01-08-2007, 09:08 PM
The other day I came across Vivah and watched it, thought it was ok (better than some of the other trash I saw recently) but some of the reviews I read seemed to have a different agenda of their own, according to two of these progressives the movie is "unbelievably regressive", I didn't get that part because from what I know the majority of marriages in India are still arranged marriages (especially in small towns and villages) and most people who have arranged marriages do meet in the way shown in the movie, the shuddh Hindi part was nice although I thought it was a little unrealistic (maybe people from Hindi speaking states can correct me about whether villagers still talk in shuddh Hindi or not).
I have never seen these guys criticise movies where the heroine dresses so progressively that she would put an NY City hooker to shame, maybe I am one regressive Hindu fascist talking but my own experiences show the movie to be closer to reality than other trash, these attitudes of being "oh so much more progressive than thou" I found come from people in big cities like Mumbai or Delhi, these people never seem to have been to an Indian village (and whether we like it or not, the majority of India still lives in the villages) and seem to be totally out of touch with the ground reality. I even read an article by our progressive Rahul Bose (from Mr and Mrs Iyer) about how regressive Karva Chauth is.
Here it is:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mumbo-jumbo
Hindu religious ritual has too great a presence in Indian public space
BY RAHUL BOSE
In a post-9/11 world, where the secular space shrinks every day (ask Brit-Asian
males in London), the very definition of secularism needs to be constantly
refreshed and contemporised. As Amartya Sen writes in The Argumentative Indian,
"Indeed, there are two principal approaches to secularism, focusing respectively
on (1) neutrality between different religions, and (2) prohibition of religious
associations in state activities. Indian secularism has tended to emphasise
neutrality in particular, rather than prohibition in general". Therefore "the
secular demand that the state be 'equidistant' from different religions." Mr Sen
goes on to indicate the advantages of the neutrality aspect of secularism rather
than the prohibition of all religious associations. I could not agree more. The
former interpretation has an inclusive, humanist exposition of the issue rather
than the absolutist, 'take-no-prisoners' position of the latter. The point of
examination in this piece is not whether India's implementation of its secular
ideals has reflected this neutrality. The answer to that question is painful in
its unambiguity.
Successive governments have failed spectacularly. Whether it is Shah Bano, Babri
Masjid or the state-sponsored pogrom in Gujarat, at crucial, defining moments of
the secular character of this nation, we have made choices more suited to an
intolerant, biased, opportunistic state. And while these outrages must propel,
must compel us to fight the hypocrisy of our political masters, equally I find
my attention of late being drawn to a gentler though deeply insidious form of
bigotry in our polity. I refer to the daily, almost unconscious use of Hindu
religious symbolism and practices in forums where religion should have no entry.
Consider the arti done on foreign dignitaries when they visit the country. The
lamp-lighting ceremony at government-sponsored cultural festivals. Advertising
films selling motorcycles to the chant of Hindu scriptures. The breaking of a
coconut when a new film is started. Admirable symbols of tradition, piety,
sanctity, but clearly, religious symbols. More specifically, religious symbols
of one religion, the religion of the majority. I recollect visiting a Bombay
college owned and run by Hindus where I was greeted with an arti ceremony. At
the conclusion of the lecture I had been invited to deliver, I asked the college
principal what connection a Hindu ceremony had with an address on gender
equality. Bemused, she replied that it was the Indian way of showing respect to
a guest. Is it the Indian way? Will I expect a similar welcome if I go to a
college run by Christian missionaries? More probably, will it be a Christian
version of the arti? What then, when I visit Aligarh Muslim University?
My growing concern is not with the use of ceremony to mark an occasion. It is
the use of religious symbolism. Occasionally when I have raised the point I have
had Hindus say I am making too much of the issue. That these symbols have now
taken on a pan-Indian significance. That they capture the ceremony of a moment
most appropriately. That they are accepted and practised not as Hindu traditions
but as Indian traditions. A soothing, tempting position, but not entirely
correct. If I do not ever see a Muslim family conduct a grihapravesh ceremony as
they enter their new home (probably in a Muslim neighbourhood they have been
ghettoised into, in places like Narendra Modi's Gujarat), why then does a paint
commercial use this ceremony in their latest television advertisement? This is
where it all gets worrying. Looked at any which way, consciously or otherwise, a
Hindu-dominated advertising agency is selling the idea to a Hindu-dominated
paint company that is selling a product to a Hindu-dominated country. As
one-fifth of your market with their belief in other religious persuasions,
notwithstanding atheists and agnostics, watches - helpless, unmoved or even
resentful.
If indeed this country professes to practice a secularism that is founded on the
theory of neutrality or equal distance from all religions, then surely it should
follow that either we remove the use of Hindu traditions to mark non-religious
gatherings or ensure all religions find equal expression in all forums. The
latter option will result in a political correctness that promises chaos, not
all of it without humour. Bewildered dignitaries will find themselves accorded
the traditional Zoroastrian greeting at one five-star hotel and a Buddhist
welcome at another. Government functions will automatically expand by a couple
of hours as they start with a reading from religious scriptures of all different
faiths. The latest advertising commercial will feature a Sikh couple racing to
bless their new car through an Ardas at their neighbourhood gurdwara.
Clearly the case for removing religion from the non-religious sphere is a strong
one. Any step to erase feelings of alienation that Indians who are not Hindus
might feel both within and without this country is a step towards peace, not to
mention prosperity. Why cannot children tell us about their dreams for India at
the inauguration of a cultural festival? Why cannot dignitaries be invited to
have tea with their designated hospitality staff as a welcome gesture? Why
cannot we see a TV spot about a couple marking their 25th anniversary, not by a
recreation of their Hindu wedding, but by donating to their favourite charity?
Underlying all of this will be the quiet belief that religion has no place in
the public sphere. It will require the correct interpretation and implementation
of our Constitution to firmly steer the nation away from this sense of
divisiveness so deep-seated that questions that should be asked lie unspoken.
But make no mistake about this. One hundred and fifty million Indians watch in
resignation every day as a car maker uses Karva Chauth to sell its latest luxury
model. Whether this incredibly regressive ritual should be used at all is matter
for another article altogether.
http://www.sab rang.com/gcolumn/rahulnov05.htm
(link edited)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think Bose should be deported into Bangladesh where he will finally escape from having anything to do with our mumbo jumbo and can live out the rest of his progressive life.
I have never seen these guys criticise movies where the heroine dresses so progressively that she would put an NY City hooker to shame, maybe I am one regressive Hindu fascist talking but my own experiences show the movie to be closer to reality than other trash, these attitudes of being "oh so much more progressive than thou" I found come from people in big cities like Mumbai or Delhi, these people never seem to have been to an Indian village (and whether we like it or not, the majority of India still lives in the villages) and seem to be totally out of touch with the ground reality. I even read an article by our progressive Rahul Bose (from Mr and Mrs Iyer) about how regressive Karva Chauth is.
Here it is:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mumbo-jumbo
Hindu religious ritual has too great a presence in Indian public space
BY RAHUL BOSE
In a post-9/11 world, where the secular space shrinks every day (ask Brit-Asian
males in London), the very definition of secularism needs to be constantly
refreshed and contemporised. As Amartya Sen writes in The Argumentative Indian,
"Indeed, there are two principal approaches to secularism, focusing respectively
on (1) neutrality between different religions, and (2) prohibition of religious
associations in state activities. Indian secularism has tended to emphasise
neutrality in particular, rather than prohibition in general". Therefore "the
secular demand that the state be 'equidistant' from different religions." Mr Sen
goes on to indicate the advantages of the neutrality aspect of secularism rather
than the prohibition of all religious associations. I could not agree more. The
former interpretation has an inclusive, humanist exposition of the issue rather
than the absolutist, 'take-no-prisoners' position of the latter. The point of
examination in this piece is not whether India's implementation of its secular
ideals has reflected this neutrality. The answer to that question is painful in
its unambiguity.
Successive governments have failed spectacularly. Whether it is Shah Bano, Babri
Masjid or the state-sponsored pogrom in Gujarat, at crucial, defining moments of
the secular character of this nation, we have made choices more suited to an
intolerant, biased, opportunistic state. And while these outrages must propel,
must compel us to fight the hypocrisy of our political masters, equally I find
my attention of late being drawn to a gentler though deeply insidious form of
bigotry in our polity. I refer to the daily, almost unconscious use of Hindu
religious symbolism and practices in forums where religion should have no entry.
Consider the arti done on foreign dignitaries when they visit the country. The
lamp-lighting ceremony at government-sponsored cultural festivals. Advertising
films selling motorcycles to the chant of Hindu scriptures. The breaking of a
coconut when a new film is started. Admirable symbols of tradition, piety,
sanctity, but clearly, religious symbols. More specifically, religious symbols
of one religion, the religion of the majority. I recollect visiting a Bombay
college owned and run by Hindus where I was greeted with an arti ceremony. At
the conclusion of the lecture I had been invited to deliver, I asked the college
principal what connection a Hindu ceremony had with an address on gender
equality. Bemused, she replied that it was the Indian way of showing respect to
a guest. Is it the Indian way? Will I expect a similar welcome if I go to a
college run by Christian missionaries? More probably, will it be a Christian
version of the arti? What then, when I visit Aligarh Muslim University?
My growing concern is not with the use of ceremony to mark an occasion. It is
the use of religious symbolism. Occasionally when I have raised the point I have
had Hindus say I am making too much of the issue. That these symbols have now
taken on a pan-Indian significance. That they capture the ceremony of a moment
most appropriately. That they are accepted and practised not as Hindu traditions
but as Indian traditions. A soothing, tempting position, but not entirely
correct. If I do not ever see a Muslim family conduct a grihapravesh ceremony as
they enter their new home (probably in a Muslim neighbourhood they have been
ghettoised into, in places like Narendra Modi's Gujarat), why then does a paint
commercial use this ceremony in their latest television advertisement? This is
where it all gets worrying. Looked at any which way, consciously or otherwise, a
Hindu-dominated advertising agency is selling the idea to a Hindu-dominated
paint company that is selling a product to a Hindu-dominated country. As
one-fifth of your market with their belief in other religious persuasions,
notwithstanding atheists and agnostics, watches - helpless, unmoved or even
resentful.
If indeed this country professes to practice a secularism that is founded on the
theory of neutrality or equal distance from all religions, then surely it should
follow that either we remove the use of Hindu traditions to mark non-religious
gatherings or ensure all religions find equal expression in all forums. The
latter option will result in a political correctness that promises chaos, not
all of it without humour. Bewildered dignitaries will find themselves accorded
the traditional Zoroastrian greeting at one five-star hotel and a Buddhist
welcome at another. Government functions will automatically expand by a couple
of hours as they start with a reading from religious scriptures of all different
faiths. The latest advertising commercial will feature a Sikh couple racing to
bless their new car through an Ardas at their neighbourhood gurdwara.
Clearly the case for removing religion from the non-religious sphere is a strong
one. Any step to erase feelings of alienation that Indians who are not Hindus
might feel both within and without this country is a step towards peace, not to
mention prosperity. Why cannot children tell us about their dreams for India at
the inauguration of a cultural festival? Why cannot dignitaries be invited to
have tea with their designated hospitality staff as a welcome gesture? Why
cannot we see a TV spot about a couple marking their 25th anniversary, not by a
recreation of their Hindu wedding, but by donating to their favourite charity?
Underlying all of this will be the quiet belief that religion has no place in
the public sphere. It will require the correct interpretation and implementation
of our Constitution to firmly steer the nation away from this sense of
divisiveness so deep-seated that questions that should be asked lie unspoken.
But make no mistake about this. One hundred and fifty million Indians watch in
resignation every day as a car maker uses Karva Chauth to sell its latest luxury
model. Whether this incredibly regressive ritual should be used at all is matter
for another article altogether.
http://www.sab rang.com/gcolumn/rahulnov05.htm
(link edited)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think Bose should be deported into Bangladesh where he will finally escape from having anything to do with our mumbo jumbo and can live out the rest of his progressive life.