Why Sooryavanshi's success at the box office should worry us all - Page 19

Originally posted by: atominis

Like I said, it does NOT matter to us one bit if gorey felt Sardar Udham projects hate for British or if someone feels period films or films on any terror attacks or pogroms now spread hate against X, Y, Z community.

It is reality. If telling our truth hurts someone then so be it.

I am not ignoring atrocities of British and I gave you list of several Indian films showing British and Whites in general as villains, debauched and uncultured people.

Do you even notice how Indian serials and films objectify White women and show them as 'loose' or 'available'? And show White men as racist and lusty?

I already told you difference between British and others. British did not raze religious places, did not impose special taxes and fines for non Christians or promote conversions as state policy or killed or tortured gurus of any religion.

I'll give you a small example (out of bazillions in history). Ahmad Shah Abdali invaded India many times and only looted, went back. He destroyed Golden Temple, filled its sacred tank with dead bodies of humans and cow carcasses, his men smoked openly inside its sanctum sanctorum and brought nautch girls to dance there to celebrate their successful attack.

Now you think such history shall be forgotten? Or making movie on this amounts to hate against a community?

Whereas British never destroyed any shrine. They did interfere in functioning of temples and tried to get priests sympathetic to British appointed in those temples, once attempted to use Nankana sahib and Golden Temple as a jail to keep rebels. They got bitter protests and rebel movements like Babbar Akali movement in return. So they backed off but did not desecrate or raze the shrines.

So British definitely did wrong but not the extent of crime that Ahmad Shah Abdali did.

We can make movies on BOTH and write books on BOTH. We will still be accused of being bigots or have some third rate foreigner or invader apologists telling us to see so called nuance or denying our ancestors' lived reality. It does not matter one bit what someone else says.

And I hope you fo understand that trying to use a temple premises as a jail or interfering in its management is not as ghastly as razing the entire structure and filling the sacred pool with dead bodies of humans and animals.

The extent of brutality distinguishes them. British did not impose jaziya like taxes and fines on non Christians either.

All I see is a case of sour grapes at the oppressed reclaiming their narratives.

This is same as UCs butthurt at movies like Jai Bheem and Article 15.

The success of films proves nobody gives a damn about those who are case of chor ki daadi mein tinka for those who are proud of this brutal past.

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)?

Originally posted by: Recycled

Wow. Article from NYtimes to prove how much influence hindu religious leaders weild on 80crs of us. Finally with that one stroke alone you have managed to prove how rohit shetty is helping bjp and hindu religious leaders discriminate muslims by portraying them as villains through his movie. I am amazed how intelligently you have connected all dots to come to the conclusion and proved 31 percent of bjp supporters out of aproximately 800 million voters as bigots whose only reason to support bjp according to you is their anti muslim ideology.

But a post above you said most on both sides are normal and not bad at all.

Stay pressed, mad, cope and all that ...right back at you. 😆

I said their RABID supporters are bigots, can't you read? Are you going to deny those exists? Maybe look at Twitter or reddit (subreddits like https://www.reddit.com/r/Chodi/) full of Hindu extremists posting hateful stuff about muslims and how they should be treated like garbage. But you are going to deny all that anyway..of course no Hindu extremists exist, its all the big bad evil muslim ...

It's amusing how your type calls Rana a bigot but then conveniently ignore hindu extremists who are actually calling for genocide and doing other terrible things to Muslims. Rana calls that out and apparently she is the real bigot. Typical delusional bhakts with their nonsensical logic

Originally posted by: Journey95

Its not a justification, just history and how things were back then. Everyone invaded each other and wars were as regular as it gets.

The weirder part is calling people who have been here for 1000 years "colonizers". White people came here, looted the place for 200+ years and left. Yet I never see this amount of vitrol for the British as I do for Muslims who settled here (its their home too no matter what some of their ancestors did). They aren't "native" but very few people are (if you look at countries worldwide).

You're right that wars (and in many cultures, what we would now call war crimes) were normal back in those days. But that doesn't mean we have to defend/justify war crime, colonisation, slavery, etc., or the people that perpetrated those horrific atrocities. And we certainly shouldn't try to minimise the immorality of those acts for whatever reason.

As for "calling people who have been here for 1000 years" colonisers, first of all, colonisers are colonisers as long as they rule, regardless of how log they've been settled in a place. And once the rule ends, their descendants who stay back in the place are descended from colonisers, whether they like it or not. Most white people in the USA, Australia, Canada etc fall in this category, for example, as do the white looking people from South American countries, as well as the white South Africans.

I'm not saying that people with colonising ancestors are automatically bad people, or anything like that- because no one is defined by by the bad or even good things their ancestors chose to do. But when people start defending the indefensible because they can't accept the truth- that's when it's maybe time for some introspection imo.

But anyway the relevance of this whole issue is often exaggerated when it comes to Muslims from the subcontinent, as most don't really have significant invaders/coloniser DNA anyway, those that actually know for a fact that they do are few and far between compared to those who have a tiny amount or none at all. So most Muslims from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh are very much native to those areas by all definitions.

One thing you said that really threw me though was that Brits don't get as much vitriol in India as Muslims do... Like bro where?

People in India have always been talking about the freedom struggle against the British all over the media, in politics, in textbooks, non-educational books, literally everywhere with no controversy at all (as it should be).

Maybe that's why you never see people from India trying to defend/justify/minimise what the British did there, while when it comes to certain other colonisers, you always get a few.

Education is key.

Originally posted by: atominis

British did not do worse, FYI. They did not raze religious places, they did not kill saints and gurus of any religion, they did not impose religious taxes like jizya, they did not take locals as slaves and sell them to markets abroad.

No one simps for British. Rather most Indian films bash British be it in films like Bhagat Singh, Sardar Udham, Gadar, Mard, Kismet, RDB, Lagaan, Gandhi, Kranti, Manikarnika, Namaste London, Purab Paschim, Lingaa etc or even films like K3G, Kal ho na ho taking digs at Brits, showing them as villains, racists or debauched lot with no values or chastity.

It is not Muslims who are seen as foreigners. Films are specific about foreign invaders. Not local Indian Muslims.

FYI, a famous Indian festival called Lohri is celebrated in honour of a Muslim called Dulla Bhatti who used to rescue girls abducted by invaders and fought for land rights. He was hanged by Akbar later. But locals see him as their hero.

Indian films have shown Razia Sultan positively, and Muslim warriors like Hakim Khan Sur who led army of Maharana Pratap in battle of Haldighati.

Rather films have often shown Hindus like Jaichand or that priest in Padmavat as traitors who led to downfall of kingdoms.

And I am sorry. Brutal wars, invasions and oppressing people is never 'normal'. This comment is insensitive again and makes sweeping generalisations about Indian films.

This. This is why it's important to teach history correctly without glossing over uncomfortable parts, because that's what makes sure that people actually learn from the events of the past and evolve with time as a society.

If history was taught properly without sugarcoating, I can bet that a lot of conflict between communities in our part of the world would slowly come to an end, as the harmful attitudes towards others that help fuel such conflicts would be nipped in the bud.

Originally posted by: Anjalika01

You're right that wars (and in many cultures, what we would now call war crimes) were normal back in those days. But that doesn't mean we have to defend/justify war crime, colonisation, slavery, etc., or the people that perpetrated those horrific atrocities. And we certainly shouldn't try to minimise the immorality of those acts for whatever reason.

As for "calling people who have been here for 1000 years" colonisers, first of all, colonisers are colonisers as long as they rule, regardless of how log they've been settled in a place. And once the rule ends, their descendants who stay back in the place are descended from colonisers, whether they like it or not. Most white people in the USA, Australia, Canada etc fall in this category, for example, as do the white looking people from South American countries, as well as the white South Africans.

I'm not saying that people with colonising ancestors are automatically bad people, or anything like that- because no one is defined by by the bad or even good things their ancestors chose to do. But when people start defending the indefensible because they can't accept the truth- that's when it's maybe time for some introspection imo.

But anyway the relevance of this whole issue is often exaggerated when it comes to Muslims from the subcontinent, as most don't really have significant invaders/coloniser DNA anyway, those that actually know for a fact that they do are few and far between compared to those who have a tiny amount or none at all. So most Muslims from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh are very much native to those areas by all definitions.

One thing you said that really threw me though was that Brits don't get as much vitriol in India as Muslims do... Like bro where?

People in India have always been talking about the freedom struggle against the British all over the media, in politics, in textbooks, non-educational books, literally everywhere with no controversy at all (as it should be).

Maybe that's why you never see people from India trying to defend/justify/minimise what the British did there, while when it comes to certain other colonisers, you always get a few.

Education is key.

Valid points but the way the other user was calling Muslims "colonizers" seemed wrong to me, basically saying they don't fit in India because they don't follow the same culture and lifestyle or how they want another Partition etc. He had a very us vs them mentality which a lot of bhakts have and it leads to division and not unity.

I don't think its wrong to portray Muslim invaders or terrorists as villians but like I said I think lately there has been a bit much in this area (compared to the 90s-2000s) and its not balanced which makes me think this is part of a certain agenda.

And regarding me saying that Brits don't get as much vitriol in India as Muslims, I'm again talking about the last few years (since Modi took over) where it seems like certain politicians, religious leaders and their supporters are focused on spreading hate against Muslims while I literally never hear them talking about the British atrocities even though they are more recent. Also while certain Muslim kings certainly did atrocities saying they committed "genocides" against Hindus is a clear exaggeration, you can talk about the bad parts of history without nonsense like that.

Originally posted by: Journey95

Valid points but the way the other user was calling Muslims "colonizers" seemed wrong to me, basically saying they don't fit in India because they don't follow the same culture and lifestyle or how they want another Partition etc. He had a very us vs them mentality which a lot of bhakts have and it leads to division and not unity.

I don't think its wrong to portray Muslim invaders or terrorists as villians but like I said I think lately there has been a bit much in this area (compared to the 90s-2000s) and its not balanced which makes me think this is part of a certain agenda.

And regarding me saying that Brits don't get as much vitriol in India as Muslims, I'm again talking about the last few years (since Modi took over) where it seems like certain politicians, religious leaders and their supporters are focused on spreading hate against Muslims while I literally never hear them talking about the British atrocities even though they are more recent. Also while certain Muslim kings certainly did atrocities saying they committed "genocides" against Hindus is a clear exaggeration, you can talk about the bad parts of history without nonsense like that.

Calling all present day Indian/sub continent Muslims colonisers is not just offensive but straight up factually incorrect, most are ethnically South Asian, and denying this fact does absolutely nothing to heal divides but rather makes them worse- and that too for no reason- as it's literally not true.

And yeah you are right there are a lot of films like that nowadays compared to the past (when there were basically none as far as I know). I feel this is because the previous government strongly discouraged filmmakers from taking up such projects, as things shown in them may sometimes contradict certain things they wanted the public to believe for their own complicated, geopolitical reasons.

At the end of the day though it would be good if everyone on all sides took a break from making movies with such heavily political themes as have become common nowadays, and just made some good original dramas, comedies, thrillers, etc. where the whole plot doesn't revolve around religion, politics or wars.

Like let's see you guys get a hit film on the merit of the story you wrote/the actors you cast instead of historical figures/political ideologies for a change.

Islamic invaders did not commit genocides against Hindus? Ever heard of Taimur Lang and his genocides in India? About 1 million people were killed off by Timur and his men in Delhi.

Why do bigots think it's a good idea to show off their ignorance and illiteracy?

Originally posted by: Anjalika01

Calling all present day Indian/sub continent Muslims colonisers is not just offensive but straight up factually incorrect, most are ethnically South Asian, and denying this fact does absolutely nothing to heal divides but rather makes them worse- and that too for no reason- as it's literally not true.

And yeah you are right there are a lot of films like that nowadays compared to the past (when there were basically none as far as I know). I feel this is because the previous government strongly discouraged filmmakers from taking up such projects, as things shown in them may sometimes contradict certain things they wanted the public to believe for their own complicated, geopolitical reasons.

At the end of the day though it would be good if everyone on all sides took a break from making movies with such heavily political themes as have become common nowadays, and just made some good original dramas, comedies, thrillers, etc. where the whole plot doesn't revolve around religion, politics or wars.

Like let's see you guys get a hit film on the merit of the story you wrote/the actors you cast instead of historical figures/political ideologies for a change.

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.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

Islamic invaders did not commit genocides against Hindus? Ever heard of Taimur Lang and his genocides in India? About 1 million people were killed off by Timur and his men in Delhi.

Why do bigots think it's a good idea to show off their ignorance and illiteracy?

Lol you still ranting..I thought you were done with this thread. The funniest thing was how you said you weren't a bhakt, your extremist bigoted type loves to spread lies and exaggerate.

Timur was absolutely a vicious warlord and killed millions all over Asia (btw the majority of his victims were other Muslims, not that your biased ass cares). It doesn't fit the genocide definition at all and NO respected historian says that that was genocide. He wasn't out to eradicate Hindus, he was killing everyone to take over.

Also with your dumbass logic EVERY brutal warlord in history committed genocide. Ever heard of Gengis Khan who is responsible for tens of millions of deaths? But his conquests are still not seen as a genocide because the purpose wasn't the elimination of a certain group.

Read up on the definition of genocide you uneducated brainwashed bhakt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Maybe you can grow up but I doubt it. You are already too far gone

Seems like the article was a pretty effective dog whistle for closet Jihadis sleeper cells online.