|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | DEVIL'S ADVOCATE | |||
|
December 16, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
'There is nothing dirty. Fire gives women a choice'How Readers reacted to Pritish Nandy's last column
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:48:18 +0530
I was very happy to read your column. Keep it up. Some day our bosses will open their eyes. All the best. Husain
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:11:30 +0800 (SGT)
I agree with Nandy's views on the matter. There have already been numerous books, articles etc on Godse's life and his speculated point of view. This ban has got nothing to do with people's feelings. It is just another political statement, so why waste time talking about it? As for lesbianism, it is interesting how men condemn the concept in public but in actuality are not necessarily averse to the idea. In fact, most men find the concept of two women 'making out' fascinating. So why the fuss, you ask? 'Hypocrisy' comes to mind. I would like to know the views of Indian women on the issue.
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:24:04 +0530
Going by the argument in the article, why do we need a Censor Board at all? As an adult nation "No playwright, no film-maker, no novelist, no politician, however deviant, can corrupt us. So why be afraid of free choice?" We can do away with all kinds of censors. We can also stop categorising films as U, U/A or A. Let everybody have a free choice to see or read anything they want. After all, such films/plays cannot corrupt the "mature people" in this "adult nation"! Shankar V
Date sent: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 23:04:30 -0500
When you begin reading this email you will start to wonder whether there is any point at all, but if you do get to the end of it you'll understand what I am trying to say (statutory warning, much like those on cigarette boxes!!) About 13 months ago (to the best of my memory) when Nandy had written an article on this very same Web Site about why we thought Pakistanis were more aggressive (one of the reasons which he scoffed at in the course of the article was that Pakistanis eat beef which makes them aggressive!!), I had written to you what I thought of the article. My point of view was that we have much bigger things to worry about than Pakistan. If we really wanted to compare ourselves with anybody, do so with countries like Singapore and Japan, which were doing exceptionally well despite facing the same bias and prejudice that we come across in the international market. That email was never posted on Rediff , for reasons that are best known to whoever screens them (so much for freedom of speech and exchange of ideas!!) It was refreshing to read that Nandy thought that we have much bigger problems on our hands than to decide what India sees in movie theatres and reads about in books (the fact that it took something like the recent spurt of inflation for him, given his maturity and intelligence, to realise this is something that I find difficult to digest). The freedom of expression is a right no government can take away from the masses. History shows us that whenever the rulers have tried to do so, it has resulted in people talking in hushed tones about matters of common interest. World-shaking events like the French revolution began in some room, somewhere, where people started talking about these matters in a hushed tone. I wouldn't want the chapter 'Indian revolution' included in the textbooks of world history although given the current state of affairs, I do not think it impossible. I am pretty sure that even this email will not be added to the "From the readers" board on Rediff (since there is no praise for the article as compared to what people are accustomed to seeing in these letters). You might think it is safer to ignore one reader than to anger Pritish Nandy, respected columnist that he is. Think again!
Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:44:23 -0800
Absolutely agree with most of what Pritish Nandy said. As a first step, India should abolish the Censor Board. Anil Das
Date sent: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:06:20 -0800
I am Hetal Velani, a software engineer working in CA, USA. I like Pritish Nandy's columns. In today's topic he has raised good points as far as the problems of the nation are concerned, rather than talk about the ban on some movie in Parliament. It's a good site. Keep it up. Hetal
Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 14:57:09 -0700
Yes! I totally agree with your point. I got so surprised when Rediff published more than 3 articles on the same day on Fire. I read Deepa's article too on the same day. She admits that she was brought up in Canada, did schooling somewhere, but she spent 6 months in India. Wow! Just in six months she is able to judge and direct (or produce) a movie on women's plight in India! She could see only lesbianism in India in that six months. That is her view. Why should we all waste our time talking about this and give mileage for this kind of bullshit? Does India not have any other problems to discuss and solve? Let the rich produce it, let the rich enjoy watching it. Let them get any kind of international awards for it. Let us worry and try to solve the problems of the majority. Rama
Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 98 16:00:16 -0500
I liked Nandy's recent column on free speech -- especially the last paragraph. Only one point I would like to mention to him -- Nathuram Godse is a killer, he killed a person in cold blood because his political support happened to be the opposite of what Godse had. On the other hand, the film Fire cannot be charged of advocating any violence or murder. The film simply presents a different point of view on sexuality and the status of women in our society. So banning the film would probably violate the right of free speech more.
Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:32:25 PST
Your article sounded like a politician defending his party rather than an intelligent journalist writing. Do you mean to say that just because the Congress forced a ban on the Nathuram Godse play they have no right to ask for a stay on the ban on Fire ? But you've also mentioned that the Sena hesitantly put a ban on the play to please the Union government. Didn't the Sena try to make political mileage by not initiating the ban on the Godse play? You mean to say the Sena then was very "broad-minded" to let the people see it and decide? Going by this argument of yours, what do you see right in the Sena's reaction to Fire ? Isn't it stupid on their part to act as moral guardians now? When Kamasutra could be seen (though the theme was set in a different era) why act narrow-minded now? I don't mean to say I support the Congress because it is as bad as your party and we are forced to choose the best from the rot. Also it is true that these are NOT the pressing issues to need our attention now. But then don't try to justify what the Sena has done. You may lose the respect and credibility that you have gained by writing some good articles amongst the many like me. Try to give a fair opinion... for that's why I read your articles (on Rediff).
Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:33:31 -0800
I totally agree with what Pritish has to say about people demanding a ban on certain works. In all cases the only reason is to gain political mileage and nothing else. And we have to stop being such hypocrites. It is the people who demand ban on plays like the one about Nathuram Godse that give legitimacy to people demanding a ban on Fire. You cannot have one without breeding the other. If the proponents of these bans were to think about the results of their actions they would realise that they have helped publicise the works they are trying to ban much more than the author/director originally hoped for. And by doing this they turn a simple movie/play into an icon for others to rally around. In any case the reach of these plays/movies is so small that its practically insignificant considering the sheer size of a country like India. Rajinder
Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:31:52 -0800
Excellent column by Nandy!! Agree with every word he has written. Sameer Kuppahalli
Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:23:16 -0500
Pritish Nandy writes 'Interestingly, the very people who made such a scene over the Godse play and insisted it be banned are those who are now protesting against the stopping of Fire.' Does it occur to him that the same people who wanted freedom of expression to screen the play want to ban the movie now, that too in an undemocratic way? Uma
Date sent: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:44:46 -0600
There is no logic in saying that there is no freedom selectively or partially. Why not? That you restrain your son from doing something does not mean that you stop him from doing everything. Always, there is a choice. Also, the question is not who cares about lesbians or homos. This is how things get planted in culture and germinate and grow into trees. Do you think that millions and millions of Indians have read the original Sanskrit scripts of the Ramayana and Mahabharata? But how does everyone know the basic tenet, story outline and moral of these epics? Just because they have been imbibed in the culture and life of every Indian right from his childhood, I would say birth. I personally feel that this opinion is strongly biased. Srinivas Surubhotla
Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 13:59:29 -0700
Answer this: How can a chief minister defend the act of miscreants who destroy property? Indraneel
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 01:48:35 -0500
I was absolutely aghast by this column, in which he nonchalantly compares the act of Gandhi's assassination ("a deviant point of view in politics") with lesbian courtship ("a deviant point of view in sex"). If as erudite a gentleman as Nandy cannot see that murder violates every cannon of human ethics while a preference for the same sex not only violates none, but, indeed, signifies a rare breed of courage in today's homophobic environment, then I truly fear for the intellectual climate of our country. Examine your premises, Nandy, and if a mere spark of humanity yet beats in your breast, you will surely find them flawed. Shekhar Aiyar
The column was good. But it was self-centred. U said that freedom means haves and have-nots. But freedom has no boundary. Just becoz I have freedom to do anything, shud I roam naked on the streets?? This is totally against the Indian culture. There is nothing wrong in women getting emotionally close. But when it comes to sexuality, the concept changes and it becomes lesbianism. I am against it. Nature doesn't allow u to be GAY. It's a dirty concept. Ripta
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:57:15 -0800
It takes a Pritish Nandy to put the horse in front of the cart. An excellent article that should be published in all languages. Protection to everyone's choices is the building blocks of freedom. Most of the homosexuals are in the closet in India. Why not bring them out and let them have their own buddies? I personally have no problem with it. No one's sexual preferences are for government intervention. The film Fire should be shown. There is nothing dirty. It gives women a choice.
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:54:46 -0500
Interesting piece. First time I read Pritish Nandy. Really did like his ideas. There were quite a few things that I could relate to. Keep up the good work! |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
|