Hrithik says he was not offered Ram in Ramayan - Page 12

Dont boil your blood over religious talk. Completely waste for both parties who are arguing. If you find it offensive, hit the report as religious talks are not allowed. Plus, This way, we can possibly end the arguement before it turns into the mudslinging contest.

Originally posted by: Cpt.DudleySmith

Ban bhi jaayegi pit bhi jaayegi. Under this so-called intolerant Gobarmint a movie like Haider release bhi hui aur national award bhi jeeti. Phir bhi kuchh log intolerance ki nautanki se baaz nahin aayenge. Do wake me up when other religions have their Lajjas and Raavans though.

Fringe groups targeted Haider too. They were protests then too 😆 And are you saying Modi Wave now is not stronger than in 2014? 2014 mein lynchings bhi nahi start ki. Hindutva ka drama toh baad mein aaya after getting elected. What did the government do about Fringe groups tho? Some of them are BJP members 😆 Intolerance toh hain bhai. Dikhta nahi that's your problem.

And again, why should I wait for other religions doing their shit or not doing anything. Humhe usse kya?

Originally posted by: KootyPai

Ravan doesn't touch Sita because he was cursed by some other woman ( when he was trying to molest her) that his head will burst into pieces if he touches any woman without consent. If you consider this as virtue, God bless you. Valmiki Ramayana mentions Ravana as someone who used to molest women on a regular basis until this incident when he gets cursed. My God! I can't believe I'm reading this comment. Aaj kal ki ladkiyan may be will find virtues in such a horrible man Phaminism ki jai ho

This has nothing to do with “Phaminism”. The same feminists abhorred Kabir Singh. Har cheez ko feminism se jodna zaroori nahin hain. 😑

Originally posted by: GrumpyTheCat

This has nothing to do with “Phaminism”. The same feminists abhorred Kabir Singh. Har cheez ko feminism se jodna zaroori nahin hain. 😑

Look I'm not condemning the actual feminists who are genuine. I'm just condemning the fake feminists who can find virtues in a man like Ravan. That's why I said Phaminism not feminism. So chill

If you had seen mani rathnam's raavanan movie in tamil, the hero portrays rama, the cop husband with a lot of grey shades....that's what the reviewer is referring to. Of course the rest is just mani rathnam fantasy of how sita will fall in love with raavan.

Originally posted by: KootyPai

Ravan doesn't touch Sita because he was cursed by some other woman ( when he was trying to molest her) that his head will burst into pieces if he touches any woman without consent. If you consider this as virtue, God bless you. Valmiki Ramayana mentions Ravana as someone who used to molest women on a regular basis until this incident when he gets cursed. My God! I can't believe I'm reading this comment. Aaj kal ki ladkiyan may be will find virtues in such a horrible man Phaminism ki jai ho

OMG 😆how we distort each other's views. Of course Raavan was wrong and no one is talking about him. It is also true that if Raavan had not abducted Sita, he would have been regarded to be as glorious as Rama because until then he had been a good, righteous king who had a major lapse in judgment. Of course, Sita's abduction and all the events that followed led to his downfall and rightfully so.

The whole post is about is Rama completely all good or grey? And are people willing to see that or prefer the sugar-coated version as depicted in most serials?

Also just like Raavan abducting Sita is unforgivable so is Rama's attitude in banishing her from the kingdom without proof based on a whim...this at a time when she was pregnant. He did accept his sons Luv Kush but would he have accepted his mistake had she given birth to a girl, who knows?

Along the same lines, Sita willingly went on an exile, even though she could have chosen to live as a princess as lakshman's wife did...but was never appreciated for the sacrifices she made. He made Sita undergo an agni pariksha to prove her chastity because he was unwilling to believe her version of truth...in other words, it meant Sita better be burnt to ashes or stay abandoned until Rama can believe from another person that what Sita was saying is the truth. He banished her when pregnant based on what he overheard a washerman say about his wife. Rather than get to the root of the rumors, he simply banished her. Why did he then accept his sons later? Another form of paternity test? Sita as a woman is hard to understand for putting up with him, but towards the end of the story, even she too ended up asking Earth to swallow her because she could not deal with repeated attacks on her character. Is that a maryada purushottam character? Really??

How come people conveniently choose to distort a statement without looking up all its nuances? We can clearly see Raavan as wrong but still hesitate to do the same with Rama, why??

Originally posted by: Cpt.DudleySmith

No but humnein hi apne holy figures ka mazaak udwaane ka theka le rakha hai kya? People are proven to be tolerant enough that re-imaginations like Lajja and Raavan have gone through without much problems. No need to make the actual Ramayana through the perverted liberandu gaze.

Protests karo na then! Kisne roka hain. But why,how,they can't,can they do that for other religions is all am seeing here.

And you don't get to decide what gets made or not 😆 That's the whole point. Just like I told someone else here mythology, religion,epics kisi ke baap nahin hain so everyone is free to interpret. Tumhara distortion is someone's interpretation.

Also why are you mentioning movies that were made pre Modi era. Tabtoh Hindus were tolerant. Bohut zyada. Ab banake dikhaye koi.

Originally posted by: AllThatCritique

Fringe groups targeted Haider too. They were protests then too 😆 And are you saying Modi Wave now is not stronger than in 2014? 2014 mein lynchings bhi nahi start ki. Hindutva ka drama toh baad mein aaya after getting elected. What did the government do about Fringe groups tho? Some of them are BJP members 😆 Intolerance toh hain bhai. Dikhta nahi that's your problem.

And again, why should I wait for other religions doing their shit or not doing anything. Humhe usse kya?

Leaving aside my opinion about anything else, this is a blatantly untrue statement. There have been reports of at least 14 lynching incidents in 2013 unfortunately.

Originally posted by: Heisenberg23

Leaving aside my opinion about anything else, this is a blatantly untrue statement. There have been reports of at least 14 lynching incidents in 2013 unfortunately.

Are you serious? Damn. Guess the news did not get mainstream attention. I think the vocal Jai Shri Ram public got worse from there.

If everything is an interpretation, I'd like to see Bollywood make movies on lives of Mohammed, Jesus and other x, y,z Gods too. We'll see who is 'intolerant' then. ;)