Raghav_12 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Anybody who thinks that making of this movie is not influenced by the anti-indian sentiments are little naive and are really not aware of the cascading effects of movies, books and documentaries which are sold in the western world as comprehensively representative picture of Indian society while in fact they just pander to the western audience's desire of feeling better than third world people. To most of the people in Europe or US barring the one which work in close contact of India, slumdog millionaire is representative drawing of Indian society. They top this drawing with caste system and Delhi rape and they get the picture which they want to see to feel morally superior. Completely ignoring the fact that plot of slumdog millionaire or a story similar can be found in every single society or every single society had their own ways of discrimination or rape is not an Indian problem only. Not to say that these are not the problems of India but inordinate attention given to these by western press (and western populace) is just nauseating and belies their claims of good intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 "Emotive issues aside, the lawyers should be disbarred on grounds of sheer stupidity. Forget about the views they aired, there's certain suspicion that they were schooled to utter such views by Udwin and her coterie for shock value. But the fact that they allowed their client to incriminate himself, when his "not guilty" appeals are pending before the supreme court and more importantly, when the case itself is sub judice is reason enough to ensure that these lawyers do not get to practice ever again, on grounds of being a mule, legally speaking. Given some of those claiming that no action should be taken against these lawyers, including the author himself, I wonder how many would be eager to hire these duo for their legal cases. I suspect the answer would be a resounding "none", for emotions aside, these lawyers are ignorant of the law, the rights of their client and the fact that no one can subvert or be allowed to subvert the judicial and legal process when the cases are sub judice. So yes, the bar council has every right to be shocked at the sheer ignorance on the part of these lawyers and is right to can them permanently.." revealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Anybody who thinks that making of this movie is not influenced by the anti-indian sentiments are little naive and are really not aware of the cascading effects of movies, books and documentaries which are sold in the western world as comprehensively representative picture of Indian society while in fact they just pander to the western audience's desire of feeling better than third world people. To most of the people in Europe or US barring the one which work in close contact of India, slumdog millionaire is representative drawing of Indian society. They top this drawing with caste system and Delhi rape and they get the picture which they want to see to feel morally superior. Completely ignoring the fact that plot of slumdog millionaire or a story similar can be found in every single society or every single society had their own ways of discrimination or rape is not an Indian problem only. Not to say that these are not the problems of India but inordinate attention given to these by western press (and western populace) is just nauseating and belies their claims of good intentions. I find this to be very true, the way i handle it is by accepting this as their opinion and that i differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Anybody who thinks that making of this movie is not influenced by the anti-indian sentiments are little naive and are really not aware of the cascading effects of movies, books and documentaries which are sold in the western world as comprehensively representative picture of Indian society while in fact they just pander to the western audience's desire of feeling better than third world people. To most of the people in Europe or US barring the one which work in close contact of India, slumdog millionaire is representative drawing of Indian society. They top this drawing with caste system and Delhi rape and they get the picture which they want to see to feel morally superior. Completely ignoring the fact that plot of slumdog millionaire or a story similar can be found in every single society or every single society had their own ways of discrimination or rape is not an Indian problem only. Not to say that these are not the problems of India but inordinate attention given to these by western press (and western populace) is just nauseating and belies their claims of good intentions. I strongly think that the making of this movie is influenced to stereotype India. However, I still don't think that it should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Anybody who thinks that making of this movie is not influenced by the anti-indian sentiments are little naive and are really not aware of the cascading effects of movies, books and documentaries which are sold in the western world as comprehensively representative picture of Indian society while in fact they just pander to the western audience's desire of feeling better than third world people. To most of the people in Europe or US barring the one which work in close contact of India, slumdog millionaire is representative drawing of Indian society. They top this drawing with caste system and Delhi rape and they get the picture which they want to see to feel morally superior. Completely ignoring the fact that plot of slumdog millionaire or a story similar can be found in every single society or every single society had their own ways of discrimination or rape is not an Indian problem only. Not to say that these are not the problems of India but inordinate attention given to these by western press (and western populace) is just nauseating and belies their claims of good intentions. +1 On a radio talk show in the UK on the radio station 5Live, somebody (of Indian decent) asked the anchor why the BCC had banned a documentary on Jimmy Savile and his abuse and rape of minor girls for decades. There was no answer..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I strongly think that the making of this movie is influenced to stereotype India. However' date=' I still don't think that it should be banned.[/quote'] Thats fine, having an opinion etc. What i dont understand is the "freedom of speech" brigade. A democratically elected government made an appeal to the courts to ban the broadcast and distribution of this movie. The courts agreed. I read today the documentary maker is whining like a ........ about freedom of speech. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/07/indian-ban-rape-film-international-suicide-director Clearly she must have lost out on a lot of $$$$ she was going to make by selling it to NDTV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Comments section of the article on the mob lynching of unconvicted 'Bangadeshi' alleged rapist. All brits, their opinion on India is as follows. 1, India is uncivilized 2, Barbarians have space program but Britan gives them billions in aid. 3, We are better, morally superior. 4, Indian govt is not protecting its women so people doing mob justice 5, Indian democracy is failing so mob will eventually come to get the govt also. DD should seriously consider creating some documentaries on rotterdam grooming.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2981515/Justice-Indian-style-Angry-mob-breaks-prison-kidnaps-man-accused-raping-student-stripping-naked-dragging-four-miles-beating-death-street.html#comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Thats fine, having an opinion etc. What i dont understand is the "freedom of speech" brigade. A democratically elected government made an appeal to the courts to ban the broadcast and distribution of this movie. The courts agreed. I read today the documentary maker is whining like a ........ about freedom of speech. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/07/indian-ban-rape-film-international-suicide-director Clearly she must have lost out on a lot of $$$$ she was going to make by selling it to NDTV. Just because process is followed does not mean free speech is not muzzled. Section 377 is a democratically made article yet it is undemocratic in EVERY way. Laws , processes are not infallible. Don't use ONLY them to draw far reaching conclusions. The government wants to prevent the documentary to air in other countries too, FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhunaeh Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Banning it other countries was never possible. They must have known that they could only prevent it from being aired in india. They must have anticipated that taking on the bbc would lead to more views in the west. So one must ask what the govt hoped to accomplish by preventing Indians from watching it. If they not put up such a furious opposition, it would have just been another documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Banning it other countries was never possible. They must have known that they could only prevent it from being aired in india. They must have anticipated that taking on the bbc would lead to more views in the west. So one must ask what the govt hoped to accomplish by preventing Indians from watching it. If they not put up such a furious opposition' date=' it would have just been another documentary.[/quote'] they are basically numpties they never anticipated anything just got angry as it was a female brit producer and banned it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Banning it other countries was never possible. They must have known that they could only prevent it from being aired in india. They must have anticipated that taking on the bbc would lead to more views in the west. So one must ask what the govt hoped to accomplish by preventing Indians from watching it. If they not put up such a furious opposition' date=' it would have just been another documentary.[/quote'] Boneheaded move by the govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Just because process is followed does not mean free speech is not muzzled. Section 377 is a democratically made article yet it is undemocratic in EVERY way. Laws , processes are not infallible. Don't use ONLY them to draw far reaching conclusions. The government wants to prevent the documentary to air in other countries too, FYI. The governments wants to, that is fine. I want to be king of the world. Does not mean I start a war. As i said nobody is stopping you from holding an opinion on this matter pro or against. The government of India is well within its rights to form any opinion it wants or pursue any legal stance. Nobody has stopped Leslie Udwin from appearing on television or giving interviews to newspapers expressing her view point (which is freedom of expression) What was barred was a commercial piece of film footage after permission from the courts. I dont agree with section 377. But those are the rules you live under. Every constitution in the world has some rigid parameters. It is upto any government to make sure the changes are made. If people feel strongly about it then they should vote for a government which legalises it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifW9OBNPTBw]TRUTH BEHIND NIRBHAYA DOCUMENTARY (atrocity literature by Rajiv Malhotra) - YouTube[/ame] Watch this video.. how countries build up negative image for years.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Banning it other countries was never possible. They must have known that they could only prevent it from being aired in india. They must have anticipated that taking on the bbc would lead to more views in the west. So one must ask what the govt hoped to accomplish by preventing Indians from watching it. If they not put up such a furious opposition' date=' it would have just been another documentary.[/quote'] The issue was her getting access to a convict who was appealing his jail term. They needed to act in a way to (A) ensure the commercial gains from the film were limited for the film maker. As i said before a deal with NDTV has collapsed. It was rumoured to be quite a big sum in the millions of USD (B) Send a message to the bureaucracy that incompetency will not be tolerated. There is just no way the people running Tihar are ever going to let anybody in. Heads are going to roll. Its about sending a message to those in government offices that if you slip up you are going to be out of a job. © Send a message to British documentary and film makers and their moves will be watched and they will not be given access. The truth is that governance under the UPA government had collapsed. Tog Gear for example were given permission to shoot as an educational informative documentary piece. Anybody who has watched Top Gear knows it was never going to be that. If you did not take a stance there would perpetually be people from the UK coming to India to make some documentary or the other regardless of who is in power. The flow of these people needs to be stopped. Some hard calls needed to be made. Sushil Shinde who was home minister during this needs to take some blame in all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 And i personally feel the government should take this chance to send the BBC packing from India. I say this as a licences fee payer which supports the BBC (i am forced to) in the UK It is a terrible organisation which simply targets misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Watch this video.. how countries build up negative image for years.. thanks for that, learning. The person who spoke, was riding the margins of paranoia yet never crossed it and finished very strongly. Definitely worth following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Banning it other countries was never possible. They must have known that they could only prevent it from being aired in india. They must have anticipated that taking on the bbc would lead to more views in the west. So one must ask what the govt hoped to accomplish by preventing Indians from watching it. If they not put up such a furious opposition' date=' it would have just been another documentary.[/quote'] I disagree. Lately there has been a conscious effort by western media like CNN and BBC to portray India in negative lights with regards to incidents like rape, etc. The reason might be that this image of India sells in the west. A country getting too big for it's boot, where most people live in some kind of stone age yet the nation aspires to reach Mars. The Mars news and Obama visit were hardly covered by the media. Yet news of any atrocity was splashed on front pages while rapes from their own country were ignored My point is, ignore this and it will lead to a string of foreign journalist fishing for all things negative in India, getting access to every insane criminal, all in an effort to portray the image they have build about India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 You have to be naive to believe that people will learn from rapists.People who do this don't need lessons. These bastards didn't learn it from some rapists interview. As for girls...you think they don't already have restrictions.You think after this incidence ,parents didn't get scared and restrict. There is a huge difference between people believing something and acting on it. Previous examples of western media's experiments with criminals have proved that criminals do indeed get inspired by seeing other criminals on TV and act out things which they previously just thought abot. This at least shows za how people think.If people knopw that a lot of people around have this mentality....people will be more aware.If it is publicized enough that most rapes happen by people known to the victims...parents will teach their children to be careful around everyone.People will tell children not to trust anyone just because they are related or because they are friends of your parents..... As studies have shown, TV and interviews do not change anything. People who believe women should not have freedom will side with the criminal. People who do not will not. It is not that parents are not aware that most attacks happen through relatives. It is that, when such things happen, the parents blame the girl than the attacker. Anyways, that is nothing to do with this case and this interview. Interviewing the criminal has nothing to do with what you are saying There are more positives to come out of this than negatives.If you think someone who wants to be brutal is waiting for the rapists words for crossing the line...then it is just naive. Except there has been actual studies and research on this. Confirmation bias and backfire effect are two very well documented phenomenon on how the human brain works. Youngsters do get inspired by seeing criminals on TV To summarize confirmation bias is a phenomenon where people seek out what they want to hear. So people already holding the same views with this criminal will seek out the documentary and feel their thoughts are justified and will blame the victim. These might be normal, everyday people and not criminals. They will not see where the source is coming from, just that the message matches their own thinking Backfire effect is when evidence is brought contrary to what someone thinks (for example someone bring a 100 proof of why Sachin is not great), it actually strengthens my belief in Sachin instead of converting me In this context, this will cause immense harm to the country as people who were turned off by the brutality of the rape will subconsciously start identifying with the criminal only because he is on TV and their thoughts match. The crime will slowly fade, the documentary will not. This is NOT the way you change a nation's thinking. It has never worked and never will. So who is being naive here, someone who ignores every scientific research and forms here own assumption without proof or someone who is knows how human behavior works and is cautious about such things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 http://www.redbubble.com/shop/killers+ted+bundy+t-shirts Just take look at t shirt in the name of serial killers lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Seriously good debate going on :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts