Yes, I agree. This is simply
ridiculous. Instead, the censor
board should be raising questions on
the bare minimum clothes of girls in
the movies, or the embarrassing
scenes not really required in many
movies. - Anjali Prasad - Jan. 5,
2007
I could not agree more with the
author of the article. Sometimes
when law is carried to the letter,
it ends up becoming a ridiculous
spectacle. If a caged bird is not
fit to show on the movie screen,
then the Indian Government should
let loose all the animals they have
in their zoos! They sell tickets at
the gate, don't they?!!
In a society where the poorest of
the poor would kill to live in a
cage if they got fed, this is utter
and shameless hypocrisy. Bare bodies
and lustful, beastly passionate
antics pass through the censor board
like a hot knife through ghee. I
guess this is their pathetic attempt
by the Censor board to justify their
existence after they have abdicated
their role of intercepting
vulgarity.
I deplore this position taken by the
censor board. If they are worth
their salt, they should clamp down
on showing a degraded value system
(extra marital, pre marital, crude
crass vulgar behavior etc) on the
silver screen. I guess that would
put Karan Johar and Mahesh Bhatt out
of their jobs. After all how can
Sharmila Thakur nee Pataudi, who
adorns the Censor board, do that?! -
Aarcee - Jan. 5, 2007
I am in complete agreement with you
Mr. Kumar and am glad you have
raised this concern about 'political
correctness' in the contemporary
Indian society. I am sick of this
social nazism by certain people and
social groups who have absolutely no
clue about anything or what is
prudent and what is not.
This whole thing is nothing but a
sham and utterly ridiculous.
To the Censor Board, it's okay to
talk about wife-swapping in the name
of 'social awareness' in 'Kabhi
Alvida Na Kahna' but God forbid if
you showed a bird in a cage. You
don't want to invite the wrath of
these social nazis.
Talk about hypocrisy!
People like Roy, Patkar, Maneka, and
Bannerjee are nothing but
publicity-seeking, self-serving
leftists who portray themselves as
the 'conscience' of 1 billion
Indians for their own political
gains. These people thrive on
publicity and love to see their
names on TV and newspapers even for
the wrong reasons.
Organizations like Animal Welfare
Board are no different than such
people. - A. Bose - Jan. 5, 2007
Dear Mr Anil Kumar,
Can you please, site one instance
where Ms Medha Patkar and Arundhati
Roy have described themselves as
intellectuals? What they have to do
with the animal welfare board? By
calling them names, you don't become
intelligent or great.
You have to accept one thing, when
they talk, people listen. You can
imagine about what people will say
when you talk. - Ravindra Mahajan
- Jan. 6, 2007
Dear Mr. Mahajan:
No, I can't imagine what people will
say when I talk, can you be a little
more specific?
While many may be listening to the
Roys and Patkars of India, only
communists and leftists actually
agree with them or give any weight
to their radically skewed perception
of the world. Listening to their
never-ending 'protests' is one
thing, paying attention is another!
And India, for your information, is
not made up of communists only.
There are other viewpoints as well
that people believe in. I happen to
be just one of a few millions who
are opposed to their extremist
ideas. Unlike Patkars and Roys, I
don't even care if you listen to me
or not. I am not going on a fake,
carefully-staged, over-hyped hunger strike to draw
attention towards me.
Ok I admit my choice of words to
describe Patkar, Roy, and Bannerjee
was incorrect. Instead of
"self-described intellectuals", I
should have used the term the
"so-called intellectuals" and I
sincerely apologize for my
callousness.
Now you tell me where did I call
names to these "so-called
intellectuals". I called them
leftists and communists because
that's what they are. This whole
article was about political
correctness and I am not going to
sugarcoat to describe these people
as 'our enlightened brothers and
sisters' or some other terms that
YOU want me to use to describe them.
They are far left extremists who are
anti-development and who have huge
appetite for media attention. Their
goals are clear to me and a lot of
other people - 1. Oppose any form of
development in the guise of social
justice; and 2. Remain in media by
hook or by crook (not necessarily in
that order, I might add). And they
have been very successful in
accomplishing just that!
I know there are many other people
who visit PatnaDaily.Com will also
disagree with me just as many will
agree with me. I don't have a
problem with that. You are free to
have your own opinions just as I am
free to have my opinions. I don't
expect everyone to agree with me.
All this, however, does not, in any
way, change my feelings about the
'caged bird' issue - a glaring
example of the way our leftist
leaders and organizations like the
Film Censor Board of India or Animal
Welfare Board think and operate. -
Anil Kumar - Jan. 6, 2006 |
