatein”One thing I admire Nehru for , he treated all women the same irrespective of their nationality , he slept with all of them, unfortunately leading to his death(which is arguable).”

Kyon marne mein bhi koi wajah thi , koi bimari lag gayee thi kya lady Mountbatten se

rks 28 September 2007
10:00:35 am

Q:”you’d agree with me that the “solution” is not to accept “received wisdom” as history…”
I agree.
BTW thanks for Rafiq Zakaria (I thought for a moment that he is newsweek’s Farid Zakaria, Then found out that he is son) rediff link. That letter is what I said an administrator should be asked to follow incase of communal violence.

BTW no more political post in this thread

Ravi 28 September 2007
10:00:45 am

Voted the most corrupt beurocrat by his collegues in UP , Akhand Paratap sing is in CBI custody. bada paisa banaya saale ne

And Amar singh’s land allotments ( and also of many other’s in posh colonies of Lucknow) are now being inquired into.

Unfortunately Tango bhai, does not make Mayawati any better , vindictive politics, it is like UP guys choose the lesser evil, today it is Mayawati, tomorrow maybe it is Mulayam so what difference?

sandy 28 September 2007
10:00:56 am

I have to come to accept that my love-hate relationship with Satyam is here to stay!

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:01:28 am

Re. I wonder how it is to be a Muslim in Guj today

I don’t know but hat I do know is that-

It’s not as bad as the Hindus in Kashmir !!!

HAL 28 September 2007
10:01:48 am

“Mani’s Tamil films are among the most “universal” of Tamil films. I don’t mean it particularly in the complimentary sense actually.”

And, the detractors down here don’t listen up. They nitpick on things which he never intended to do in his films! That baffles me to be honest! I thought only Tamilians were fickle when it comes to this man!

Tango 28 September 2007
10:02:10 am

Hai to followed by Pundit’s but is baar phans gaya . Ab to Puniya uncle bhi nahi hain bachane ko

Tango 28 September 2007
10:04:11 am

BTW off topic – LOL

At times the Hindi press takes the cake for its one liners.

After india victory over Pakistan it went

Karachi Par Bhari Pada Ranchi

Can you beat it !

rks 28 September 2007
10:06:20 am

tango: “Karachi Par Bhari Pada Ranchi ”
Good one.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
10:07:23 am

Does “Hindu in Kashmir” justify “Muslim in Gujarat?”

Tango 28 September 2007
10:07:46 am

Ravi bhai agree but the crime wave was beating all records I mean it was worse than Bihar ( unde Laloo). I know no one can give a crime free society but there has to be a limit. There is a perceptible improvement already plus improvement in power situation.

The only thing good Mulayam did was roads .

Ravi 28 September 2007
10:08:32 am

Tango bhai , big rumor that “Syphilis” was the cause of Panditji’s death.

He double dipped one too many times or in the wrong one I would dare say.

satyam 28 September 2007
10:08:58 am

Sandy: Going by that logic you are the only person who’s liked Guru and not liked KM. Or you are the only person who’s liked UJ and Guru and CDI (it’s very hard to get this sequence!).

On the bias issue I have extracted those quotes. Not much more to add there. But going by your ‘rule’ every one of your utterances on Rathnam should be considered valid.

On CDI I again have nothing to add to my review. Except to note that there is a ’shift’ in your bar.. CDI is supposedly a very progressive film with the right politics but even if it isn’t it’s a fun ride. Which is it?

On the reading of that particular point, yours would be validated if Kabeer didn’t have to redeem himself. It is precisely the ‘redemption’ story as you would have it that cuts against the grain of the ‘liberal’ message. Of course I should add here that this is in many ways the failing of all liberalisms except that the stakes are higher in India. In other words one becomes a part of the liberal paradise only by becoming the ultimate conformist. Kabir cannot live in his house, in his locale, till he wins and convinces everyone he is a true ‘Indian’. This is exactly the problem. This is a common enough gesture within Hindi film traditions but I would argue that this ‘tokenism’ is not what the best masala of the 70s represents. In other words in a Desai film the minority never has to ‘do’ anything.In any case CDI can hardly be called pure escapist entertainment.

Lastly I don’t know what living in ‘India’ means. I know what living in ‘Pune’ means and that is surely not the same as living in Trivandrum or Jamshedpur or Aurangabad! Much as I live in suburban NY, I can’t speak for Tucson residents!

By the way RDB which had a lot more genuine buzz and wasn’t just a popular movie (with CDI popularity is being defined as ‘buzz’ as I see it; the twinning with cricket, ironically enough, doesn’t mean much. it’s a sports film after all!) was also one where I always had many problems with the politics. Wonder why I wasn’t ‘biased’ then?!

There is only one simple fact here Sandy — you have loved CDI in every sense. That’s fine. But this doesn’t make it the best movie since the Garden of Eden drama! Much as I loved Guru. I didn’t start saying this had more buzz than any other film around (the buzz revolved more around the star here than the film). But even if you think this is the case there is a kind of ‘tyrannical’ attitude that everyone else must too.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
10:09:15 am

@Tango: Anhoni ho gayi honi, cha gaya Dhoni…

satyam 28 September 2007
10:11:23 am

“..but the crime wave was beating all records I mean it was worse than Bihar ( unde Laloo)”

This betrays the classic bourgeois obsession with ‘crime’ (let alone that this statement seems extremely debatable!). Genocide is perpetrated multiple times in just recent history but hey the real issue is crime!

And the author of this comment finds it in his heart to like Thackeray!

Ravi 28 September 2007
10:12:59 am

#

Does “Hindu in Kashmir” justify “Muslim in Gujarat?”

Getting too political and would not like to comment even though I have lots of views and opinions favoring everyone and anyone.

satyam 28 September 2007
10:13:13 am

Rocky: Consider this: every masala movie that you’ve ever liked from the 70s and 80s, specifically every Bachchan movie represents (more or less) Nehruvian politics!

som 28 September 2007
10:13:27 am

It is really sad that such kind of bickering and bad mouthing have been happening since “Eklavya” got selected as India’s official entry to the Oscars, though I somehow feel everyone has the right to speak their words and express their opinions on whether “Eklavya” is the deserving movie to go or not. Just the way we guys here agree and disagree on issues , I don’t really see anything wrong if people like Sajid, Farah and Anupam have said something against the selection of “Eklavya” to the Oscars. That is absolutely fine IMO.

But now as the movie has already been selected as India’s official entry by the jury, it is time for Bollywood and others to forget all these differences of opinions they have and try to back the movie as much as possible .this kind of fight inside the film fraternity does not do any good and shows India in a very bad light. After all it is India’s official entry and we should be happy and proud if it goes on to win there. Instead of doing the crab act, why not respect the jury’s verdict and wholeheartedly support the movie and wish “Eklavya” becomes the first Indian movie ever to win the prestigious Oscar.

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:13:32 am

Does “Hindu in Kashmir” justify “Muslim in Gujarat?”

Did anyone imply that??

satyam 28 September 2007
10:14:09 am

“I have to come to accept that my love-hate relationship with Satyam is here to stay!”

My dear, most people would define that as a marriage!

Aarohi 28 September 2007
10:15:12 am

Ravi bhai you are right. We are getting way too political.

btw, ur tidbits about Nehru are interesting to say the least.”Double dip…” LOL

satyam 28 September 2007
10:16:18 am

Rocky: But you yourself brought up the analogy! Of course I must categorically disagree that Muslims in Gujarat have it better than Hindus in Kashmir.

Ravi 28 September 2007
10:17:01 am

Very well said Som.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
10:17:11 am

I don’t know but hat I do know is that-

It’s not as bad as the Hindus in Kashmir

I think it did.

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:17:28 am

Rocky: Consider this: every masala movie that you’ve ever liked from the 70s and 80s, specifically every Bachchan movie represents (more or less) Nehruvian politics!

Satyam- Film aur Asal Zindagi mein shayad yahi Farak Hai !!LOL

I am not denying Nehru’s or even Gandhi’s contribution but to start belittleling Patel’s contribution is bit too much.

rks 28 September 2007
10:18:03 am

I like the exchange of posts between Satyam and Sandy.

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:18:37 am

Arohi, aaraam kar, Chill, It did not OK.

Tuenkens 28 September 2007
10:19:35 am

Great discussion guys.

rks: Rafiq Zakaria (indeed father of Farid Zakaria) belonged to the rare breed of scholar politicians. His books, The Man Who Divided India and Communal Rage in Secular India (the two that I have read) make for very compelling reading.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
10:21:28 am

Rocky: That reminds me, aaram karne ka time hai…

sandy 28 September 2007
10:21:28 am

“My dear, most people would define that as a marriage!”

That thought just send a thrilling shiver down my spine, Satyam! lol

goodfella 28 September 2007
10:24:10 am

“On the reading of that particular point, yours would be validated if Kabeer didn’t have to redeem himself. It is precisely the ‘redemption’ story as you would have it that cuts against the grain of the ‘liberal’ message.”

This has always been my problem with the politics of this film, which I made note of in my review. It seems to me to be a very obvious problem and yet it hasn’t been written about as much as I’d expect. Perhaps because the “Muslim” part of Kabir’s identity is not explored, people think he’s a progressive character. This may well hold water, but it doesn’t fly with me because this identity issue is where the movie starts (on a very melodramatic note) and for us to simply forget it just because Kabir isn’t the atypical Muslim character trope so often abused in Hindi cinema is too tall an order and a major failing of the film’s politics.

Tuenkens 28 September 2007
10:25:45 am

Discussion might be getting a bit too political, but I guess it is many many times better than discussing about the exchanges between His Haughtiness and Mr. Clown.

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:26:04 am

Marrriage of two opposites

satyam- satya

Sandy- Mirage( Sand )

LOL, Sorry sandy , I had to take the opening provided by you !!!

Tango 28 September 2007
10:27:11 am

“And the author of this comment finds it in his heart to like Thackeray!”

You mind it mate. I have been ignoring you for awhile but looks like you want some antibiotics from me.

With every additional crore for CDI you are getting more and more frustrated. your ilness may just relapse !

And be sure to take your preventive medicines when OSO releases.

Whether I choose to like Thackrey or Shibu Soren it is none of your bloody business.

Aarohi 28 September 2007
10:28:15 am

Tuenkens: yeh log kaun hai…

Are they from NGdom in particular or Filmdom in general?

Qalandar 28 September 2007
10:30:01 am

My own reading of the “Muslim angle” in CDI was different from yours satyam and goodfella…

Tuenkens 28 September 2007
10:32:43 am

Aarohi: VVC and Sajid Khan

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:33:03 am

Rocky: But you yourself brought up the analogy!

satyam I brought it up to keep it real !!! This is a Filmi Forum for crying out loud !!!

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:34:44 am

Tango- Thackrey’s Means of getting things done are very very dubious !!!

Aarohi 28 September 2007
10:35:32 am

Tuenkens: Thanks mate.

Main pata nahi kya kya soch raha tha

goodfella 28 September 2007
10:43:01 am

Q: I can sort of see the validity of that argument, although that comment on Kabir’s part didn’t have the same resonance for me. And I don’t think Kabir is accepted back into the fold until AFTER his victory, (yes he’s accepted as a coach, but this is less acceptance than what the victory offers him) which is really problematic. I just don’t think the film sets up a firm ENOUGH linkage between his identity and that of the nation’s to really diminish the more problematic reading it offers. Although among all the alternative readings (not that there are many) I’ve come across, yours is most feasible.

rks 28 September 2007
10:43:27 am

Tuenkens:”The Man Who Divided India and Communal Rage in Secular India (the two that I have read) make for very compelling reading.”

Thanks. I wish I have more time for books. I do feed on Internet articles.

rockstar the dumb 28 September 2007
10:43:54 am

good going sajid whats new once u told ur defination of bad filmmaking is omkara and then u used double meaning dialogues in hb

goodfella 28 September 2007
10:45:41 am

rockstar: did he actually criticize omkara? that’s hilarious.

rockstar the dumb 28 September 2007
10:46:04 am

“A surprisingly restrained retort from an otherwise abrasive character” pardey ke peechey bahut kuch hota hai

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:47:34 am

pardey ke peechey bahut kuch hota hai

It does look like that the letter was ghost written !

Qalandar 28 September 2007
10:48:16 am

OK, I had promised myself no more political comments here after rks’ command, but one last one:

satyam: as you well know I am the last person to downplay the Gujarat pogroms as “just a riot” or “business as usual.” However, I must disagree on the Hindus of Kashmir (I am speaking here of the Valley itself and not Jammu, the Kashmiri Pandits in particular): hundreds of thousands were ethnically cleansed, and continue to live in squalor in refugee camps in Jammu, Delhi, and elsewhere. When one considers that the population of Kashmir is a fraction of Gujarat’s population, it is clear that the magnitude of this displacement is even greater than might initially appear when compared to the estimated 100,000 people displaced in Gujarat. So overall I think the magnitude is much greater in Kashmir (exception is sexual assault, where documented instances against Pandits are less than in Gujarat). IMO better comparison is between Gujarat 2002 and anti-Sikh pogroms of 1984.

[Aside: I say this because the topic has come up, but really there shouldn't be a comparison: because unlike in kashmir, in Gujarat it was the state itself that was complicit, and no arm of the Indian state ought ever to degrade itself in this manner and with respect to its own citizens to boot, as the Modi government did, and as the Congress did in 1984. i.e. the standard for an arm of the state is and OUGHT TO BE different than for thugs and terrorists.]

Rocky 28 September 2007
10:49:12 am

Waht’s that song from KMG- parde ke peecheh se…

Qalandar 28 September 2007
10:52:18 am

goodfella: I suppose the point could have been made more clearly and boldly if the team had been shown as losing in the finals or the semis, or something like that…

Ravi 28 September 2007
10:56:59 am

Q bhai, you took words from my mouth. That was what I exactly wanted to say, almost word to word (even the sexual assault exception) but decided not to as I did not want to offend any one. Becuase religion is a very touchy subject and I did not want to go there as to who got exploited or abused more.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
11:03:43 am

Thanks Ravibhai, initially I thought I shouldn’t get into it, but once the topic had come up I felt I should say something. It’s about “trust”, i.e. I feel fairly confident that most of the people I regularly discuss things with on NG know exactly where I am coming from, i.e. they won’t misinterpret me as “anti-x” or “anti-y” (they might CORRECTLY pick me as anti-x, and that I have no issues with, but I doubt they would INcorrectly do so), and I like to think the same holds true for me too…hence I felt comfortable saying this stuff.

Aside: One of my favorite verses from the Quran says something like: Whoever kills an innocent person, it is as if he has killed the entire humanity. Sadly the sentiment is not often respected by the world!

rks 28 September 2007
11:05:49 am

Q:”I had promised myself no more political comments here after rks’ command, but one last one”
That command was for me ONLY

som 28 September 2007
11:18:02 am

What happened during the gujurat riot and the role of modi government to give fuel to the already ignited fire was very shameful and tragic. It seemed that the BJP led government had just simply closed its eye in the initial period. What can be more tragic if the ministers themselves led the responsibility of attacking groups and directing police on their own terms. As soon as the newz of godhra carnage spread like fire, massive onslaught was mounted against the musilms in every part of gujurat. Members of the minority communities residing in villages either fled or killed and their houses and shops were destroyed. Instead of taking stern actions against these people and groups , the bloody government and the VHP officials went on recounting the horror of godhra carnage and singled out the muslims for the entire incident.

It is reported that police were rather supporting or looked the other way when these attacks were going on. Perhaps the majority of Hindus in police forces were sympathetic to the Hindu sentiment which was further reinforced by the Godhra incident and directions from some ministers; as a result they failed in their duty to maintain law and order impartially.

Rocky 28 September 2007
11:18:24 am

Q I agree with your last two comments. Totally disagree on the comments about the Sardar.

Sardar would have never allowed what Modi allowed in Gujrat. He would have dismissed his govt. unlike Vajpayee who just kept doing a Flip Flop.

Ravi 28 September 2007
11:26:47 am

Qbhai, I also never heard of Sardar’s openly anti Muslim bias like you mentioned. I always heard of him as a straightforward no prisoners taken kind of approach. But, maybe I did not dwell into it in detail to find out these things about Sardar, always had a great respect and admiration for him compared to Nehru, Gandhi etc who I felt played with India and caused the partition and hence the large scale killings that happened.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
11:26:54 am

Re: “Sardar would have never allowed what Modi allowed in Gujrat. He would have dismissed his govt. unlike Vajpayee who just kept doing a Flip Flop.”

I completely agree with this. In my defence let me add that in my comments on Patel I did say “The above notwithstanding, Patel is a very important figure in the history of modern India, and he also at times showed the greatness of spirit to rise above sectarian differences (e.g. his handling of the Ayodhya controversy would put our contemporary leaders to shame). As an Indian I value his contribution in those matters for sure.”

Very well summed up som.

Pranav 28 September 2007
11:35:52 am

@ Satyam “Rocky: But you yourself brought up the analogy! Of course I must categorically disagree that Muslims in Gujarat have it better than Hindus in Kashmir.”

have you stayed in Gujarat or are just going by the media reports? Having an opinion on something is one thing but not knowing the facts and just “categorically” stating something is another. Before Modi, it was difficult for “Hindus” to live in parts of Gujarat..now the situation is more even. get your facts in order before making ingnorant statements.

satyam 28 September 2007
12:06:22 pm

Pranav: Actually I was not alive in 1947 also but ‘media reports’ have convinced me that the British did leave in 1947 and India was indeed partitioned into too.

By the way if I had been in Gujarat at the time there’s a fair probability that I would not be writing things on NG (perhaps a desirable scenario for many here!).

The thesis that a Hindu majority of 90% in Gujarat (a bit above the national number) found Gujarat ‘unlivable’ before Modi is surely a bit odd. Unless all Gujarati Hindus wanted to live in a state totally cleansed of minorities! Which I very much doubt! How else would a 90% majority find a state unlivable?!

By the way you should be grateful that you don’t live in Kerala or TN! You’d really find the ‘mix’ there intolerable!

satyam 28 September 2007
12:07:33 pm

Qalandar: I have no disagreement with your Kashmir/Gujarat discussion. I think you’ve lucidly laid out the problem at each end.

satyam 28 September 2007
12:08:36 pm

I second what Qalandar says on Som’s response here.

Rocky 28 September 2007
12:12:51 pm

satyam you have not yet responded to the marriage proposal from sandy and my take on that. Commmon !!!

Qalandar 28 September 2007
12:16:24 pm

satyam and tango argue so much I feel they might already be married…

But don’t expect “Hum tum ek kamre mein bandh hon”, as I cannot expect the following line from either one:

“Sher se mein kahoongi tumhe chorh de– mujhe kha jaaye”!

satyam 28 September 2007
12:22:13 pm

Qalandar, I would actually welcome the ’sher’. Rather the honest lion who makes no bones about his appetite than the propagandist. And I couldn’t in good conscience wish the lion onto Tango because that also is a fascist method!

satyam 28 September 2007
12:23:04 pm

By the way what I say to Tango does not have the structure of an argument. I consider it an ‘expose’!

Rocky 28 September 2007
12:24:40 pm

It’s more like – Tu daal daal, main paat paat..

Pranav 28 September 2007
01:01:51 pm

@ Satyam: I meant “select” parts of the state which have the inverse in terms of the overall state ratio ie. where minorities were in the majority. These parts have seen a sea change. I dig your sarcasm about the “media reports” and the 1947 bit but media reports on the whole issue with Gujrat in this aspect have been biased. I definitely do not condone what took place in 01 but theres more to it than what meets the eye. And this discussion is all general in no way reflecting my individual choices…some of my best friends are Muslim. so your comment about TN and Kerela doesn’t quite fit in with the discussion.

satyam 28 September 2007
01:07:31 pm

“some of my best friends are Muslim”

I’m not sure if this means much Pranav to be brutally honest. I am more troubled by the ideological commentary implied by your remarks. Are you suggesting that whatever regions had Muslim majorities (though I’m not sure how this applied to all the areas where genocide was carried out) were problematic in some way? How so?

And the TN/Kerala example is even more pertinent to this discussion because there is a lot of ‘imbalance’ (in your terms) in many places in these states.

You have unwittingly defined the ‘Muslim majority’ as ‘problematic’.

By the way how many towns of any significance are there in Gujarat where there are 90% Muslims? Or is it that even within Hindu majority towns locales with Muslim majorities are problematic?

Qalandar 28 September 2007
01:18:22 pm

Aside: the sad thing is all studies show that ghettoization and “one community only” areas increase in the wake of communal violence. Thus in the wake of the ‘02 violence there have been media reports of even educated/professional Muslims moving into “downmarket” areas because they feel safer there; and conversely you have Hindus moving out of these areas, and so on (the irony is the “majority mohalla” effect might well be the consequence of past violence, leading to people clustering together to feel safer — and then the resulting ghetto is itself presented as a problem requiring vigilance/suspicion, etc.). In a very different context, we see the same thing happening in Baghdad, where “Shiite only” and “Sunni only” areas are mushrooming. Once this mindset takes hold, it is very difficult to stop, as from the individual perspective (“I want to keep my family safe”) such a decision always makes “sense”, even as it adds up to social insanity.

jeegs 28 September 2007
01:37:46 pm

sorry to say people here are just commenting on Gujarat issue on the basis of media reports .

just an Example there is a area called Juapara in ahmedabad where 95% of the people arew muslims . this area celebrates when a Pakistan team wins and when India loses in a match . it is called mini pakistan and before 2002 they used to do dadagiri and all the illegal activities . Even a police commisioner or minister would be afraid to go there but after 2002 all this people had come back to earth .

its just one of the many eg in Ahmedabad let alone gujarat .

People here talk about the Riots but what was responsible nobody talks about it . 56 Hindus (actually Ram sevaks going to Ayodhya were burnt in a train . It was bound to evoke hatred among people in a state thats prone to riots .
ALso people are complaining about police but most of the times its hard to control such violent crowd and when riot spread in whole state suddenly which govt. can control it in a day.

Coming to Modi govt. I bet 80% of muslims in Gujarat will vote for him .In this Nov. elections he willl be winning in even Strong muslim regions and most probably will nto lose a seat in north Gujarat .

Qalandar 28 September 2007
01:46:31 pm

Re: “there is a area called Juapara in ahmedabad where 95% of the people arew muslims . this area celebrates when a Pakistan team wins and when India loses in a match .”

That cuts both ways: in 2003 when India beat Pakistan at the World Cup, in Baroda some Muslims who were celebrating the victory were pelted with stones by Hindus and violence broke out…

On crowd control: it seems odd that there was little to no violence a few miles across the border from Gujarat in Rajasthan and MP, and yet in Gujarat the violence was uncontrollable. The reports of police and politician complicity (including Modi’s and his home minister’s inflammatory and disgusting comments) are too well documented to be denied. Crucially, the decision to allow a VHP bandh was itself the first sign of disaster: all over India everyone knew this bandh would result in violence (I remember saying so myself). Stated differently, your comment assumes that the violence was entirely the result of popular anger over Godhra; I don’t buy that: Godhra lit the fuse, and the VHP and the state government used the popular anger to conduct a pogrom — the sense was very much that “these people” need to be “taught a lesson”; and the fact that the likes of Godhan Zadaphia were sitting in police control rooms making sure cops were not sent to certain localities, or not sent in time even when notice was received, speaks volumes. Just as when Indira Gandhi was assassinated, Congress leaders in Delhi and elsewhere used the popular anger to launch a pogrom.

Rocky 28 September 2007
01:52:23 pm

In Moradabad/ Merrut/Sambhal there are Mohalls of Muslims where even the police is afraid to go. They openly flaunt Pakistan’s flag. so yes Hindus are afraid to go in those mohallas.

jeegs 28 September 2007
01:53:01 pm

Qalandhar : yes i do believe it was a popular anger that lead to Godhra and being a person who has seen all this things i have no doubts on it .

A VHP bandh was supported by most of the people i know .

Rocky 28 September 2007
01:57:53 pm

The growth of Madarsas is seen to be beleived, With One fancy Minaret mushrooming after another. They are getting a lot of money from Saudi Arabia which they spend on these minarets .
I did see though that progressive muslims are getting out of there and sending their children to better schools. Also with money and progress in the business the integration and interaction is increasingly being done at the same level.

Rocky 28 September 2007
01:59:34 pm

Jeegs Poular or not but once you are in the power, it is your fiduciary duty to treat everyone as equal and protect the asseta and life of everyone not selectively.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:00:07 pm

An example from history is illustrative here: in 1946, the Muslim League was in power in Bengal, and when negotiations between the League and Congress collapsed, Jinnah called for “Direct Action day” on august 16, a bandh. Nehru, Gandhi, and others appealed to him saying that it was obvious that in the atmosphere of the times, there would be violence in Calcutta. Their pleas were unheeded, and as we all know unspeakable carnage followed (as shown memorably in the film Hey Ram) [Aside: one of the reasons it really irritates me when many revisionists give Jinnah a clean chit; Direct Action day shows his complicity pretty clearly]. Similarly, however many people supported the VHP bandh, it was pretty obvious what was going to happen, and the government should not have given permission for it — in fact they encouraged it. Such “bandhs” are in fact standard mobilization tactics.

Rocky 28 September 2007
02:01:31 pm

Q that baroda incident if it happened is clearly isolated whereas the victory celebration of pakistan is a pretty common affair.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:01:47 pm

The Saudis are especially galling: they’ll spend all this money, but none on hospitals, schools that teach marketable skills, etc.

satyam 28 September 2007
02:02:03 pm

“an area in Ahmedabad” illustrates the problematic nature of the politics. What does such a characterization mean? Forget talking about national minorities being in the majority in one part of the country or one state or one city, we’re down to locales in the same city! What next? Particular streets where Muslims are in the majority?

You still haven’t defined what the Muslim majority in those locales does! Crime?! are you serious?! Aren’t there Hindu majority areas in the country where one could talk about similar ‘crime’?! Isn’t an abstraction such as ‘crime’ in any kind the pretended empirical evidence for what is deep-rooted prejudice?

As an empirical fact the burning of the train in Godhra is still shrouded in mystery. The media becomes the favorite whipping boy here but what serious evidence does the other side have?

It wasn’t ‘riots’ by the way. It was state sponsored genocide. When police officers are ‘disallowed’ from offering any kind of ‘help’ it’s not just a ‘riot’! When police officers take part in the violence it’s not just a ‘riot’.

Now that other favorite whipping boy — supporting Pakistan in cricket. Could it be that those supporting Pakistan have never had very good reasons to support India in the first place? Could it be that had these folks received better institutional support there would perhaps have been more ‘loyalty’ to the state? But even granting all of this why is genocide the answer? Surely this is a bit extreme?

By the way I recall Christians being targeted in the state a few years before this. What did they do now?

Genocide is never a ‘rational’ response to anything. Just because her Sikh bodyguards killed Indira Gandhi does not make the pogroms in Delhi that year ‘understandable’ to me.

On this count I think everyone should watch hey Raam and Dev.

Incidentally this is also the kind of logic used to justify violence against caste in India. Till the lower castes one day took up guns and now everyone ’sees’ anarchy in UP and Bihar (as represented in Bollywood) where previously no one found the coercive institutional structures that disfavored ‘castes’ in every sense problematic. And yes it is often supposed to be a problem of ‘crime’ in UP and Bihar and suchlike. ‘Crime’ is a fairly neutral term that seems to veil all kinds of ideological underpinnings.

Incidentally Hitler had a similar list of ‘grievances’ against his Jewish population!

By the way I find it a little hilarious that people trust the media on frivolous film gossip and find it suspect on such an issue!

Rocky 28 September 2007
02:03:50 pm

My best friend was a khan and while he had no problem coming to my house, my parents were pretty scared to send me to his house.That he ate meat did not help either. LOL !!!!

jeegs 28 September 2007
02:05:32 pm

Rocky : Agree there but if its widerspread in a state(if i remember correctly not a single area was left where vio;ence had not occurred) it takes time and it was more or less in control after 4 days with some instances happening here and there.

satyam 28 September 2007
02:05:45 pm

“In Moradabad/ Merrut/Sambhal there are Mohalls of Muslims where even the police is afraid to go. They openly flaunt Pakistan’s flag. so yes Hindus are afraid to go in those mohallas.”

Surely the reverse is also true Rocky?! The mushrooming of madrasas is indeed regrettable as is the mushrooming of their right-wing Hindu equivalents where the curriculum is modeled on various kinds of fascist doctrine! Even their physical exercises!

Still don’t understand what the hysteria is about an 11% population? If the Muslim have had a plan to take over the country all I can say is they haven’t advanced very far in the last 50 years!

satyam 28 September 2007
02:07:26 pm

Sadly within this whole discourse we are far far from Krishna’s moral lessons to Arjun!

satyam 28 September 2007
02:10:03 pm

“Q that baroda incident if it happened is clearly isolated whereas the victory celebration of pakistan is a pretty common affair.”

This also belongs to the order of an urban legend in many ways. Does it happen? Sure. But not on the scale on which people think it does.

How does anyone know this happens by the way if no one is even venturing into Muslim majority locales?!

And if the media is always suspect in these matters surely there reports on the same can’t be believed?!

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:10:31 pm

Re: “my parents were pretty scared to send me to his house.That he ate meat did not help either.”

LOL

kidding aside it is sad that fear outweighs rationality in many cases; the mother of a friend of mine has never been to the Old City in Hyderabad despite living her entire life in the area. It’s not that it’s a crime riddled area (and certainly much better off in recent years), she just feels scared to go to a Muslim-majority area! I’ve been unable to convince her otherwise despite pointing out that large numbers of Hindus also live in the Old City…

satyam 28 September 2007
02:11:40 pm

And again this kind of celebration is precisely political protest. It is because adequate channels are absent in others forms for ‘redress’ that this sort of protest takes place. It’s actually far better than the kind of terrorism practiced elsewhere in the world (or even parts of India, and not only by Muslims)!

satyam 28 September 2007
02:14:38 pm

Qalandar: but it still doesn’t mean anything. I would not go to many areas of the South Bronx that are high in crime incidence but I also do not take away from it that African-Americans are the problem (as indeed is also the conclusion drawn, more subtly these days, in many conversations here).

As I said earlier such empirical evidence is always an excuse for what one believes anyway. In a Zizekian vein people do not commit genocide for grievances of one sort or another but because they want to do it anyway. If the empirical evidence were different they’d use a different argument to get to the same result!

satyam 28 September 2007
02:16:14 pm

I would not want to go to every area of Liverpool for fear of being beaten up or worse! but I would not draw the conclusion from this that ‘Brits’ are the problem!

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:16:39 pm

I will say that although I’ve always heard about Muslims supposedly supporting Pakistan, in my entire life I have only met two who did so. I do not doubt this happens, but I do believe the extent to which it happens is exaggerated. Moreover, just as popular anger is explored when it comes to post-Godhra violence, I think we should, as satyam suggests, also consider that someone waving a Pakistani flag does not arise in a vaccuum, especially given that there are many Hindus who will, almost “neutrally”, refer to Muslim Indians as Pakistanis. Stated differently, supporting Pakistan’s cricket team is a symptom of a wider problem, not the cause, and we would need to pay adequate attention to the causes of alienation, frustration, etc.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:20:10 pm

Man, today it has been all NETAGAANA for me and not enough NAACHGAANA…ok that is the final political comment of the day for me!

jeegs 28 September 2007
02:21:20 pm

Satyam that was just a example the whole ahmedabad city is like that .

Again its better to not talk crime here ..

Isnt it surprising that in most of the muslim areas one donot find a Single hindu douse while the so called hindu areas are always cosmopolitian.

“You still haven’t defined what the Muslim majority in those locales does! Crime?! are you serious?! Aren’t there Hindu majority areas in the country where one could talk about similar ‘crime’?! Isn’t an abstraction such as ‘crime’ in any kind the pretended empirical evidence for what is deep-rooted prejudice?”

there are areas where crimes occur but they are usaully not so big thaty even a police officer or minsiter fears to go .

i said it earlier its better to not talk crimes here.

coming to Godhra yes if one thinks that it was just a accident and not what state Govt. says isnt it surrprising of all the bougies only a S-6 carrying Ram sevaks was burnt or not a single muslim person died in it( Normally in a train one can find all types of people but the coach in question here had only hindus) or why the train was stopped just 5 min after godhra station and in exact front of a strong muslim locality.

i have never heard of christians being targetted in state and to blame that on Modi is wrong coz he came into power just 6 months before riots.

One can see whatever one wants to but its a mere guess for persons staying outside of a state and going by media than one actually living in it.

satyam 28 September 2007
02:21:21 pm

And again in this sense Dev was brilliant. The lesson here is that no matter what it is not ‘ok’ to burn down a building or collude in the burning as the Om Puri character does. No grievance, justified or not, excuses this kind of action.

Much as it was also a brilliant move on Kamal’s part to give a post-DDLJ SRK that kind of character in Hey Raam. And this is also pretty much the lesson that Hey Raam imparts at the end. Given what happens to Kamal’s wife in the riots, given all the violence that he undergoes, his subsequent political extremism is understandable as a human reaction but that it is not at all justified as any sort of ethical claim is the final statement of the movie. Remember here also the SRK character is still Kamal’s ‘friend’ for all the latter’s extremism.

Personal engagement with the ‘other’ in this sense does not negate questionable ideological positions. In fact such ‘friends’ serve to soothe one’s conscience in so many ways. One might say to oneself ‘of course I’m not biased, I have a Muslim friend, a black friend…’ or what have you.

Rocky 28 September 2007
02:26:28 pm

this is a never ending discussion, let’s just say that Hindus are taught to put the country before religion.

satyam 28 September 2007
02:28:43 pm

Jeegs: If the whole city of Ahmeadabad were like that it would be a 90% Muslim majority city, right?!

If I were to steal your ID and start abusing people on the shoutbox would that necessarily mean that you were guilty?

As for it being suspicious that only those bogeys were burned well presumably people who want to create trouble do it with brains!

As for there not being trouble against Christians in the state I would urge you to look through older news items. There are there was an excuse. That the ‘Christians’ were converting too many people! Why were people converting in the first place?!

There are in many countries of the world (including the US) areas where the police does not go or prefers not to go for all sorts of ‘crime-related’ reasons. So the Indian example proves nothing. And not least because there are many Hindu-majority areas where the police also does not go in various parts of the country. And it’s not just about religion. There is an entire Naxalite ‘corridor’ existing all the way from Nepal to Andhra! Few policemen wish to go into any area of this corridor.

As for living outside the state how do you know what happens in those so called Muslim areas? Have you been there? Clearly not since ‘no one’ goes there! The media isn’t reliable either. So how do you know what goes on there?!

satyam 28 September 2007
02:29:47 pm

“this is a never ending discussion, let’s just say that Hindus are taught to put the country before religion.”

What national interest was being served at Ayodhya?!

Rocky 28 September 2007
02:30:00 pm

Netagana! LOL !!!

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:30:40 pm

Re: “Isnt it surprising that in most of the muslim areas one donot find a Single hindu douse…”

This is completely untrue, and a sweeping generalization. In any event, one must account for the fact that the Muslim-majority mohallas are likely the poorer areas, and you won’t be seeing wealthy Muslims clamoring to live there (under ordinary circumstances), they will want to live in affluent neighborhoods.

aaargh…netagana strikes again! F***

Rocky 28 September 2007
02:30:42 pm

What national interest was being served at Ayodhya?!

National Pride !!!

Ravi 28 September 2007
02:31:12 pm

Q bhai that is why I did not want to comment earlier. When we start talking on this subject , it is a Pandora’s box being opened and we don’t know what will come out and where it will lead to.

By, the way Satyam who said Brits are not the problem, they are the problem.

satyam 28 September 2007
02:32:15 pm

Incidentally I speak as someone who is not the least religious in even the loosest sense of the term, the least given to ethnic prejudice, the least given to political ‘isms’. So I am not on one side of this debate or the other.

I would support the other side as much if the debate were taking place in a reverse sense. Qalandar has already mentioned some pertinent Muslim League examples. Pakistan for example (and rather sadly) is already the kind of state that many extremists in India dream of. A state where the minorities have been pretty much ‘purged’ in every sense of the word. I would prefer India not become such a state.

satyam 28 September 2007
02:33:34 pm

Ravi: LOL! That’s at the very least an Irish position!

jeegs 28 September 2007
02:34:18 pm

i mean old Ahmedabad city and not all .

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:34:33 pm

That last comment is spot on satyam. I am very familiar with Pakistan’s history, ideology, and have visited maybe two dozen times. Thus it especially pains me when I see ideologues trying to spread the same mindset in India.

Rocky 28 September 2007
02:36:35 pm

Someone offered this theory to me longtime back and I don’t know what to make of it that- In general the people of North India are more aggresive in nature because they are the ones who have borne the brunt of all the major wars. From Babars to Brtishers to Pakis.

What is your take Ravi, Q and satyam ???

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:36:45 pm

Re: “When we start talking on this subject , it is a Pandora’s box being opened and we don’t know what will come out and where it will lead to.”

I thought the only thing that came out was my sweet disposition

Re: “By, the way Satyam who said Brits are not the problem, they are the problem.”

LOL; remember the dialog from KRANTI:

“Tum Kranti Hai.
Tum bhi Kranti Hai.
Phir tum dono kyun ladaa?”

“Ladaane waala khud ladaai ki waja pooche to is ka kya jawab?”

I sign off bhaiyyas (and one gaaru), aaj kaam pe productivity kaafi kum rahee– you can see why!]

Ravi 28 September 2007
02:37:38 pm

I would prefer India not become such a state.

Agree with that 100% , whatever my thoughts which vary with emotions, thank god we have not become that, we should be proud of that fact.

Look at Pakistan and look at us , who is better off and why? Even though I have my opinion about Indian slave mentality and bending down to foreign aggression throughout our history and not standing up to protect our heritage , but still the way we are with our faults is better than the other option that we are seeing in Pak.

Rocky 28 September 2007
02:37:47 pm

I left out jeegs, sorry for that jeegs !!!

jeegs 28 September 2007
02:40:00 pm

“A state where the minorities have been pretty much ‘purged’ in every sense of the word. I would prefer India not become such a state.”

you need to visit that state once before making a opinion on it and to see whether minorities are really being pushed back the way you are exaggerating here.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
02:40:57 pm

jeegs: the state he is referring to is Pakistan in that comment.

Ravi 28 September 2007
02:42:43 pm

In general the people of North India are more aggresive in nature because they are the ones who have borne the brunt of all the major wars. From Babars to Brtishers to Pakis.

Rocky bhai not only I believe that but also believe in my opinion that North Indians are more nationalistic(patriotic) than South Indians because for some of the very reasons that you mentioned. Compared to North India, South India was not affected as much by the different looters, killers(Mughals, British, Portugese etc). Would like to discuss more but time to play with the kids

satyam 28 September 2007
02:43:22 pm

Rocky: I have never bought any such generalization. You should see some of disputes on the Cauvery waters between TN and Karanataka!

satyam 28 September 2007
02:44:43 pm

qalandar: LOL! My anti-colonialism is wholly satisfied with a viewing of Kranti. Or Mard!

Rocky 28 September 2007
02:46:47 pm

Ravi, lucky you, hum to abhi tak office mein hain, leaving in 10 minutes though.

Apni beti keee ek muskaan sari thakaan bhula deti hai !! LOL
Munshi ji yeh to sher ho gaya !!!LOL

jeegs 28 September 2007
02:48:25 pm

“jeegs: the state he is referring to is Pakistan in that comment”

oh thanx Qalandhar i thought it was Gujarat.

Ravi 28 September 2007
03:08:02 pm

Rocky bhai, Sharaabi had some of the best dialogues and one of the best one man show in the history of Indian cinema, no one could have carried that off. Vintage Bachchan.

flora 28 September 2007
03:11:20 pm

this topic has got into the top 10 comments range

flora 28 September 2007
03:12:23 pm

as for me i find it very amusing that these film makers are fighting like kinder garden students.this is my candy and it is better than yours.very good fun.

flora 28 September 2007
03:13:45 pm

although i dont have much knowledge but i know that vvc much more respected and has more movies under his belt than sajid but keep going you boys.

flora 28 September 2007
03:15:23 pm

and all this shows that these big filmstars are also human beings and that the heart always remains young as said in many movies.sometimes it remains as young as 10 years olds

rks 28 September 2007
03:15:37 pm

AMitabh Bachchan

Pranav 28 September 2007
03:18:51 pm

After all this netagana I still stand by my stance that those haven’t lived in Gujrat and are just going by media reports do not have the whole picture. Someone like Jeegs who is currently living in Ah’d and is seeing things first hand has more credence.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
03:19:45 pm

Re: “They openly flaunt Pakistan’s flag.”

This just occurred to me, and apologies if this is a dumb question: when you say Pakistan’s flag are you referring to the actual Pakistani flag, or to the green flag with star and crescent? The latter has nothing to do with Pakistan, and predates Pakistan by centuries– it’s commonly seen in and around dargahs, mosques, etc. Ulta, it’s the Pakistani flag that is modeled on this and NOT the other way around (the difference is that the Pakistani flag has a vertical white strip on the left). The green flag with star and crescent is basically the Muslim equivalent of the saffron flag that one sees in/around temples. Just want to make sure we are in fact talking about the Pakistani flag and not the traditional flag/banner that has nothing to do with it (I’ve never seen the Pakistani flag anywhere in Hyderabad, Bhopal, Delhi or Ajmer, although have seen the traditional green banner in all those places)…

Aside: mujhe to ye soch ke dar lag raha hai ke Ravibhai aur Rockybhai ki betiyan hum sab NGites ko kitni gaaliyan dengi…

flora 28 September 2007
03:20:36 pm

and all this only happens in india,it happens only in india,loose jury,then all people questioning the chosen movie,if oscar comes to know of all this confusion then they may just remove eklavya for good.

rajen 28 September 2007
03:33:02 pm

Great discussion ,guys.Hadt o come ot of my self-imposed exile to acknowledge it.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
03:34:57 pm

If this is what it takes to get you out of your exile, lagta hai mujhe aur rks ko aur political topics cherne padenge…

rks 28 September 2007
04:04:34 pm

Rajen:”Hadt o come ot of my self-imposed exile to acknowledge it.”
Good to see your comment.

rks 28 September 2007
04:41:22 pm

Eklavya: A bad choice for Oscars?

But there is nevertheless a feeling that this year’s selection isn’t Oscar-worthy.

Last year it was Rang De Basanti ; the year before it was Paheli ; this year, India’s official entry to the Oscars for the Best Foreign Film is Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s Eklavya. But the response to the film’s selection by the Film Federation of India (FFI) has been varied from congratulatory (It’s superbly shot. Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s a visionary filmmaker Karan Johar) to lukewarm (I don’t think Eklavya is an exceptional film Farah Khan) to vitriolic (The FFI is embarrassing not just the film industry but also the whole country Bhavna Talwar).

Granted, much of the opposition has come from Bhavna Talwar whose own film, Dharm, about the relationship between a Brahmin priest and a four-year-old child, was a strong contender. But there is nevertheless a feeling that this year’s selection isn’t Oscar-worthy.

According to reports, FFI jury member and director Sudhir Mishra defended Eklavya’s selection by calling it a technically impeccable and very Indian work. He also cited the film’s length (105 minutes) as a factor in its selection. But Lagaan, India’s last nomination, was over three hours long. So what qualifies a film for the Oscars?

There are several criteria (see box) given to the FFI by the Motion Picture Association of America to determine India’s annual selection, says FFI chaiman Vinod Pandey. But he was not pleased with the choice of film because he felt that a much better one was overlooked.

It was a shock to me that Dharm, a competent, poignant and relevant film, didn’t make it. Dharm was technically brilliant, outstanding in terms of photography, sound design, art design and had nuanced performances. The only thing it did not have were superstars, he says.

Pandey goes on to list other recent films that didn’t make the cut though they were popular choices. Many wondered by Paheli was selected as the Oscar entry in 2005 over critically acclaimed films such as Black, Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi and Parineeta.

We had to eliminate Black and Hazaaron… because more than 70 per cent of the dialogue was in English. Parineeta was such a beautifully made film, but the climax was so disappointing, he explains. And with these films out of the way, Paheli was left, but it was not without merit, he says: It was very ingrained in Indian culture, had wonderful design, beautiful photography and authentic locations.

But director Mahesh Dattani, who also entered his film Morning Raga in 2005 for several categories, including screenplay, direction and music, feels that the Indian selection process is not above board. Since my film was in English and was released in the US, I could enter it directly.

Once your film meets all the criteria, it’s just a matter of filling up a one-page form. But I get the feeling that when you apply from here, there’s a lot of bureaucracy and it depends on how well one is connected, he says.

However, scriptwriter Atul Tiwari says there’s a very simple way to ensure that the best film gets selected.
Whichever film wins the National Award should be sent to the Oscars. That way, even films made in languages other than Hindi have a chance to make it as an Oscar entry. Then it doesn’t matter whether the film is critically or commercially acclaimed, he says.

Ravi 28 September 2007
05:06:53 pm

I was wondering where you were Rajen, nice to hear from you.

rajen 28 September 2007
05:13:40 pm

Q,RKS,Ravi-Appreciate the sentiments.

However ELVIS has left the building.Tho his spirit stiil lurks.

som 28 September 2007
08:26:15 pm

“People here talk about the Riots but what was responsible nobody talks about it . 56 Hindus (actually Ram sevaks going to Ayodhya were burnt in a train . It was bound to evoke hatred among people in a state thats prone to riots .”

Jeegs, I don’t know this is indeed true or not. The extremely popular and credible newspaper of India “The Hindu” had reported that it was first started by the Karsevaks when some of them tried to molest a Muslim girl at the station who was selling tea. This incident angered all the Muslim vendors and they started throwing stones at the Karsevaks. This resulted in retaliation from the Karsevaks and what happened after that was a sequence of unwanted, tragic events resulting out of extreme anger and hatred from both sides.

Keeping aside who was responsible for this communal riot and who not, the larger issue here is what was the Government doing to stop the riot? Did it take any stern actions against those who went on killing those innocent people who had no role to play in that Godhra carnage? Who gave this bloody Modi led government to take sides and directed the VHP officials and the police men to go on a rampage? Is it what you are supposed to do as the CM of a state? Who the fuck gave you the license to kill innocent people, make sexual assaults and destroy the houses and shops of the people from the minority community? As Satyam rightly stated, it was just not a riot, it was a state sponsored genocide. If this is indeed your responsibilities as the CM of a state and and what or how you are gonna react in these extremely sensitive situations, I can very much imagine how the minorities must be feeling within under your rule. I feel sorry for them who have no way but to live under insecurity and constant threats , resulting out of the communal feelings and hatred spread by the Government itself.

rks 28 September 2007
08:50:26 pm

We let this this be movie related thread. I love discussing politics but I don’t think we can win brownie points discussing Godhra and Gujrat pogrom.

As Ravi noted “When we start talking on this subject , it is a Pandora’s box being opened and we don’t know what will come out and where it will lead to.”
Religion is a touchy subject and probably requires more matureness from us.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
08:58:33 pm

I don’t think discussing the Gujarat pogrom or any other pogrom is about religion at all: it’s about politics, i.e. a specific ideological orientation (e.g. if someone says he is against Al Qaida I don’t think of that person as “anti-Islam”; or if someone says he is against VHP that doesn’t mean he is anti-Hindu; just because the VHP or XYZ claim to speak for all Hindus and Muslims doesn’t make it so, in fact we should resist this tendency, otherwise we will be playing into their hands).

That being said, I am inclined to agree with rks that while this has been a fruitful discussion on many levels (thanks to all for making it so), it has probably run its course (on a personal note, I always feel weird when non-filmi discussions make it to allstars; we have a cricket and a politics thread now on it )…

…and in any event rks has more important things to do this weekend: like watch Hyderabad Nawabs…

satyam 28 September 2007
09:34:45 pm

“However ELVIS has left the building.Tho his spirit stiil lurks.”

LOL Rajen! Let’s hope for more Elvis sightings!

Ravi 28 September 2007
10:04:57 pm

Anything that I missed Rajen? for you to have left thee building, I miss your comments. Yours and Shettybhai’s comments are what attract me towards NG, miss you terribly please do come back, humble request.

Make some time for us in NG Rajen bhai.

Ravi 28 September 2007
10:07:42 pm

Jeegs, I don’t know this is indeed true or not. The extremely popular and credible newspaper of India “The Hindu” had reported that it was first started by the Karsevaks when some of them tried to molest a Muslim girl at the station who was selling tea. This incident angered all the Muslim vendors and they started throwing stones at the Karsevaks. This resulted in retaliation from the Karsevaks and what happened after that was a sequence of unwanted, tragic events resulting out of extreme anger and hatred from both sides.

Som, I pride myself in being current and top of the news, this is the first I have heard of this being started the way you are saying, I don’t think so butt maybe I am wrong, but what happened initially and eventually were not justified and definitely unpardonable.

Pranav 28 September 2007
10:18:09 pm

@Som: one more ignorant individual mouthing off with the f word generously sprinkled inbetween. shut your trap if you know anything better.

satyam 28 September 2007
10:25:49 pm

I have also never heard that story Som is referring to.

som 28 September 2007
10:33:02 pm

satyam and ravi: i have read this story notonly in hindu butalso in india today.i cant put that up here as it was long back.i can definitely put the references that have been made here in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning

som 28 September 2007
10:37:31 pm

@Som: one more ignorant individual mouthing off with the f word generously sprinkled inbetween. shut your trap if you know anything better.

pranav: i know exactly what i m saying. i just dont believe in speaking something which i m not sure of.i have read that incident being reported in hindu and india today , which u may not be aware of.anyways u better mind ur own business and let me share my opinion.

satyam 28 September 2007
10:38:39 pm

“…but what happened initially and eventually were not justified and definitely unpardonable.”

That’s well said Ravi. My simple point through all of this has just been that no matter what the grievance certain kinds of violence is not justifiable. Is it a human reaction to do this sort of thing out of religious fanaticism or by way of a political program or what have you? Or because one simply wants to ‘avenge’ something? Yes of course. But not all human reactions are justifiable. A few NG members might feel like killing me based on some of my movie comments. Hopefully they won’t actually do so (though I don’t take this for granted!).

This is not to turn all ‘Gandhian’ about it! But the calculus of human loss cannot simply be converted into an ‘economic’ language where someone does something to one community and the latter then decides it has the authority to respond any which way it can.

In other words it’s never ‘ok’ to indulge in mass killing. Moreover it’s never ‘ok’ to kill in the most barbaric ways imaginable. It’s not ‘ok’ to use rape as an instrument of ‘war’ or ‘revenge’. It’s not ‘ok’ to dispossess entire communities of people of their homes and what not.

There seem to be two responses through this thread. One suggests that it’s ‘ok’ to do this because something else happened. The other is to deny everything and suggest it’s all a vast and nefarious conspiracy to defame ‘honest’ folks. Every genocide in modern history has used both pretexts. It is fascinating to see the extent to which from Nazi Germany to Modi’s Gujarat how for all the differences in kind and degree the language of ‘fascism’ remains the same. One could simply change the ‘names’ and the same statements could come out of the mouth of Nazis or Modi’s cohorts.

Incidentally this is not to castigate the BJP in toto. There is always a sensible right wing politics. But Modi is the right wing on testosterone! Much as the excesses of the left have also yielded some of the greatest human massacres in modern history. To castigate such excessive violence, to be revolted by it, is not at all to attack everyone on the right or the left, as the case might be.

All right wingers need not be like Hitler, all left wingers need not be like Stalin! That’s essentially the point here.

som 28 September 2007
10:42:18 pm

anyways i would try to find out that old edition of indiatoday and scan those things and put it here.

beldevere 28 September 2007
10:45:36 pm

>Incidentally this is not to castigate the BJP in toto. There is always a sensible right wing politics. But Modi is the right wing on testosterone!

very very well stated Satyam. One couldnt have described it better.

I think the Congress in many ways is responsible too. By following minority appeasement policies and treating minorities as a vote bank, they set this up. I know lot of people who dont necessarily have anything against minorities but are mad with the special attention to minorities. In a way, I think the Congress hurt the minorities more than helping them.

satyam 28 September 2007
10:46:02 pm

Som: I am not disputing what you said. I just wasn’t aware of it. As I started off by saying the whole Godhra episode is very murky and shrouded in mystery. The fact is that it’s not the media saying this. The Modi government has itself not been able to produce incontrovertible evidence. All the more surprising given how easy it is to manufacture evidence in India! In other words the idea that the train was torched by the minority community is not at all established fact the way it is factual that the mosque at Ayodhya was stormed by VHP or RSS types.

Incidentally democracy is at least as much about the protection of civil liberties (specially when it comes to minorities) as much as it is about ‘majority rule’ in good faith. And if there are people in a minority community that commit all sorts of disgusting violence this is not an excuse to launch genocide on that community. Following that example all Indians and Pakistanis would have been gunned down on the streets of NY or Washington after 9/11 (Americans cannot differentiate between Sikhs and Arabs! nor differentiate between Middle Eastern and subcontinental skin tones!).

satyam 28 September 2007
10:47:33 pm

Beldevere: In this context I also mentioned the Congress violence against Sikhs after the PM’s assassination in ‘84. This was another pogrom and the Congress committing it was equally if not more disgusting.

satyam 28 September 2007
10:50:04 pm

And I incidentally have friends on the right who are sensible and friends on the left who are also sensible. I might disagree with the politics of each side from time to time but I know that we won’t be killing each other over our differences.

satyam 28 September 2007
10:57:02 pm

“Rocky bhai not only I believe that but also believe in my opinion that North Indians are more nationalistic(patriotic) than South Indians because for some of the very reasons that you mentioned. Compared to North India, South India was not affected as much by the different looters, killers(Mughals, British, Portugese etc).”

The South Indians would say that the Northern ‘Aryans’ were the first looters of the subcontinent!

There is actually a rather strong theory that suggests that to the extent that there was an ‘original’ group of people in the subcontinent (which means as far as the historical record exists!) this group was ‘Dravidian’. Incidentally Brahlvi, a language spoken in Balochistan in Pakistan, is actually linked to Southern Indian languages like tamil, Telugu, Malayalam. Go figure!

Leaving aside the linguistic history the ‘Vedic’ eruption in Indian history is itself along the lines of these later invasions/conquests. So the South Indian is a bit more nonchalant about these things. By the way the South has been as influenced by colonial politics as any other part of the country. In fact Madras (Chennai) was a presidency town under the British much like Calcutta and Bombay. Similarly the South is no stranger to French and Portuguese colonialism. But yes the South has had far less of marauding Muslim conquerors.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
11:00:50 pm

The whole point of “vote bank politics” of the sort the Congress has historically practiced with respect to Muslim Indians is to create a “captive” vote bank. States very crudely (and with some hyperbole), in the 1970s and 1980s it became a question of telling Muslims “you know what would happen to you if we weren’t ‘protecting’ you”, and equally of telling Hindus “you know what ‘they’ would do if we weren’t ‘protecting’ you” — i.e. the Congress under Indira Gandhi and after played the very dangerous game of BOTH “minority appeasement” as well as “soft Hindutva”, particularly in the North. Over time it has paid the price for attempting to balance on both stools, and has lost one set of votes to the BSP/Samajwadi/RJD and the other to the BJP, resulting in its current pathetic state in U.P. and Bihar. They got what was coming to them.

The point of “appeasement” is in fact to manufacture a “captive” vote bank — and if the vote bank becomes too successful, prosperous, etc., then there is no need for the “protector.” In this way in the Northern states the Congress made the Muslim Indian a “client of the state” rather than the “full citizen”. This position was hardly very beneficial to the Muslim Indian, even as it exposed him/her to resentment from others.

For these and other reasons, despite all the corruption, goondagardi, what-have-you, the splintering of the Congress “base” in the North, and the migration of Muslim Indian votes in the North to parties other than the Congress, is IMO on balance a positive development. For the first time, the Muslim Indian community is being represented in politics not by clerics or by pro-Congress aristocrats (the Congress system helped perpetuate the fallacy that the only “natural leaders” for Muslims could be religious authorities, OR cultural authorities) but by the same goondas, gangsters, thugs, and occasional decent person, that represents every other community in India. This “criminalization” of politics is lamentable, but let us recognize that it has also led to somewhat more “secularization” of politics — gone are the days when Muslim voters used to vote (as was rumored) where clerics told them to vote. Heck in the last national elections most of the major religious authorities urged the faithful to vote for the NDA: the election returns told a different tale. And no amount of clerical endorsements in the SP’s favor could stop the BSP siphoning enough votes away.

Finally, this development has also led for the first time to power perceptibly shifting away from the Salman Khurshids of the world (i.e. aristocratic types) in favor of folks culturally more representative of “ordinary” Muslim Indians. Also a welcome development IMO.

Qalandar 28 September 2007
11:10:58 pm

RE: “But yes the South has had far less of marauding Muslim conquerors.”

In general this might be true, but we cannot forget one HUGE exception, the very very long series of wars between Vijaynagar and the Deccan Sultanates, which got bloodier and bloodier (numerous instances of mosque and temple destruction scar this history; and no scars of course ought to be greater than the killings) culminating in the complete and utter destruction of Vijaynagar, by any yardstick and by common consent one of the “peaks” of Indian civilization.

Leaving aside Hindu-Muslim conflict, “the South” — not the deep deep South, but certainly much of what is today Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka — has long faced the wrath of imperial expansionists centered in the North (not because it was the South or anything like that of course; my point is to highlight the number of wars the South has also been witness to). Certainly Hyderabadis remember the wars between the Mughals and the Quli Qutb Shah dynasty, especially once Aurangzeb assumed the throne, and determined to root out what he saw as the decadence and heterodoxy of the Muslim rulers of the Quli Qutb Shah dynasty. At Golconda fort you can even today see the well where legend has it the Quli Qutb Shah women threw themselves to avoid being captured by Aurangzeb’s forces…

Aside: Ibrahim Quli Qutb Shah (the second or third ruler of this dynasty) was one of the earliest written poets in Telugu, and at a time when most “high literature” was not done in “vernacular” languages.

I have a great weakness for the Quli Qutb Shah style of architecture I must say…

jeegs 29 September 2007
12:37:40 am

som sorry that news is not at all true and i am hearing that for first time and believe me i have heard hundred of stories about it.

Also for people feeling pity for the minorities in Gujarat Why the hell the same minorities are giving 80% vote to the same Modi govt . who is harrassing them or why the hell no major incident against minority has happened after 2002 or if modi is so much good in giving hindutva agenda why is VHP not supporting Modi ??

People questioning riots and Govt. took no step well most of the incidents in the riots occurred in first two days and it was so widespread the state police was not able to control it . One cannot understand public Anger by seeing it on Tv or in films it has to be seen live to really understand it . When 100s of people are coming out in each area it becomes nearly impossible for polioce to control it . LEt alone Gujarat i dont think so any state has been able to control public Anger anytime so why curse only the Gujarat Govt.

As for Modi Govt. Functioning well i dont think so there is any state in country where police would come at your house in 5 min. of calling 100 or where women could go out freely at 2 am in night or who is been considered best Govt. by the same centre or Say Sonia Gandhi who can be considered one of the biggest person of anti-modi Lobby.

Its too easy to type here and say Govt. should have taken this and that step then to actually implement it and where own donot know which area to get under control first.

Again i am not justifying riots here but i firmly believe it was due to public Anger and not Govt. Propoganda.

Tango 29 September 2007
12:45:09 am

Rocky how many freedom fighters came from South India? Any Laxmi Bai , Bhagat Singhs down there

The only thing I remember is about Tipu Sultan fighting the Britts?

Aarohi 29 September 2007
12:52:02 am

@Som: I have also read what you are saying here in India Today. And needless to add India Today (at that point of time) is to BJP what Outlook is to Congress.

Aarohi 29 September 2007
01:03:47 am

jeegs: Soon after the Godhra incident Modi gave the infamous “Expression of Anger” statement. If you are even pretending to be serious with your duties, you won’t do that. And, even if what you are saying is true Modi should have been sacked for incompetence.

som 29 September 2007
01:05:50 am

“Again i am not justifying riots here but i firmly believe it was due to public Anger and not Govt. Propoganda.”

jeegs : u may think like that.but i firmly stand by my earlier comments that it was a big failure on the part of the government which did not react quickly enough , instead of they supported the riot to quite an extent.

jeegs 29 September 2007
01:12:39 am

“even if what you are saying is true Modi should have been sacked for incompetence.”

Why should he be if Public elected him back with more than 2/3rd majority.

Again it doesnot matter what people in other states think about Modi the guy is a Gujarat Cm and he needs to care only about what people in Gujarat thinks about him.

sandy 29 September 2007
02:25:14 am

“Rocky how many freedom fighters came from South India? Any Laxmi Bai , Bhagat Singhs down there
The only thing I remember is about Tipu Sultan fighting the Britts?”

Tango: If I’m not totally off the mark, the southern states did not resist the British as much as some of the Northern states. Although the Gandhi wave swept right till the end of Kanyakumari.

But this situation should not be ‘mis-read’ as lack of nationalistic fervour among Southerners because the scenario was and is far more complex than it appears.
The idea of being one single India had other more dangerous implications for the Southern states, given that the power equations clearly favoured the Hindi speaking states. And history proves that their fears were not entirely unfounded, given how the South is still treated like a pariah.
This ‘Hindi’ issue ofcourse snowballed into a major crisis post independence.

I feel a contextual study is very essential before one makes sweeping statements of this kind.

Tuenkens 29 September 2007
03:36:32 am

jeegs: Good administration is very important, but the importance of protecting the societal texture cannot be undermined. Zia-Ul-Haq by most accounts must have been a very good administrator. Pakistan was doing very well under his rule, infrastructure was much better than India’s, in fact on most economic parameters India was lagging behind. But much of what is going wrong today in Pakistan can be traced back to him and his rule. And I am sure he might even won a few elections if he held them.

Ravi 29 September 2007
03:37:09 am

Satyam, I am one of those people that do not believe in the Aryan theory, it was something that has been fabricated by the western(white) people who are the history writers to once again show that Aryans are a dominating race who came to poor and downtrodden India and by staying and mingling with the people there made India a superior country at that time with development much greater than the rest of the world.

And a pity at least when I was studying in school in India the history was told to us based on what we were told by the westerners or foreigners rather than what we ourselves think it is.

HAL 29 September 2007
03:45:02 am

“the southern states did not resist the British as much as some of the Northern states.”

Agreed. But there was resistance much before Gandhi started the nation wide movement.

“Although the Gandhi wave swept right till the end of Kanyakumari.”

Yes. But there were leaders like V.O.Chidambaram, Subramanya Bharathi, and Subramanya Siva who were actively and vigorously involved in Freedom movement years before that!

Ravi 29 September 2007
03:47:55 am

Sandy, agree with you 100% , even though I agree a lot with the question that Rocky bhai asked me, it is a fact that as a rule till very recently(I don’t know about now) but people from the North had a general poor perception or rather looked down upon the people of the south, till NTR came into power in the 80’s the entire South was considered Madras and people did not even care if you told them that you were from AP or Karnataka or Kerala , they thought it was one whole thing down there called Madras and did not even think it worth enough to know the geography of their own country.

Also, the stereotype in hindi movies of a south indian was always a madrasi with a lungi etc(Mehmood) and being a joker or something inferior of the sort, I would like to believe that things have changed since the 90’s with the South Indian states with cities like Blore, Chennai and Hbad leading India in the revival of our past glory and showing what India can be and showing that these are the cities and the States that rest of India needs to model itself after.

But, generally before as till the later part of Mughal empire and for some time in the British rule as the south wass not touched or pillaged the same way that the North was the fervor or nationalism about the country did not exist as much even though by the 1900’s there were so many from the South who were involve in the freedom fight with Gandhi and even Bose.

Also, Aurangzeb the most hated of the Mughals(history wise as well as personally for me ) was supposed to have enquired every day as to how many of the hindus were killed etc before he would have a contended sleep.

HAL 29 September 2007
03:48:23 am

“But this situation should not be ‘mis-read’ as lack of nationalistic fervour among Southerners because the scenario was and is far more complex than it appears.
The idea of being one single India had other more dangerous implications for the Southern states, given that the power equations clearly favoured the Hindi speaking states. And history proves that their fears were not entirely unfounded, given how the South is still treated like a pariah.
This ‘Hindi’ issue ofcourse snowballed into a major crisis post independence.”

This is not unacceptable. Actually, this “was” the notion back then and then the ‘dravidian’ movement etc…

Ravi 29 September 2007
04:03:14 am

Satyam “In other words it’s never ‘ok’ to indulge in mass killing. Moreover it’s never ‘ok’ to kill in the most barbaric ways imaginable. It’s not ‘ok’ to use rape as an instrument of ‘war’ or ‘revenge’. It’s not ‘ok’ to dispossess entire communities of people of their homes and what not.”

Agree with you 100% here Satyam, but unfortunately over the course of the history of the world, this was what the conquering forces did to the conquered people , after a victory the marauding forces used to pillage and plunder everything including and specifically women as they thought the women were the spoils of winning the war and it is unfortunate that even now that is what is being done in lots of parts of the world(like for ex Gujarat riot,Africa ethnic cleansing, Bosnia , Serbia etc) where people show of the acts of revenge or superiority on women. This has been done throughout the history and women have suffered for ever and just a pity to see them go through this even in this modern world where it is a accepted fact that women are equal to (and in my personal opinion better than men) in every possible way.

Women according to me are gods gifts to men , they are something that need to be looked at appreciated and commented(in a complimentary not derogatory way) , by their nature and hearts the majority of women are lot nicer than us and I have learned this first hand from 14 years marriage with the person I love the most in the world, I was brash and arrogant before my marriage(I may be still now) but I have mellowed and been able to understand what beautiful people women are and that they need to be cherished and worshipped(not literally) and not be abused or looked down upon.

That is a major grouse I have against India , we have a culture that supposedly tells us that Women need to be respected and looked up to and every turn they have to look to make sure that they are not taken advantage of physically or mentally(they are very susceptible to this) like Gandhi said till a women is able to walk alone in the middle of the night safely that is when India would have achieved it’s true independence.

Tuenkens 29 September 2007
04:28:11 am

Ravi: About generalizations, isn’t that the case throughout the country? Aren’t people from UP and Bihar clubbed as Bhaiyas, aren’t those from North East all clubbed as chinks? I, a Hindu Punjabi, have been asked endless number of times why don’t I wear a turban?! Don’t we all laugh at and enjoy Surdi jokes? I really don’t think people from the southern states get it much worse than most from any other part of the country. Much of it is I agree with ignorance, but none of which I believe is thinking inferior of any region. This comes with the territory of living in such a diverse country. But we are a very young country, and things will definitely improve as we grow and learn more about ourselves. And you yourself have noted things are not what they used to be.

Tango 29 September 2007
06:17:43 am

Sandy ji I asked the question only because someone put that question to me so I was just curious to know. And because I don’t consider myself Mr. Know all that is why I asked the members.

Thanks for your responce.

Aarohi 29 September 2007
06:59:17 am

Garee with Tuenkens. Generalization is a universal phenomenon not limited to any particular region. And having lived in southern part of India for a long time I can tell you that from first hand experience.

Aarohi 29 September 2007
07:00:16 am

oops ‘Garee’ should have been ‘Agree’

satyam 29 September 2007
08:32:26 am

Qalandar: Thanks for correcting my statement on the South with respect to Muslim conquerors. Quite right on all counts.

satyam 29 September 2007
08:59:43 am

Ravi: Here’s the problem with rejecting the idea that was a foreign influence in India in so called Vedic times. The linguistic history is too precise and cannot be brushed away. For one there is no ‘white’ agenda here since the same ‘mythologized’ (to some degree) Indo-Europeans who went as far as India also populated large parts of Europe. The Indo-European family of language links languages like Greek, the Romance languages of French, Italian, Spanish, portugues and so on by way of Latin, the Germanic languages (which includes English), The Slavic languages (including Russian), and a few others. A few important branch of this family tree called the Indo-Iranian one links Sanskrit and Old persian and puts both in the same family. if you looked at Sanskrit vocabulary and old Persian vocabulary it is striking close. These languages were once sister languages almost like Spanish and Portuguese today. Now most of the principal Indian languages are linked to or derived from Sanskrit — Hindi, Urdu (the separation between the two is itself more of a political matter for all sorts of reasons), Marathi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Bengali and so on. Even today a study of the vocabulary will reveal obvious correspondences between all languages of this entire group (Indo-European).

Whether the Indo-Europeans emerged from the Russian steppes or Asia Minor (modern Turkey) or elsewhere the family tree reveals a very important history. there is a definite linkage. Linguistics is a science and the evidence cannot be denied.

Now to get to the rest of this. The Southern languages belong to an entirely different ‘Dravidian’ group of languages. Tamil, Malayalam (these two are in fact truly sister language), Telugu (belongs to a different branch of this family) and so on. Nowhere in the Indian subcontinent does one find a language linked to this group except for far flung Balochistan in Pakistan. How is that possible? There are only two ways. Either a group of people migrates from the South to Balochistan at some point in history or the entire subcontinent was once populated with so called ‘Dravidians’ with their languages, which Dravidians were pushed back because of so called ‘Indo-European’ invasions and were at the same time absorbed into the fold in the North and elsewhere.

I suspect a genetic study of Indian ‘ethnicity’ in this sense would yield results as startling as elsewhere in the world. For example the Portuguese were a few years ago shocked to discovered that they had enormous admixtures of ‘Arab blood’, far more than they’d ever dreamed of. The traces of history can be determined many different ways!

Again Vedic mythology is strikingly similar to some other Indo-European mythologies. In any case whether one accepts one specific theory here or not the overwhelming linguistic evidence does not suggest an indigenous Indic deal! Of course many right wing extremists advance the view that things perhaps originated in India and then these people spread all over the globe. There are two interesting things about this. In a tacit way even these folks have to accept that the linguistic history means something. They simply reverse the model! Of course no other scholar accepts the latter. But let’s assume it is true. How can they in good faith then accuse Muslims of being conquerors and maruaders when they (in their own version of the history) supposedly conquered other parts of the world?! In other words if the Indo-Europeans arose in India and went all over Europe how can their modern Indian descendants complain that the ‘Muslims’ did the same?!

Of course to begin with the idea that a group of people occupied a piece of land since the beginning of time is an old nationalistic myth and for obvious reasons never a provable one! But the dirty secret here is that for those who would prefer to believe in such a version of events it’s far easier to surmise that the Dravidians have been there for ever rather than the ‘North Indians’!

One last point on all of this. There is no such thing as ‘Muslim’ conqueror. Much as there is no such thing as a ‘Christian’ conqueror. The differences between a Mahmud of Ghazni and an Akbar are so immense that it is not even useful to talk of them as ‘Muslims’ in the same vein. Much as it is not useful to lump ‘Babar’ and ‘Aurangzeb’ together. It is unfortunate that the right wing discourse in India has accepted the ‘Islamist’ version of events in this sense. There are many ‘Islamists’ who like to begin their history with the advent of Islam in Arabia! This is a tendency all too common in Pakistan for example. But there is not history of France or Germany or England that begins with a history of Christianity!

The irony here is that the word ‘Hindu’ does not occur anywhere in the Vedas or the canonical Sanskrit texts that followed. It most likely owes its provenance to a Greek terminology! Some people even suggest a Muslim ‘naming’ here.

rks 29 September 2007
11:54:58 am

Q:”in any event rks has more important things to do this weekend: like watch Hyderabad Nawabs”

I am trying to find…
my fingers are itching to type as u guys are talking politics..

satyam 29 September 2007
12:58:42 pm

Yeah Hyderabad Nawabs is a fun deal!

Sunny 1 October 2007
02:30:35 am

wow!..what the hell happened here? This beats Johny Gaddar’s script in meandering..lol

On to a serious note and getting back to point–
Satyam–” very bluntly, if one cannot appreciate the achievements of Mouna Raagam, Nayagan, Thalapathy, Alaipayuthey, Iruvar, Kannathil Muthamittal, Yuva/Ayudha Ezhuthu (this is a double film really) and some others I would respectfully suggest that the problem lies with oneself not with the cinema”

That’s what Sandy, I and quite a few others feel about your views on CDI….very bluntly. The problem lies with oneself, not with the cinema

Sunny 1 October 2007
03:46:48 am

“Re: “The united states/provinces and India before states was Vallabh Bhai Patel’s brainchild.”

This is incorrect. More accurately, Nehru, patel (and virtually all of the maisntream nationalist politicians) were agreed on this, and it’s quite remarkable to give Patel the sole credit for it, especially given that as a polity contemporary India bears the mark of Nehru more than of any other single person, be it Gandhi or Patel.”

That’s correct Qalandar, but where did I give the sole credit to Patel mere bhai? I was only correcting abzee with his Nehruvian stuff regarding CDI. I only said it was his BRAINCHILD, and that it was. Agreeing with someone for disliking CDI is ok, siding with VVC is also ok, criticising Sajid for CDI!! propaganda(supposedly) is also ok…but taking your fellow members’ statements out of context everytime to justify your agreement with someone you share views with.. is not ok

Rocky 1 October 2007
12:49:36 pm

when you say Pakistan’s flag are you referring to the actual Pakistani flag, or to the green flag with star and crescent?

Q- I mean Pakistan’s Flag with the posters of Pakistan’s leaders. Jinnah etc.

Rocky 1 October 2007
12:57:44 pm

Another one of Satyam’s contradiction- he would yell at people who compare Kashmir and Gujrat, or Godhra and what follwed.
Thtat one wrong does not make another right, Fine I agree …

Yet- as soon as I bring in the mushrooming of Madarsas, Satyam immediately brings up right wing hindu schools.

I mean commeon ….

satyam 1 October 2007
02:37:56 pm

Sunny: except that I’ve made a case for CDI not being upto the mark. I have to date not been rebutted on this in a serious way. Barring some fine comments by Qalandar.

On Rathnam I have again explained myself hundreds of times.

satyam 1 October 2007
02:39:01 pm

And of course one could clone my Rathnam comment and say the same about Partner I suppose, let alone CDI. It’s not a free for all you know!

satyam 1 October 2007
02:49:28 pm

Rocky: I have actually never yelled at people comparing Godhra with kashmir. In fact I agreed completely with Qalandar on his point.

On the point of schools I am unsure what the difference is. Madrasas and Hindutva schools are both mushrooming in India. I personally find it debatable whether the rate of the former matches that of the latter in India. Of course Pakistan more than makes up for this!

But what’s the difference? Indian madrasas to my knowledge have not contributed to ‘Islamist’ terrorism in any significant sense. How many Indian Muslims have been ‘terrorists’ across the globe. It’s hardly like Pakistan, much less the Middle East. Excepting Kashmir of course where it’s a different sort of issue. Not one I happen to agree with in terms of the ’cause’ but it is nonetheless a political problem. Much as the Punjab problem with all its instances of terrorism was a political one. Much as the Tamil Tigers in SL have committed the most horific acts of violence in service of a political problem. of course in all these cases the state has not been less than ‘terrorist’ either.

Similarly at these VHP/RSS schools they use Hitler-like salutes, they’re in love with those fascist doctrines and so on. I don’t see the average school of this kind as more enlightened than the average madrassa. And in the worst cases both are committed to projects of violence.

I actually see a lot of these political situations as comparable, a lot of the methods used as comparable, so on and so forth. Which is not to erase the differences. There obviously are many. But one cannot in good conscience have a problem with a madrassa and not with a Hindutva school.

By the way I also made the specific point earlier in this thread that a sensible ‘right wing’ discourse must be rescued from the loonies. The same goes for the left.

Rocky 1 October 2007
02:56:15 pm

Satyam, my comment was an extension of a comment I left on your CDI/RDB thread.
Yell may have been a strong word !!LOL

Rocky 1 October 2007
03:28:10 pm

On the point of schools I am unsure what the difference

The point was not about difference, the point was about countering the argument by saying what about this then.

when anyone points out Godhra in response to the Gujrat riots, they are told not to do that.
yet you did exactly the same thing to counter my madarsa comment.

Oh well, let’s leave this topic, before this stupid posts becomees no.1 in allstar. LOL

satyam 1 October 2007
04:40:37 pm

Rocky: But by that token if most of the media is calling something a state sponsored genocide it must be so!

But yeah I should drop it since I certainly don’t want to lose you as a friend!

rks 1 October 2007
05:33:52 pm

“But yeah I should drop it since I certainly don’t want to lose you as a friend!”

That is a good move. No one wins these arguments and ultimately hurts.

Rocky 1 October 2007
06:01:51 pm

But yeah I should drop it since I certainly don’t want to lose you as a friend!

Satyam, Likewise !!!

I have no hesitation in saying that I have learned a lot in the process of discussing these so called taboo subjects, with You and Q.

Rocky 1 October 2007
06:05:14 pm

That is a good move. No one wins these arguments and ultimately hurts.

RKS for once you make sense, without the help of Links!!!LOL , kidding sir!

Rocky 1 October 2007
06:07:36 pm

Chalo, biwi ki jhoot bola tha kee office kee zaroori mail check karni hai. got to go ..
good night!

satyam 1 October 2007
06:12:22 pm

Same here Rocky. This has been a great discussion.I think in fact that these subjects shouldn’t be taboo.

akshay shah 1 October 2007
06:42:02 pm

Another brilliant discussion, man you can miss a lot in one weekend.

Sajid Khan is a moron, always found him annoying as hell be it his stage comedy or acting, though I did enjoy his directional debut for a time-pass film.

VVC is brash, arrogant, self congratulatory, but the man knows cinema, he appreciates GOOD cinema, and his intentions are noble. I quiet liked VVC’s “pushing people down” theory he presented with his IndiaFM lash out.

Sunny 2 October 2007
11:50:38 pm

“Sunny: except that I’ve made a case for CDI not being upto the mark. I have to date not been rebutted on this in a serious way. Barring some fine comments by Qalandar.”

One can come up with a “serious” rebuttal if one CAN find a “serious” case Satyam, which, sadly, I did not. As I’ve mentioned before many times, your criticism of CDI was more on the lines of ‘what could have been’ or ‘what should have been’ rather than serious thoughts on the film at hand.

Rocky 3 October 2007
09:20:15 am

Hey RKS and Q, I had written some good things about you earlier to earn some brownie points but you guys did not even notice or may be chose to ignore. LOL!!!

Qalandar 3 October 2007
09:23:11 am

No, I must have missed them! (mein apni tareef kabhi nahin ignore karta LOL)

waise, you don’t need any more brownie points from me, aap ke liye poore tray bhar ke brownies bake kiye hain…

what thread were your comments on?

Rocky 3 October 2007
09:27:45 am

This very thread, as follows-

But yeah I should drop it since I certainly don’t want to lose you as a friend!

Satyam, Likewise !!!

I have no hesitation in saying that I have learned a lot in the process of discussing these so called taboo subjects, with You and Q.

Rocky 3 October 2007
09:29:16 am

poore tray bhar ke brownies bake kiye hain…

Biwi ne strict diet par rakha hua hai !!!!
BTW- how do you guys link your earlier comments to the current comment??

Qalandar 3 October 2007
09:41:32 am

Re: “I have no hesitation in saying that I have learned a lot in the process of discussing these so called taboo subjects, with You and Q.”

al I can say is, the feeling’s mutual!

rks 3 October 2007
10:12:52 am

Rocky:
Aapne hamari taareef ki…Hume dikhayi nahi diyaa …

Thanks…”RKS for once you make sense”

Aarkayne 3 October 2007
10:36:20 am

Here are a couple of posts on VVC(which i may have posted in the past) that goes to show some workings of his mind :

http://soniafaleiro.blogspot.com/2005/06/maximum-city-should-be-banned-vidhu.html

and then a retort to that outburst by the victim :

http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/20.....ndian.html

Rocky 3 October 2007
11:21:42 am

RKS, aapne BOI and IBOS keee tarah Puri baat nahin quote kee. LOL !!!!!

rks 3 October 2007
11:33:22 am

“aapne BOI and IBOS keee tarah Puri baat nahin quote kee”

rks 25 October 2007
02:20:37 pm

Tehelka

rediff

jeegs 25 October 2007
02:38:55 pm

rks : this is gona backfire on congress and Modi will be only laughing at such a stupid step.

the timing of this operation is so good even a mindless person would know is operation ke piche kiske hatth hai ?

BTW congress was messaging everyone since noon telling watch for the AAjtak report on Gujarat riot exposure today.

Qalandar 25 October 2007
09:10:30 pm

I have little doubt that this won’t hurt the Gujarat BJP come election time. Of course, the truth-value of the Tehelka story is a different question entirely.

Aarohi 25 October 2007
09:44:51 pm

In the short term this expose is going to benefit only one man. His name is Narendra Modi.

Arun 25 October 2007
10:32:49 pm

Some of the confessions are gut-wrenching, especially the one pertaining to Ehsaan Jaffrey’s killing

Qalandar 27 October 2007
02:46:29 pm

Hey, is it true that there is a news channel blackout in Gujarat? I read this on some website — can one of our Gujarat-based members (jeegs?) confirm? Thanks much.

abzee 27 October 2007
07:33:40 pm

Qalanadra- Yes, news channels that have been airing the Tehelka expose(i.e. CNN-IBN, NDTV, Aaj Tak, etc.) jave been blacked out in Gujarat. If this is not dictatorship, I don’t know what is. Modi’s making Thackeray look like a pioneer of free speech!

Tuenkens 27 October 2007
08:17:32 pm

I heard the channels were blocked only in Ahmedabad, on the evening of the expose. Somebody might want to correct that. I have always wondered what is it with these dictators that the subjects are so willing to be dictated? Be it Kim Jong-il in North Korea or Narendra Modi in Gujarat. It has got to be more than charisma for sure. BTW, after hearing some of the comments if so many people still feel it will in fact benefit Modi, one can only say it is a very sad comment on civil society in India. What is really astonishing is that nobody in the BJP is even refuting anything shown on the tapes.

jeegs 27 October 2007
08:25:38 pm

not all channels are blacked out but only AAj tak and IBNLIVE and its better as we are saved from some stupid hearing .

but the latest twist is the govt. advocate has filed a complaing against Dhiraj purohit( AAjtak news reporter from Ahmedabad) saying he gave him a script to say telling they are shooting for some TV episode .

as i said this will not affect Modi at all and infact it will affetc Congress( and thats why they are not going all out on this).

Whats the matter of fact here is Most of the people in Tape be Babu bajrangi or Gordan jhadapia are part of Anti-Modi group .
Also its confirmed that things like Modi went to Narodia Patia on that evening is false as he was addressng some press conference at that time (Arun Jaiotley confirmed it )

jeegs 27 October 2007
08:40:46 pm

i mean “Dhimant Purohit”

jeegs 27 October 2007
08:47:43 pm

Just to prove more Why Tehelka does all the Sting operations on Only BJP and no one does on what Sibu soren did or for that matetr what Congress is doing or if the Riots or so well planned then who burnt the ram sevaks on 27 FEB.
people are constantly talking about the 500 people dies in riots but do people even care for how 64 persons were burnt earlier day .

on the dictatorship well its better as atleast the side ministers have been stopped eating money and we get fast results for everything . Police in Gujarat is again brilliant in some problem call 100 and you get them within 5 min.

abzee 27 October 2007
08:55:43 pm

“on the dictatorship well its better as atleast the side ministers have been stopped eating money and we get fast results for everything . ”

Jeegs- At what cost has this ‘utopia’ been achieved- the massacre of innocent Muslims. And btw, it’s ironic how cretain people keep on questioning about the ram sevaks burnt and how no one cares about them. What are you trying to say here? That the riots was a reaction to it. Don’t tell me you are trying to justify the riots. I wouldn’t even call it riots…it was a state sponsored genocide.

As for the bogies that were burnt, I pray you try to find a copy of The Final Solution and/or get your hands on one of the sealed commission reports. You’ll be surprised to know what really happened on that fateful day at Godhra station.

Tuenkens 27 October 2007
09:05:47 pm

jeegs: Death of every single human being should be abhorred. But what is the sad part in these riots, as with the Sikh riots in Delhi in 1984 and to some extent in the Mumbai riots in 1992, is the collusion of the rulers or the administrators in the mass killing of people. You definitely don’t expect to be killed by the person you trust your life with. And that is when the law and order question arise. You will only abide by the order of the society if you respect the law makers and law enforcers.

jeegs 27 October 2007
09:07:15 pm

“I wouldn’t even call it riots…it was a state sponsored genocide.”

isnt it surrprising that most of the people outside Gujarat thinks same while majority in Gujarat think otherwise coz they know what happened in this days and have witnessed the situation by there own eyes

as for comissions reports and all we all know how it works in india a sibu soren and LAlu yadav gets clean cheet in this reports .

Aarohi 27 October 2007
09:19:11 pm

Death of every single human being should be abhorred. But what is the sad part in these riots, as with the Sikh riots in Delhi in 1984 and to some extent in the Mumbai riots in 1992, is the collusion of the rulers or the administrators in the mass killing of people. You definitely don’t expect to be killed by the person you trust your life with. And that is when the law and order question arise. You will only abide by the order of the society if you respect the law makers and law enforcers.

Very well said Tuenkens. This is exactly what my problem is with this issue.

I can live with “There was no state sponsored genocide”, “Media reports are exaggerated” etc. But clearly something failed miserably. Therefore if what happened did not had state support, there is a case of incompetence.

jeegs 27 October 2007
09:23:11 pm

Aarohi : which state has been able to control riots whenever that has happened ??????

it such a massive issue it becomes too difficult for control particularly when public starts beating police officials.

jeegs 27 October 2007
09:25:38 pm

or burning their vehicles .

i used to fear for them as i use to see 1000 people running with swords , hockey sticks and cricket bats against some 50-75 police officals.

som 27 October 2007
09:26:21 pm

“Death of every single human being should be abhorred. But what is the sad part in these riots, as with the Sikh riots in Delhi in 1984 and to some extent in the Mumbai riots in 1992, is the collusion of the rulers or the administrators in the mass killing of people. You definitely don’t expect to be killed by the person you trust your life with. And that is when the law and order question arise. You will only abide by the order of the society if you respect the law makers and law enforcers.”

very well said indeed.could not have agreed more.

Aarohi 27 October 2007
09:33:23 pm

Jeegs: No state has been able to control does not mean that everyone gets a license. Gujarat riots happened after the mdia boom. That’s why there is so much of focus. If media was this active in 1984, the story would have been different.
btw there are plenty of cases were CMs were removed (Sudhakar Rao Naik in 1992) or governments dismissed. There is sufficient evidence to believe that government ki marzi ke bagair ek patta bhi nahi hil sakta.

jeegs 27 October 2007
09:40:02 pm

Aarohi media was responsible a lot for the riots . if they had not shown such horrifying pics it would have not happened and also if major politicians come out and condemned the issue . all the statements came after Feb. 28 when riots started .

abzee 27 October 2007
10:08:47 pm

“media was responsible a lot for the riots . if they had not shown such horrifying pics it would have not happened ”

Oh come on. The issue here is of justifying the riots. If the media showed me pics of the people of my community, does that give me the license to go out and kill?

And Jeegs, what exactly are you implying about the commission reports? To the best of my knowledge, apart from the armed forces(and the judiciary to an extent), the commission reports in India on matters of communal riots have always been fair- be it concerning the Malegaon, Mumbai or Moradabad riots. Yes, they do take a long time, but they’ve never been swayed any which way. Why do you think otherwise? Do you have any such compelling evidence?

And even otherwise, my simple question is this- Does Modi as a CM have the right to black out the media, stop a report, ban a particular actor’s film from the state for voicing his opinion, take away Good Friday as a public holiday, etc. etc. etc.? Is he justified for being so blatantly against all but Hindus? Even if he’s eradicated corruption, nepotism, blah, blah, blah.

abzee 27 October 2007
10:11:13 pm

If the media showed me pics of the people of my community *being killed*, does that give me the license to go out and kill?

jeegs 27 October 2007
10:28:43 pm

Abzee sorry to say i dont know about other reports but report on gujarat riots are still not out . Nanavati commission is still doing work on it .

Modi has not black out the whole media itts only Aaj tak and IBNLIVe and it is done by Ahmedabad collector and he has all the rights to do it but under valid reason and EC has asked for it .

see you guys dont know the imp. of Narmada for Gujarat even normal people felt at that time no AAmir films should release in gujarat just coz he was supporting Medha Patkar . let alone other people most of the members of my family have decided not see any AAmir film after that incidence .

“If the media showed me pics of the people of my community *being killed*, does that give me the license to go out and kill?”

Abzee in normal circumstances nobody would do it but sometimes due to a incidence the communtiy gets excited and thats what happened and all the anger against Muslims for over the years came out at that time. and if you dont know Gujarat has been known for such instances much before Modi came .

before 2002 everyday something used to happen in old city of Ahmedabad .

abzee 27 October 2007
10:44:33 pm

“sometimes due to a incidence the communtiy gets excited and thats what happened and all the anger against Muslims for over the years came out at that time. and if you dont know Gujarat has been known for such instances much before Modi came . ”

This is a disturbing paragraph Jeegs. Just because such ‘incidents’ have been occuring in Gujarat, does that make Modi less guilty? And seocndly, what do you mean by ‘anger against the Muslims for over the years’? Don’t tell me that what happened at Naroda Patiya was simply a reaction to ‘anger against Muslims for over the years’. And more importantly ‘anger against Muslims’ for what?

Lastly, ‘excited’ is not the word I would associate with an irate mob given free clearance by the police.

jeegs 27 October 2007
10:59:28 pm

Abzee – i meant Gujarat has been really been very sensitive in such issues and thus when this boiges were burnt most of the people expected something like this to happen even before the bandh was declared.

see there has been many issues of violence just coz a cow was killed in Particular muslim areas and this was a case of ram sevaks being burnt alive.

Suggestions Please! 28 October 2007
04:36:28 am

[...] sun, if done properly. An attempt was done by Nithi in her post. We have fair share of political arguments. We discuss good amount of regional and international [...]

rks 28 October 2007
05:02:49 am

For Q:

Link1

rks 28 October 2007
05:18:06 am

One more Bhagalpur riots in 1989 when 1100 people were killed.

People killed in caste violence during any five year period in Bihar would be a huge number.

Simplistic Conclusion: Politicians don’t care for normal people and as a voter we don’t care for human life (indirectly). Tuenkens has summed it up very aptly.

jeegs 28 October 2007
05:41:21 am

rks as i said earlier no state has been able to control riots in any state its just that Gujarat riots has been used a lot by media .

BTW Dhimant purohit( AAJTAK reporter in Ahmedabad is under trouble )

rks 15 November 2007
05:03:16 pm

Nandigram

Rocky 26 November 2007
04:16:13 pm

Shame On CPM.
**Edited RKS – As per author’s request**
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/243066.html

Rocky 1 December 2007
08:33:40 am

Satyam,RKS, Abzee, Q, Ravi and Jeegs check out the link pasted by me on the above comment.

PS- RKS please edit out the reference to the NG members in my comment above. sometimes in the heat of the moment I tend to write somethings which I regret later.

jeegs 1 December 2007
08:46:12 am

Thanx Rocky for the link . i dont have Any idea on what happened in Nandigram or even in Taslima Nasreen case so cannot comment on what was right or wrong . BUt WB GOvt. should have def. protected her or for that matter even Rajasthan govt. telling her to go to Delhi was a shameful act .

rks 1 December 2007
05:08:41 pm

Rocky: I read all the Indian Express columns. I find them superior in terms of content than TOI or HT.

I don’t think any sane person would support what is happening with Taslima or Nandigram. Most of the political parties voice their concern only when they tend to get benefit. Be it Gujrat riots, Sikh riots, Taslima case.

I like the suggestion made by PV Inderisan here for voting.

Rocky 1 December 2007
10:49:26 pm

RKS PVI does indeed make a lot of sense here!!

rks 17 December 2007
05:22:34 pm

Power Defangs

Rocky 28 December 2007
07:25:16 am

For Satyam, RKS,Ravi, Jeegs,Q, Beld and others interested- Arun Shourie for you :

Hindutva and radical Islam: Where the twain do meet

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/254969._.html

beldevere 28 December 2007
07:39:03 am

Thanks rock. Will respond later

ăbzee 28 December 2007
07:57:14 am

Rocky- Thanks for keeping this particular thread alive. I believe this is the most significant of all threads at NG ever. RKS, could you please make this sticky and/or an NG exclusive from where it can be accessed easily?

On our trip to Ashtavinayak last week, me and Qalandar had some interesting discussions on Islam, Hindutva and the concept of ‘conquering’…and how, bizarrely like fashion, fascism is cyclical as well!

Rocky 28 December 2007
08:02:19 am

Abzee- cannot figure out if that is meant to be a Sarcastic comment, if yes, then- Oh well

If you mean it then- I Thank You !!

rks 28 December 2007
08:08:50 am

abzee:”RKS, could you please make this sticky and/or an NG exclusive from where it can be accessed easily?”

Currently it can be easily accessed from NG allstars.

ăbzee 28 December 2007
08:10:32 am

Rocky- Why would I mean that in a ’sarcastic’ way? Seriously, I do believe this is one of the most significant threads and I walways revisit it.

rks 28 December 2007
08:11:30 am

Rocky:Read it yesterday, I agree with some of the points (appeasement, Hussain). I need to read the first part once again to understand it more clearly.

Rocky 28 December 2007
08:20:29 am

RKS- I had to read it again and slowly too !!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

shaktikapoorfan

Related Posts

There Are 370 Responses So Far. »

Leave a Reply