lesbo suck tits …

PS Again: I hate Word Verification

Consider also some of the specifics – the civil services is one of the benefits mentioned by Dr Singh. May I ask in what way has India been benefited by this particular British gift? The same people who have a go at the ‘bureaucrats’ at every opportunity somehow nodded along in agreement. What the hell? Most importantly, it is a question of self-esteem and pride. No wonder the likes of BBC (which has never had anything positive to say about India) were suitably impressed.

- Nanda Kishore

I disagree with respect to Manmohan. He is the PM of the country, a guest in UK and he says that the British did a lot of good to India. It’s true to an extent (leave aside the motive of their altruism and the horrors they also brought to us) and face it, he is a “diplomat”—his job is not to ruffle feathers.

However Ketan Mehta has no such compunction—-and he has the creative license which any artist has.He is making a movie about India’s first war for independence and is well within his creative rights to show the barbarity the British East India company unleashed. If feathers get ruffled…so be it…such things did happen you know !

But as I said Dr Singh, as the PM of the nation, cannot afford to be so gung-ho.

If we had more people like Manmohan Singh, the British and the whole world will continue to believe the fiction that India was a savage, uncivilised nation before the British stepped in. The problem with Amit’s post is that he’s attempting to prove his liberal credentials – nothing personal there, just this post. The British did commit countless atrocities, of which there is little doubt, so why should we take umbrage at some ‘factual inaccuracies’? Unfortunately, too many of our own people, including of course servile souls like Manmohan Singh, believe the fiction that continues to be perpetrated.

- Nanda Kishore

The difference is that BIB is a documentary and is obliged by its very characterization to present both sides of a story in a factual fashion. Hence not talking about the contributions of Indian social workers is plain disingenuity.

However “Braveheart”, “Passion”, “Rising” are historical/mythical dramas where the aim is to show, albeit dramatically, things that happened. If the events that they are based on are provocative, then that is the way the movie will be. However making the connection that “Jews of today are to blame for the murder of Christ” is something the “Passion” does not advocate—it is a connection which ,if made, is the fault of the audience.

Santayana said—those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Which is why the actual history should be presented-and not politically correct sanitized versions.

My point is, sometimes it _is_ improper to show Islamic invaders defiling a temple and sometimes it _is_ improper to show Jews killing Jesus (at least in the way Mel Gibson does it in the Passion of the Christ). The reason is that these things breed hate and distrust, however unintentional, among the communities involved. Besides it is often the case that such movies present a rather embellished viewpoint spiced up to suit the director’s need (cf. your own post on Born in Brothels), so it is not that what is shown in the movie is _exactly_ what happened anyway.

Let me add that all these incidents can be shown _tastefully_ so as to not offend people and I do not object to that. What I object to is showing a class of people as evil, untastefully and indiscriminately, simply because of the director’s hatred and prejudice of a particular community. When I say this, I have in mind Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ as an example. I have not seen Mangal Pandey so I cannot claim to judge yet; only time will tell whether it falls into this category of movies or not.