|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | AT HOME ABROAD | |||
|
January 27, 1999
ELECTIONS '98
|
'If Ravana couldn't mark Sita's chastity, can a film?'
How Readers reacted to Rajeev Srinivasan's last column
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 23:42:05 +0530
I entirely agree with the writer. In India it is, was and will be easy for all movie-makers and politicians to play with the Hindus. They do not have guts to play with other religions. Why? Fear of global kick? Or Hindus are like dolls for them to play because of their tolerance?
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 07:24:32 -0800
Someone is too hung up on symbols. In groping around for an American parallel, didn't it occur to you that the prize naughty girl of American pop culture is called "Madonna"?
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:19:16 -0500
I saw the movie ages ago in America and clearly took the names Radha and Sita to be deliberate, knowing the references to Hindu scriptures. I actually liked the fact that Deepa was questioning the idea of the traditional Indian womanhood as in the scriptures using the paradox of classic Indian female representations versus the women today and over decades. I am dismayed that the names were changed because the movie made more sense with the names Radha and Sita. Obviously those protesting have some personal issues of fear and are afraid to really face how oppressive notions of Indian womanhood are. Why can't we talk about this stuff? If you have the courage to make a movie about this issue, why change it when it is released in India? Narrow-minded critics who use religion as a shield to protest against the movie should really take the opportunity to examine the notions of oppression, homophobia, and sexism that are deeply embedded within themselves. Why is it such a big deal to make a movie like this? It's realistic, doesn't contain something negative nor denounces any lifestyle. It is simply a story about two women and their circumstances/issues. May be people who are so offended by it should take this opportunity to look at themselves.
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:01:34 -0600
Rajeev Srinivasan seems to suggest that the basic and fundamental individual rights that we have bestowed on humanity is tied to responsible action. This cannot be farther from the truth. The phrase "fundamental human rights" implies that this is the cornerstone from which we build the definition to which we must return when we encounter paradoxes and dilemmas. The right to hold, change and express our opinions is basic and not subject to negotiation or favours. However, this being said, it is universally admitted that we are allowed to give up some of those rights in exchange for benefits. It is also admitted that any of these rights *cannot* infringe on the fundamental rights of other citizens. Srinivasan suggests that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to hate speech. This is inconsistent with the right to expression. However, the legal system reconciles the freedom to hateful expression, by providing a mechanism whereby an *incitement* to commit a crime is also a crime. Therefore, one is free to indulge in hateful speech as long as one does not incite the commission of crimes. The other issue that he brought up is regarding the right to publish child pornography. Srinivasan must be familiar with the fact that the right to publish or distribute adult pornography is based on the existence of consent from all parties concerned. In the case of child pornography, the law does not give a minor the right to consent. Therefore, by definition, child pornography can only occur without consent, and by implication is a crime. This is the same principle behind statutory rape. By not recognising these basic issues, Srinivasan is, in his own words, uttering "half truths". The two examples that he raised in his articles are clearly baseless. There is no *legal* argument to be raised against the creators of Agni. However, one is always free to raise the economic argument against it -- boycott the movie if you feel strongly about the religious implications in it. In other words, exercise your rights, without seeking to curtail the rights of others. Matt Thundyil
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:49:01 -0800 (PST)
The point of the article seems just as confused as the whole debate. The author makes the point that free speech does not extend to the realm of hurtful speech. He defines hurtful speech as for example 'yelling Fire in a crowded room'. I find it hard to compare his definition of hurtful speech with the usage of names Sita and Radha. His Jesus and Paul example seems ludicrous because the usage can easily fall under free speech. His example of "Piss Christ" has very different dynamics associated with it. The author may want to fully research the symbolic representation of "Piss Christ" before making generalisations. But nevertheless "Piss Christ" is still a valid example of free speech. Free speech is only limited when it harms (physically) or defames the other person. The movie usage of the names have no such effect. Would the names have such an impact if the religious reference to the movie had been omitted? People don't seem to get the point of the movie. The main idea the movie portrays is the paternalistic and societal oppression of women. It brings out the issues that exist in any close minded, restrictive societies. The religious symbolism was excellent. Why should a person walk through fire to prove her innocence? Why should a person live in a oppressive society? An excellent, well directed, well acted movie. I hope it reaches the enlightened souls of all oppressed peoples.
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:23:07 +0800
Bravo Rajeev! What India today needs is more guys like you, who have got absorbed in the Western cultures, understood it and yet uphold their Indian values. We unfortunately have these naive film personalities who because of their line of profession make a few sojourns to the West; come back into India and give the world their myopic versions of the world. They call up some journo friends and say, "Hey, I'm damn pissed with the attitude of Indians.... I wan't to write about it." These are the same so-called upholders of modern India's vision who go on shamelessly chasing agents in the US for scripts and give Indians in the US a bad name. If "Omar Khayyamisque Social Reformer" friend, Shabhana has spoken a half-truth, then let India know what she was when she went about screaming from roof-tops about the freedom of speech. Just because they have picked the language of the elite, English and not many Shiv Sainiks speak this tongue, they believe what they speak shall be lapped up by the elite. What most India's elite have realised is that the grasp of these "Omar Khayyamisque Social Reformers" over the language is as good as the barmaids in Nepal and Hong Kong who have to speak English with their European clientele and is driven by similar fundamentals of business. So why talk about social awakening when you are not qualified to do so? Simply because you have access to the means to have your voice heard? Satish
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:32:44 +0530
My 2 cents worth: If so much hue and cry were not raised about Fire, the movie would have gone unnoticed. The Shiv Sainiks have just handed it in a platter to these movie-makers. I saw the movie sometime back purely because of all these razzamatazz that happened as its aftermath. It was not worth the 35 bucks that I paid for the tickets. It was a slow-moving insipid film that would draw anyone into boredom. Why do these guys make such a big issue about nothing? These people do need to have heads on their shoulders. There is no substance in what these people say. There is no worthwhile scene to remember. It is a sheer waste of time and money. It is indeed true that the Indian version of the movie had Neeta instead of Sita, so that they don't invite the wrath of the powers that be.If the other versions contained Sita instead of Nita, then surely the producer does deserve a Slap? She has just tried to sensationalise an insipid movie by inflaming people's passions. In short, the movie sucks! M Basker
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:56:42 +0530
Man, this guy has sure brought out what I had in mind. You definitely need these journalists to speak your mind. Ironically, as far as I can tell, it was Mr Bal Thackeray, the self-appointed custodian of Indian Culture, who ultimately brought everybody's attention to this Radha-Sita episode and insisted that the names be changed. I also want to take Rajeev's logic further and apply it to Mr M F Husain's nude portrayal of Indian goddesses. Freedom of expression is nowadays turning out to be an excuse for doing just about anything you want, so long as you are in a democratic society. I can't for the love of god understand this crazy argument about a goddess being first a woman. I contend it is the other way around -- Saraswati is a goddess first and then she is a woman. Otherwise, what would be the difference between a higher force & ordinary mortals if both of them are going to be measured with the same yardstick? These artistic community ought to be a bit more responsible when it comes to expressing their mind instead of just going up in arms to protect their fraternity irrespective of what sort of problems they have caused. After all there your freedom extends only till my nose. The moment you hit my nose then I will be forced to retaliate. We, as responsible citizens, must ensure that we don't hurt the sensibilities of the society that we are part of. Dilip Kumar
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:38:01 +0530
In one word: brilliant! Mr Srinivasan is not only an outstanding thinker, but in the Arun Shourie mould, he buttresses his arguments with solid facts. It's scandalous that so far nobody brought out the truth regarding the names of Fire's leading characters. A set of people -- among which I'm one -- have always maintained that the problem with Mehta's film is not the alleged depiction of lesbianism, but the deliberate intention to provoke. However, proving this claim had rather been difficult, given the conflicting claims that emerged regarding the lead characters' names. Mr Srinivasan has laid the controversy to rest. I have absolutely no doubt that Deepa Mehta wanted to provoke. There is one too many creative individual these days bitten by the bug to cast himself/ herself as the Dissident-Intellectual-Hounded-By-Society. Dissident-Intellectual-Hounded-By-State is a notch better. The West is currently having a rollicking affair with those who can successfully project such a self-image, a fact which seems to have registered on Ms Mehta's creative imagination rather well. Therefore, it is not hard to picture Ms Mehta as having been thrilled at Bal Thackeray's reception of her film. This one disapproval must have mattered to her more than all the encomiums put together. Sikhivahan
Date sent: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 22:33:42 -0800
I am really surprised at the angle of attack on this particular film, which I don't think the Shiv Sena people category even brought up. First of all none of them have probably even seen the film. I guess Mr Srinivasan would have defended Rushdie's fatwa issuers on the same grounds too.
Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:55:25 +0530
If Shabana wants to portray sex between two women, I think she should keep such thoughts to herself. Why tell it to everyone else? It is but natural that such provocative thoughts are going to be taken care of by some vested interests and political parties in whatever manner they can, possibly going to the extent of creating rifts between two communities. Her adamant nature can cause problems in future for her and also for her countrymen. If you cannot prove your point, just shut up. Why become hell-bent upon creating useless controversies that can possibly lead to further disasters?
Date sent: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Hi Rajeev, Excellent! Keep it up. Those intellectuals, pseudo secularists and free "thinkers" don't know how to think about such problems. I'm an athiest but I think our secularists are going farther then seculiarism into minorityism. They are not balancing the belief of the majority. If these intellectuals don't care about the problem and keep on supporting this kind of controversy without properly understanding it, India will fall into the hands of religious fanatics. The Sena may not be right in this issue. But Fire is also not right in its motive. Nowadays, the so-called intellectuals will do anything for their fame. They are also becoming like our politicians. Mehta & Azmi are also like that. So if anybody tries to support Mehta, then don't support her b'cos of free speech. She is fighting for her profits and fame. Free speech doesn't means brutal speech. Chockkalingam
Date sent: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:53:45 PST
Congratulations Rajeev! Very well thought and written article.
Anil Sahai
Date sent: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:18:17 -0800
The only thing I can say after reading this article by Rajeev is that even after living in a country like the USA, and that too in San Francisco, he is talking about things like hurting Hindu sentiments!! Deepa Mehta in no way is trying to hurt the so to speak Hindu sentiments, she is merely commenting on the state of Indian society. Even if any allusion to Hindu goddesses is being made by naming the main characters Radha and Sita, then it is an even worst reflection on the society. Instead of contemplating on what is happening, the so-called guardians of Hindu religion are, in their typical way, trying to keep the society's problems under wraps. I feel Deepa Mehta has done an extremely courageous thing to bring an issue out of the closet.
Sanjana Chopra
Date sent: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:52:42 -0500
Once again I respond to a good article written by Rajeev, but this time I disagree. In spite of all the arguments in favour and against the content of the film and how it's defence is full of lies and deceit etc, I believe HINDUISM is beyond that. A singular person or event as Ms Mehta's film doesn't make a difference. If Ravana's abduction couldn't mark Sita's chastity, how can a film by some obscure film-maker from Canada do it? Yes, its true that Ms Mehta was trying to take advantage by waving the red flag in front of the bull, but why are we the bull?? This kind of intolerance is typical of the Western religions not Hinduism. Our temples depict our GODS in the nude on the walls, we used to relish our freedom and our creativity... WHAT HAPPENED? Can the mark from the last 600 years of occupation ever be removed from the Hindu psyche or will we forever be bound by this ISLAMIC and CHRISTIAN PURITANISM ?? Will Hindus ever try to rediscover (in the modern context) the Kamasutra and Vedas and Upnishdas and Puranas??
Date sent: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:06:25 -0500
I think it is a well summarised and thoughtfully organised article. I totally agree with the author on the irresponsible way the Fire team has acted to defend the movie. I would also like to add that apart from the sensitive issue of religious names what is outrageous is that the type of relationship between them. I think even today if I go back to India I would still like to put my arm around my friend and expect people not to think otherwise like Shabana Azmi and Deepa Mehta do. On the whole it was a very good article. |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
|