Why Sooryavanshi's success at the box office should worry us all - Page 22

Also, this bigot Rana Ayyub called Family Man 2 as Islamophobic since it showed two Muslim terrorists. This woman is an out-and-out religious zealot who calls ANY show or movie with Muslim extremists as 'Islamophobic'. I can't imagine any normal, right-thinking person calling FM2 as Islamophobic.

Just letting you guys know. Don't fall for anyone who claims that Rana Ayub 'never claimed that no movies should have Muslim terrorists.'

Originally posted by: Journey95

Well online toxicity can be damaging and influence people in a negative way IRL. I have seen tons of tweets done by Hindus saying they won't rent to Muslims (article about it: https://www.article-14.com/post/bigotry-at-home-how-delhi-mumbai-keep-muslim-tenants-out).

There is real tension between the two communities in many areas (in others not so much).

Ever thought why it has come down to this?

It's not a new phenomenon though..since ages there have been community specific areas in almost all cities of India. People prefer it that way..like I have a friend here..a sole Muslim family in whole society..she would feel disconnected during all the community festivities till she herself started to participate in them. It wouldn't have been the case if she had her extended family around..

So that's natural. It's more of live and let live

Alia Bhatt has played positive and normal Muslim characters in Raazi and Gully Boy.

These are films of recent 6-7 years.

So why the allegation of films showing Muslims as villains?

Rana and her ilk cannot cherry pick movies just to create a narrative.

Raazi is actually one of the highest grossing films led by a female star in history of Indian cinema.

Originally posted by: Journey95

Well online toxicity can be damaging and influence people in a negative way IRL. I have seen tons of tweets done by Hindus saying they won't rent to Muslims (article about it: https://www.article-14.com/post/bigotry-at-home-how-delhi-mumbai-keep-muslim-tenants-out).

There is real tension between the two communities in many areas (in others not so much).

This is not new. In India it is common to have caste, tribe, clan, religion segregated colonies, or preferences while renting houses.

Single men and women have it hardest to find a house or PG in India as people cast aspersions on their lifestyle and character. Then there are those who avoid renting houses to couples with no kids or only senior citizens with no other support of family or LGBTQ people.

There are Jain only colonies where only Jains live for eg, and avoid renting houses to those who cook or eat non veg food.

As for Hindu or Muslim ones, that has been there for centuries even before 1947. They'd often prefer to live in own separate areas and localities or rent houses to only members of own community. It is not a recent phenomenon.

Sometimes it is just for safety and avoiding any communal tensions. For a brief period after 1984, even Sikhs began to live separately or in colonies where there were likely to be more Sikhs.

And in militancy prone regions also, various communities and tribes live separately in own areas to avoid crossing paths or prospects of any communal tension.

Even migrants in every state live separately in their own areas with fellow migrants from their respective regions.

There is no specific targeting of only Muslims in this.

Not every case is discrimination. Sometimes it is for safety, privacy or just to avoid tensions and stay with more like minded, known or familiar people.

Jains for eg, began to make their own colonies in every part of India as they wanted to maintain their vegetarianism and did not want to live in same areas where people openly cook or sell raw meat.

I am in process of house hunting since last one year. There's a plot of land I really liked but I was told I could not buy it as it was located in a Jain only colony and they would not sell it to non Jains. So do I call it discrimination against me?

The only people who really face housing discrimination in India are singles, LGBTQ, widowers and widows who live alone, divorcees who live alone. And to quite an extent caste discrimination in certain areas that avoid renting houses to so called lower castes. Though they can and have been successfully sued under SC/ST Atrocities Act when they tried to deny housing on basis of caste.

But yeah media can make any narrative by cherry picking incidents to suit their ideology.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

Ah, Rana Ayyub. Why am I not surprised? This woman is a known Islamic bigot, had peddled apologia for the Taliban when the latter overtook Afghanistan.

Same here.

I mean has this woman actually watched the movie in its entirety or just picking up bits and pieces of what she might(or not) have watched or heard and picked up the thing that made it easy to nitpick and peddle her narrative?

Firstly the entire propaganda about "love jihad"is ridiculous to the t. Firstly, they haven't shown the said guy getting married to the girl with a sinister smile under the it is only implied in the scene where the woman gets killed by the extremist. Secondly, it is not the Hindu woman who converts to Islam but the Muslim man that picks up a Hindu alias and also lives like one..

And there have been moments/scenes where they have glorified Muslim characters so beautifully>

Firstly, the Maulvi Saab wo pacifies the throng requesting them to let the police team take away not any Muslim but a terrorist (Gulshan Grover)...

The entire Muslim population that lets the police take terrorist without waging any kind of stampede or riot

The family of Gulshan Grover that assists Sooryavanshi's team in unearthing the sinister plot..

The father-son duo of the an ex cop and his son (who is a the current part of Sooryavanshi's team) evacuating both Hindu and Muslim alike from places of mass gathering

Also the scene where the people observing Islam help the Hindu pandits in removing the idol of Lord Ganesha from a Hindu temple. They could have easily shown Hindu pandits helping people trapped in a mosque evacuate safely.

Rohit Shetty is known for the masala flicks and this one is no exception but giving credit where it is due, I have to acknowledge Shetty for maintaining that subtelty and not going overboard with fanaticism on either faith. But if people are labelling the movie as Islamophobic just because it is based on the backdrop of 1993 Mumbai riot, then I think it is a lost cause..

Originally posted by: bashful_moon

Same here.

I mean has this woman actually watched the movie in its entirety or just picking up bits and pieces of what she might(or not) have watched or heard and picked up the thing that made it easy to nitpick and peddle her narrative?

Firstly the entire propaganda about "love jihad"is ridiculous to the t. Firstly, they haven't shown the said guy getting married to the girl with a sinister smile under the it is only implied in the scene where the woman gets killed by the extremist. Secondly, it is not the Hindu woman who converts to Islam but the Muslim man that picks up a Hindu alias and also lives like one..

And there have been moments/scenes where they have glorified Muslim characters so beautifully>

Firstly, the Maulvi Saab wo pacifies the throng requesting them to let the police team take away not any Muslim but a terrorist (Gulshan Grover)...

The entire Muslim population that lets the police take terrorist without waging any kind of stampede or riot

The family of Gulshan Grover that assists Sooryavanshi's team in unearthing the sinister plot..

The father-son duo of the an ex cop and his son (who is a the current part of Sooryavanshi's team) evacuating both Hindu and Muslim alike from places of mass gathering

Also the scene where the people observing Islam help the Hindu pandits in removing the idol of Lord Ganesha from a Hindu temple. They could have easily shown Hindu pandits helping people trapped in a mosque evacuate safely.

Rohit Shetty is known for the masala flicks and this one is no exception but giving credit where it is due, I have to acknowledge Shetty for maintaining that subtelty and not going overboard with fanaticism on either faith. But if people are labelling the movie as Islamophobic just because it is based on the backdrop of 1993 Mumbai riot, then I think it is a lost cause..

Bold: That's EXACTLY why she is doing it. She labels ANY movie with Muslim villains as Islamophobic. She called Family Man Islamophobic for this very reason. It's sad and dangerous that so many so-called 'liberals' fall into her trap.This woman is an out and out fundamentalist.

Originally posted by: Journey95

It wasn't a white person who said that about Sardar Udham, it was an Indian (part of the jury who were supposed to select a movie to submit to the oscars) and they ignored it because it spread "hate" against the British which again shows how many Indians suck up to the British (probably because are still powerful while Muslims can be easily bashed since they are a minority).

So shrines are the most important things? What about the British killing millions for rebelling, treating all Indians as inferior to them, causing famines deliberately (which again lead to the death of millions, see the bengal famines and others)?

That so called Indian must have been another butthurt type like Anupama Chopra, Barkha Dutt or Rana Ayyub.

It is cute how you forgot mention of thousands killed by Abdali and how he filled pool of Golden Temple with human and animal carcasses. Abdali killed natives as well, looted, marauded and took away people's wealth and destroyed their sacred shrines. Boy! I would give my right arm to see a film made on repeated invasions of Ghori and Abdali without mincing words or sugarcoating anything and see the epic meltdown of closet bigots like Rana Ayyub.

Destroying shrines, burning sacred texts and killing members of a community is both cultural and physical genocide.

Yeah shrines are important darling. Ask those who rioted and committed bomb blasts after razing of Babri mosque and Al Aqsa. And still cry over these 2 incidents.

I have listed several Indian films that have shown British as villains in both colonial and modern era. It is a different matter that some get butthurt and even hate films like Sardar Udham claiming 'it shows hatred against British'.

Several years ago a whiner had claimed Lagaan lost Oscar because it showed British as villains. 🤣

Huh? Now what else we show colonial oppressors as if not villains? Despite Lagaan having a sympathetic character like Elizabeth it was also termed anti British. Nobody gives a damn about invader and coloniser apologists feeling butthurt. Natives shall continue to tell their stories and make those films hits.

Deal with it.

BTW I told you Alia played positive Muslim characters in Gully Boy and Raazi. So why Rana and her fans ignore positive characters?

Originally posted by: Journey95

Agreed 100%. I think these same old political movies are getting really old now. I miss 90s-early 2010s movies where it didn't feel like I was watching obvious right wing propaganda. Some movies about wars, religion etc. are obviously fine and can absolutely be handled right with the right execution (no matter who the villian is) but it feels like it's just too much now and politically motivated.

Even in 90s-2010s era there were people whining against Border, Gadar, Maa Tujhe Salaam, Hindustan ki Kasam, LOC Kargil, Ab tumhare hawale Watan saathiyo, Mission Kashmir, The Hero, 1971, Deewar, Sarfarosh, Fanaa, Bombay, Earth, Pinjar, Tamas, A Wednesday, 26/11, Fiza, Dhokha, Lagaan, Mangal Pandey the rising, Hey Ram etc.

There were even people whining against Veer Zaara claiming it was propaganda to promote IAF or fetishise Pakistani women and promote Indian men's supremacy. 🤣

There was always a band of insecure writers bashing films based on wars, history, partition, insurgency, interfaith couples and riots and crying rivers over patriotism and nationalism.

I remember some people broke chairs and attacked a theatre in Punjab as they could not see Hrithik as a terrorist in films like Fiza and Mission Kashmir.

I remember people attacking theatres and house of Mani Ratnam when Bombay released.

In every era we have people eternally butthurt at subjects of films.

It's sad to see so many BJP supporters here but then again they have taken over most social media and forums. Your type always has excuses ready for Hindu extremism (be it them calling for genocide of Muslims, riots, not letting live in certain areas and on top of all that villifying them constantly in movies and media in general. not to mention lately also going after christians).

Rana is somehow a "fundamentalist", "Jihadi" (even though she is very liberal), "bigot" but these nice folks aren't and not once have I seen any of the people trashing Rana bashing them:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/reconversion-to-hinduism-should-become-a-priority-bjp-mp-tejasvi-surya/article38043467.ece

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/world/asia/india-christians-attacked.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/24/india-hindu-event-calling-for-genocide-of-muslims-sparks-outrage

I guess some writing some articles on movies is worse...I guess its easier to be in denial and call others bigoted than accept that you have been brainwashed by BJP propaganda and are the real bigots! Its all perfect in India and if there are problems its just islamic extremism, if anyone says otherwise they are bigots and hinduphobic right?

This movie went out of its way to portray Muslims as good. The whole muslims evacuating the temple or handling over the terrorist or the muslim father -son duo

What it showed was that the terrorists were Pakistanis who were muslims and all the terrorist acts done in India by Pakistan were by Pakistan muslims.

There was no love jihad, the terrorist pretended to be a hindu and married a Hindu woman, he might have had a soft corner for her but when it came to the cause nothing mattered.

This shows that how terrorists train and manipulate for their own personal reasons be it fame, money or their personal vendetta.