bollywood Bhansali slapped by protestors for alleged distortion of history,Anurag Kashyap calls it Hindus Terrorism

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, surajmal said:

I disagree. And I dont blame him solely though. He just happens to be a part of lying, cheating, talentless clique who have had it handed to them on a platter all their lives (just like their writer brethren who exchange poverty porn for awards from the west and pass themselves off as intellectuals to the unwashed).

If someone were to release a designer virus strictly directed at Lutyens and Bollywood, World would miss nothing. Thats the value of their total contribution, except nuisance value. 

so says the chaddi. Its sad that crabs like you tear down the few good things India is known for. All because it isn't your brand of chaddi chest-thumping propaganda. Perhaps you should get eye-surgery and move to China. Then you can feel secure in the never-ending stream of 'nananana We are the best at everything' type propaganda media.

As for the rant, sorry but facts prove that there is room for creativity in historical fiction. Braveheart, Gladiator, Ben Hur - they are all historical distortions. But the west didn't get its panties in a bunch. Protesting MF Hussain's debasement of religious icons is justifiable. But Padmavati is not a religious figure and therefore, there is no equating the two. 

 

[Book_Worm]

4 hours ago, surajmal said:

Padmavati protests, Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Bollywood's flippant tryst with history

 

 

There’s just no other way to say this: the fracas surrounding Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s upcoming movie Padmavati marks the MF Hussainification of Bollywood.

To those who came late, the late painter M.F. Hussain seemed to have a special penchant for painting perverted images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, and then claiming victimhood when his “work” evoked outrage from Hindus. In the interests of space, I shall point to this piece by Arun Shourie analysing the Hussain phenomenon.

To give an instance, M.F. Hussain withdrew his 2005 movie Meenaxi from theatres when some Muslim outfits threatened to cause trouble. This time around neither he nor the vast network of the supporters of his “artistic freedom” claimed that he was a victim. When in doubt, radio silence seems to work best till the next controversy catches the headlines and safely buries this one underneath the latest cacophony.

The operating principle in both Hussain and Bhansali’s case is the same. Sample this:

Notice first that in the lexicon of those who are shouting for Hussein the point about not hurting religious sentiments manifestly does not apply to the Hindus: in their case the alternate principle of the right of the artist to paint as he pleases takes precedence. The Hindus notice this duality more and more…depicting women completely naked has for centuries been very much a part of European painting and sculpture tradition; but do the artists not stop at using this tradition for portraying Virgin Mary naked? It is not the freedom of expression these worthies are committed to. They are committed to their having freedom alone.

This was written in 1996 and as we notice, not much has changed in twenty years. If anything, over the past decade or so, the said MF Hussainification has only escalated most notably in Bollywood.

To be sure, the phenomenon of MF Hussainification occurs most visibly in creative endeavours—specifically in literature, painting, and cinema. Neither is it restricted only to MF Hussain nor to the choice of themes. The other celebrity purveyor of MF Hussainification is Girish Karnad who needlessly glorified the eccentric and cruel despot Muhammad Bin Tughlaq and later, Tipu Sultan. Sanjay Leela Bhansali has merely joined their ranks.

It’s nobody’s case that Bhansali shouldn’t make Padmavati as a love story or whatever his premise is but not at the expense of distorting and/or suppressing historical facts, which we shall briefly examine.

The first historical fact is that Ala-ud-din Khalji stands at the forefront of being one of the most cruel Muslim tyrants who wreaked boundless atrocities upon Hindus by his military campaigns, and his social and economic policies.

It was under Ala-ud-din Khalji’s rule that South India for the first time got the full taste of the true horrors of an Islamic invasion—Devagiri (today’s Daulatabad), Dwarasamudra (today’s Halebidu), Srirangam, Chidambaram, Madurai, and Rameshwaram were ruined to flaming wastelands.  An equal historical fact is also that he captured a handsome Hindu teenager from Gujarat, rechristened him Malik Kafur and used him as a personal sex slave. It is telling that this Hindu boy was also known as “Hazaar Dinari,” meaning “(a slave) purchased for 1000 dinars.”

Ala-ud-din also joins the long list of Muslim invaders who destroyed the Somanatha temple and sent its Murti to Delhi “where it was laid down for the faithful to tread upon.” (History and Culture of the Indian People: Volume 5, Page 19). In addition, he was responsible for reducing the Vaghela queen Kamala Devi to another concubine in his vast harem.

And so, a movie based on this historical figure must necessarily include some or all these facets. Yet, Bhansali has taken refuge under the claim that his movie is based on Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s imaginary literary saga titled, Padmavat written 200 years after Khalji’s death. In which case, if Padmavati is indeed an imaginary character, why bring the real, historical king Ala-ud-din Khalji into the picture?

And further, even if she is imaginary, why make her commit Jauhar as Jayasi has done even in his “imaginary” saga? And what does that tell us about the character of Ala-ud-din Khalji?

I won’t dwell too deeply upon the justified outrage and humiliation that the Rajputs in particular and the larger Hindu society have expressed at Bhansali’s wilful distortion but will touch upon a few key points that have led us to this pass.

The first concerns artistic freedom. We can examine this with a quote from Padmashri Dr. S L Bhyrappa’s preface to his bestselling historical novel, Aavarana:

Anybody who embarks upon writing a historical work essentially needs to do concrete research to support even the tiniest detail. The author's responsibility is towards the historical truth of the subject on which his/her work is based. When truth and beauty are put on a scale, the writer's fidelity must invariably be in favour of truth. A writer doesn't have the moral right to violate truth and take refuge in the claim that he/she is only a creative artist.

In this light, the question is not whether one community is shown in good or poor light but one of basic integrity and fidelity to facts. In the case of Bhansali, it’s apparent that his so-called “historical” love story is being filmed at the expense of Rajputs. One could even say that it’s sadistic because it’s hard to believe that Bhansali isn’t aware of the reverence that Maharani Padmini evokes among Rajputs, and that such perverted depictions of her character will most certainly hurt them.

Indeed, Padmavati is in the same league of the other distortionist 2008 movie Jodhaa Akbar, which took an imaginary character named Jodhaa while whitewashing Akbar’s massacre of about 30000 Hindus in his barbaric sack of Chittorgarh. In Salman Rushdie’s words,

Even the Emperor succumbed to fantasy. Queens floated within his palaces like ghosts, Rajput and Turkish sultanas...One of these royal personages did not really exist. She was an imaginary wife, dreamed up by Akbar in the way that lonely children dream up imaginary friends, and in spite of the presence of many living, if floating, consorts, the Emperor was of the opinion that it was the real queens who were the phantoms and the nonexistent beloved who was real. He gave her a name, Jodha, and no man dared gainsay him.

And so the second point, tied to artistic and creative freedom is the contemporary reality that in the name of democratisation of arts, any semblance of any standard has been abandoned, and critics are silenced with—we’re seeing this unfold as I’m writing this—shouts of “creative freedom,” “regressive,” “intolerance,” “fascism,” “right wing fanatics,” etc.

The third point is the history of Bollywood itself. In the early days, the industry was significantly populated by the victims of Partition and barring very few, the flavour of movies mostly included tragic love stories, dark melancholies like Pyaasa, socials, rare comedies, and over-dramatised patriotism.

The 1970s decade pimped socialism on a gigantic canvas apart from giving us those mindless masalas. The post 2000 era’s takeover of Bollywood by the Karan Johars of the world gave us movies that were far removed from reality, characterised by a mindless aping of Western lifestyles, a normalisation of liquor consumption, and hedonism in the name of individual choice.

Or to put it bluntly, these movies and their makers are culturally as far removed from millions of culturally-rooted Indians as say, Kim Kardashian is from Rama Navami.

But the marked factor underlying this entire history is a near-complete absence of a good number of movies with mythological and classical themes.

When we contrast this with South Indian cinema’s history for the same period, we see how (mostly) the Telugu, Kannada and Tamil mythologicals (Pauranika) and historicals (Aitihasika) have continued to remain classics witnessing re-releases even today. And how, even today, there are talented filmmakers who make stellar movies using these themes. If a regional movie with limited markets can make a super-expensive and hugely successful movie like Bahubali, what prevents Bollywood from doing something similar with its seemingly endless budgets? A partial answer can be found in this “review” which sees only the “rape of Avantika” in Bahuali, and concludes that a movie rich in (Hindu) mythological references is “dangerous.”   

Which brings us to the fourth point. If movies are art and are a form of creative expression, what explains the recent slew of agenda-based films like say, Mumbai Meri Jaan, which shows the Bhagavad Gita as being responsible for the Hindu character named Suresh (played by Kay Kay Menon) for developing hatred towards Muslims.

One can add Haidar, PK, Black Friday and Parzania to this list. On the other side of this coin, why hasn’t there been a single Bollywood movie on say Chandragupta Maurya, Shivaji, Maharana Pratap or even the Gupta Empire? Even if one reduces this to a Hindu—Muslim argument, the fact still remains that these are truly fantastic themes to make compelling movies.

From this flows the fifth point, which is fundamentally about the absence of a level-playing field in Bollywood regarding specific themes—be they historicals or mythologicals. And the total lack of a general sense of openness. Could we for instance, imagine Bollywood making a movie like Agora, which heart-rendingly and artistically details the tragic fate of Hypatia at the hands of Christian imperialism? Or the brilliant Spotlight, which is an expose of pervasive paedophilia inside the walls of the Catholic Church? One can go on listing many more such excellent films.

But the fact that such films don’t ever get done in Bollywood is because of the selfsame lack of openness: creative freedom must essentially be accompanied by courage especially when dealing with sensitive subjects, both historical and contemporary.

So the easier way out is to do what Sanjay Leela Bhansali seems to have done: paint an imaginary love story between a proven plunderer of women and his potential victim who preferred to die than submit.

http://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/padmavati-protests-sanjay-leela-bhansali-and-bollywoods-flippant-tryst-with-history-3240252.html

But is bhansali showing love story between khilji and padmini?   Is he really? From all that  i have heard and read about this movie  it is not a love story but rather a story about khilji 's lust for the queen and a lust so great that he invades the city. Unless the movie is about love story the above piece of writing/article is useless. Without proof people on the social media are going on and on as usual making an issue. The result of all this hungama is that we are now aware of some rajput sena group in rajasthan  whose existence we were not aware of before this and publicity for the movie.

 

The objection seems to be about intimate scenes between khilji and padmavati as part of a dream sequence. the premise of the movie is Khilji's lust for padmini.  How can one make a movie about lust and not show anything intimate. Khilji will be fantasizing about her. How does this disrespect padmavati? She isn't fantasizing  about him. whatever intimacy we will see in the movie between these two is basically khilji's dreams about padmini.  don't you guys fantasize about some actress or a girl you like in your head? can't we in the 21st century see a movie and understand that all the scenes between them is a part of khilji's obsession and is basically a dream. How does all this really disrespect padmavati. ??? 

 

 

 

 

[Singh bling]

On 2/2/2017 at 3:03 PM, MechEng said:

Include the recent silence B-town displayed when Zaira Wasim from Dangal was threatened by Kashmiris for meeting Mufti.

Lol just check Zaira waseem's facebook page , she herself has leaning toward separatists.That's why she quickly apologised to those muslim fundamentalists but was quick to refute Vijay Goyal

[coffee_rules]

42 minutes ago, Book_Worm said:

But is bhansali showing love story between khilji and padmini?   Is he really? From all that  i have heard and read about this movie  it is not a love story but rather a story about khilji 's lust for the queen and a lust so great that he invades the city. Unless the movie is about love story the above piece of writing/article is useless. Without proof people on the social media are going on and on as usual making an issue. The result of all this hungama is that we are now aware of some rajput sena group in rajasthan  whose existence we were not aware of before this and publicity for the movie.

 

The objection seems to be about intimate scenes between khilji and padmavati as part of a dream sequence. the premise of the movie is Khilji's lust for padmini.  How can one make a movie about lust and not show anything intimate. Khilji will be fantasizing about her. How does this disrespect padmavati? She isn't fantasizing  about him. whatever intimacy we will see in the movie between these two is basically khilji's dreams about padmini.  don't you guys fantasize about some actress or a girl you like in your head? can't we in the 21st century see a movie and understand that all the scenes between them is a part of khilji's obsession and is basically a dream. How does all this really disrespect padmavati. ??? 

 

 

 

 

There are some "sacred cows" that are "untouchables".  In all probability, (given it is Bhansaali), Khilji's character will be like SRK's Darr character. They will celebrate unrequited love of a hopeless romantic and history has facts that is far away from that fiction. Historic fiction rarely works in India, if they are "sacred cows". In the movie, Gandhi..did they show the part where he is seen sleeping naked with young girls to test his restraint? I don't think so. All hell will break loose if that was shown. If Gandhi is beyond reach, for some fringe group, Rani Padmini is. 

Edited February 3, 2017 by coffee_rules

[Vilander]

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Up voted this post for the use of 'hot romance'

 

Its a very late 90s Filmfare-esque description. 

 

A fellow Bollywood fan after all, aren't you? 

[mishra]

3 hours ago, Book_Worm said:

But is bhansali showing love story between khilji and padmini?   Is he really? From all that  i have heard and read about this movie  it is not a love story but rather a story about khilji 's lust for the queen and a lust so great that he invades the city. Unless the movie is about love story the above piece of writing/article is useless. Without proof people on the social media are going on and on as usual making an issue. The result of all this hungama is that we are now aware of some rajput sena group in rajasthan  whose existence we were not aware of before this and publicity for the movie.

 

The objection seems to be about intimate scenes between khilji and padmavati as part of a dream sequence. the premise of the movie is Khilji's lust for padmini.  How can one make a movie about lust and not show anything intimate. Khilji will be fantasizing about her. How does this disrespect padmavati? She isn't fantasizing  about him. whatever intimacy we will see in the movie between these two is basically khilji's dreams about padmini.  don't you guys fantasize about some actress or a girl you like in your head? can't we in the 21st century see a movie and understand that all the scenes between them is a part of khilji's obsession and is basically a dream. How does all this really disrespect padmavati. ??? 

 

 

 

 

Who sings Bollywood number in fantasy. Fantasys are X+ rated. 

[mishra]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

There are some "sacred cows" that are "untouchables".  In all probability, (given it is Bhansaali), Khilji's character will be like SRK's Darr character. They will celebrate unrequited love of a hopeless romantic and history has facts that is far away from that fiction. Historic fiction rarely works in India, if they are "sacred cows". In the movie, Gandhi..did they show the part where he is seen sleeping naked with young girls to test his restraint? I don't think so. All hell will break loose if that was shown. If Gandhi is beyond reach, for some fringe group, Rani Padmini is. 

Women Self immolated but important bit for some icfers is Khijlis (may been, could been) thing. Bhansali has clarified. Case closed

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/padmavati-row-sanjay-leela-bhansali-arrives-at-a-written-agreement-with-karni-sena-and-rajput-sabha/articleshow/56893811.cms

[Yoda-esque]

Dont understand why Bollywood continues to romanticize and distort history under the name of creative freedom.

Akbar Jodha and Bajirao Mastani were hilarious!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[surajmal]

On 2/3/2017 at 3:15 AM, Muloghonto said:

so says the chaddi. Its sad that crabs like you tear down the few good things India is known for. All because it isn't your brand of chaddi chest-thumping propaganda. Perhaps you should get eye-surgery and move to China. Then you can feel secure in the never-ending stream of 'nananana We are the best at everything' type propaganda media.

As for the rant, sorry but facts prove that there is room for creativity in historical fiction. Braveheart, Gladiator, Ben Hur - they are all historical distortions. But the west didn't get its panties in a bunch. Protesting MF Hussain's debasement of religious icons is justifiable. But Padmavati is not a religious figure and therefore, there is no equating the two. 

 

I knew you would defend the poverty pornographers. Isn't that the USP of calcutta to the goras? Naturally, an uberbong would find virtue in it. 

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, surajmal said:

I knew you would defend the poverty pornographers. Isn't that the USP of calcutta to the goras? Naturally, an uberbong would find virtue in it. 

Seems to me, i am defending the things India is good at, while you are living in a lala land of Ram-leela and fantasizing about what 'could've been' if the ancestors you so worship were actually trend-setters in the world, instead of trend-followers.

And no, all bollywood isn't poverty theme based. 

[beetle]

Stop the personal abuse guys ....or the posts are moving to the jokes section.

Edited February 7, 2017 by beetle

[Mariyam]

On 2/3/2017 at 0:00 PM, surajmal said:

I disagree. And I dont blame him solely though. He just happens to be a part of lying, cheating, talentless clique who have had it handed to them on a platter all their lives (just like their writer brethren who exchange poverty porn for awards from the west and pass themselves off as intellectuals to the unwashed).

If someone were to release a designer virus strictly directed at Lutyens and Bollywood, World would miss nothing. Thats the value of their total contribution, except nuisance value. 

Specific to this case, SLB hasn't lied or cheated anyone. There is hardly any grey area here. 

 

While I share your disdain for the Lutyens lot, your painting Bollywood with the same brush is just wrong. On many levels. The Lutyens lot are more or less aligned with each other wrt ideology, and a view of the future. Bollywood on the other hand isn't a monolith. And most of the times, people from the film industry do not see them as the intellectual vanguards of the nation. They are essentially entertainers and par excellence at that, having gotten us fair amount of goodwill abroad. 

 

Absolutely unfair assessment of Bollywood on your part.

[Mariyam]

On 2/3/2017 at 9:56 PM, Yoda-esque said:

Dont understand why Bollywood continues to romanticize and distort history under the name of creative freedom.

Akbar Jodha and Bajirao Mastani were hilarious!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Why leave out Mohenjodaro? Or Lagaan? 

Bollywood distorts and romanticizes everything. All types of reality. Not just historical events.

 

I am sure the real Milkha Singh didn't dance on a bridge over the Yamuna.

I am sure most real life couples do not run around trees on the Sahyadri ranges. Neither do they randomly break into synchronized songs and dances.

 

 Why reserve your angst only against historical movies?

[coffee_rules]

58 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Specific to this case, SLB hasn't lied or cheated anyone. There is hardly any grey area here. 

 

While I share your disdain for the Lutyens lot, your painting Bollywood with the same brush is just wrong. On many levels. The Lutyens lot are more or less aligned with each other wrt ideology, and a view of the future. Bollywood on the other hand isn't a monolith. And most of the times, people from the film industry do not see them as the intellectual vanguards of the nation. They are essentially entertainers and par excellence at that, having gotten us fair amount of goodwill abroad. 

 

Absolutely unfair assessment of Bollywood on your part.

Bollywood is secular, socialist, (sometimes communist), quite like the Lutyens crowd. This is of course not because of any funding from the GOP of India (unlike Lutyens), there is some kind of elitism in Bollywood, an unwritten code which everybody adheres to. There is no "majoritarian" agenda backing. Some examples:

- Rarely insults minorities (read muslim), 

- Portrays muslims as god-fearing, while the Hindu hero takes pride in being an athiest (Cue ABSr on Deewar .. Kush to aaj tum bahut hoge aaj!). 

- muslim charater actor is a secular one, but dies in the end saving the hindu frenemy! 

- Until Sarfarosh, it was always "Dushman Mulk" in movies and never Pakistan. It was fearing that it will chase muslims out of theaters. 

- Socialism was a major theme in the 80s, rich and politicians were cruel and poor had to fight their way through to get anything. Nowadays maoist backing is seen in many movies. 

- Bollywood can never make a biopic on a historical character. Period. They always have to show a story with good and evil and then show how good prevails in the end. Bhagat Singh Movies are a joke (even the Ajay Devgn one). 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by coffee_rules

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Bollywood is secular, socialist, (sometimes communist), quite like the Lutyens crowd. This is of course not because of any funding from the GOP of India (unlike Lutyens), there is some kind of elitism in Bollywood, an unwritten code which everybody adheres to. There is no "majoritarian" agenda backing. Some examples:

- Rarely insults minorities (read muslim), 

- Portrays muslims as god-fearing, while the Hindu hero takes pride in being an athiest (Cue ABSr on Deewar .. Kush to aaj tum bahut hoge aaj!). 

- muslim charater actor is a secular one, but dies in the end saving the hindu frenemy! 

- Until Sarfarosh, it was always "Dushman Mulk" in movies and never Pakistan. It was fearing that it will chase muslims out of theaters. 

- Socialism was a major theme in the 80s, rich and politicians were cruel and poor had to fight their way through to get anything. Nowadays maoist backing is seen in many movies. 

- Bollywood can never make a biopic on a historical character. Period. They always have to show a story which good and evil and then show how good prevails in the end. Bhagat Singh Movies are a joke (even the Ajay Devgn one). 

 

 

In the 40s & 50s, Bollywood was all about rags-to-riches story of the mercurial adventurer/enterpreneur.

In the 60s heydays of Shammi Kapoor, Bollywood was all about glorifying the mega-rich playboys. 

Then came the class theme of the 80s.

The 90s saw religion inspired trouble/communal harmony.

Bollywood panders to whatever is the flavour of the decade, in terms of theme.

As per making a biopic, you are missing the point- biopics arnt made historically accurate by the movie industry. In the west, historically accurate biopics are the domain of government sponsored television. Like BBC or CBC. This is because commercial movie-making industry's #1 goal is to make money. If artistic license with facts sell more tickets, every single movie-maker would be dumb not to do it, after including a disclaimer before the movie. 
If the objective is to educate, then thats not the job of the commercial movie industries- be it India or overseas- its the job of the education board. So maybe petition Doordarshan to put out historically accurate biopics, i don't know why that is an expectation of the entertainment industry.

 

[Pollack]

Bollywood live in their own world where only they are intellectuals.They have an opinion on everything(not an issue) but have zilch knowledge.They come across a secular and moderate Muslim friend then all Muslims are secular and one fanatic Hindu then hindus are extremists and vice versa.They do not take the pains to research about social issues or already have an opinion about everything and then just justify those by only looking at argument supporting their views and quashing or ridiculing those that do not.

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

In the 40s & 50s, Bollywood was all about rags-to-riches story of the mercurial adventurer/enterpreneur.

In the 60s heydays of Shammi Kapoor, Bollywood was all about glorifying the mega-rich playboys. 

Then came the class theme of the 80s.

The 90s saw religion inspired trouble/communal harmony.

Bollywood panders to whatever is the flavour of the decade, in terms of theme.

As per making a biopic, you are missing the point- biopics arnt made historically accurate by the movie industry. In the west, historically accurate biopics are the domain of government sponsored television. Like BBC or CBC. This is because commercial movie-making industry's #1 goal is to make money. If artistic license with facts sell more tickets, every single movie-maker would be dumb not to do it, after including a disclaimer before the movie. 
If the objective is to educate, then thats not the job of the commercial movie industries- be it India or overseas- its the job of the education board. So maybe petition Doordarshan to put out historically accurate biopics, i don't know why that is an expectation of the entertainment industry.

 

 

Until Modi's election, there was no "intellectual" divide in Bollywood. There were BJP MPs among actors, but they were never vocal about communal issues. It all started with Bollywood "intellectual" appeal of people to not vote for Modi. Some like Anupam Kher then sided with BJP/Modi vociferously. This kind of divide was not seen. That was the gist of equating Bollywood with Lutyens elitism.

 

Regarding biopics, I was talking about sensibilities.  They tend to simplify the character for mass appeal rather than dwell on the complexity of the character. I know that they do it for commercial reasons.   

[Yoda-esque]

7 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Why leave out Mohenjodaro? Or Lagaan? 

Bollywood distorts and romanticizes everything. All types of reality. Not just historical events.

 

I am sure the real Milkha Singh didn't dance on a bridge over the Yamuna.

I am sure most real life couples do not run around trees on the Sahyadri ranges. Neither do they randomly break into synchronized songs and dances.

 

 Why reserve your angst only against historical movies?

Sure, Get Mohenjo-Daro in there as well. Just gave a few examples.

Lagaan - I disagree on this one. Firstly, its not a true story and secondly, it does not, in any manner, attempt to change narrative.

 

If Milkha Singh had no objection to have Farhan Akhtar bumbling like a buffoon in his oversized biceps.I really don't see any issue in that either:)

 

 

 

[ravishingravi]

Yeah. As terrorising as Hindus can get according to a Kashyap.  

[mishra]

22 hours ago, Pollack said:

Bollywood live in their own world where only they are intellectuals.They have an opinion on everything(not an issue) but have zilch knowledge.They come across a secular and moderate Muslim friend then all Muslims are secular and one fanatic Hindu then hindus are extremists and vice versa.They do not take the pains to research about social issues or already have an opinion about everything and then just justify those by only looking at argument supporting their views and quashing or ridiculing those that do not.

I remember Mahesh Bhatt talking about "everything" as expert on news channel then cussing myself, why am i paying for cable