Bollywood And Propaganda

08-21-2007, 01:00 AM

Yeah, chose to highlight it so it's clear to me that you are stating
QUOTEthere is definitely some truth to the fact that all Muslims will always put their religion even before their country
or
QUOTEthere is definitely all truth to the fact that some Muslims will always put their religion even before their country

Please go ahead and let me know.

And when I said that 'not true' I pointed it out that your statement (whether 'heard' or 'read' or 'perceived' or 'dreamt') about Kalam's upbringing is not true and pointed to Kalam's own reference on that.
And unless you prove otherwise I'll stand by that statement, thank you.

And on interpreting Quran, thanks for the bait. Mullas are doing a fine job of figuring out as to who a true muslim is or not is and you can join them too, feel free to leave me out - since I could care less.

08-21-2007, 01:05 AM

QUOTE(Viren @ Aug 20 2007, 08:30 PM)Yeah, chose to highlight it so it's clear to me that you are stating
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEthere is definitely some truth to the fact that all Muslims will always put their religion even before their country
or
QUOTEthere is definitely all truth to the fact that some Muslims will always put their religion even before their country

Please go ahead and let me know.

And when I said that 'not true' I pointed it out that your statement (whether 'heard' or 'read' or 'perceived' or 'dreamt') about Kalam's upbringing is not true and pointed to Kalam's own reference on that.
And unless you prove otherwise I'll stand by that statement, thank you.
[right][snapback]72280[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Viren earlier writes âYour last line is too broad a statement and certainly not trueâ.

But in his last post Viren writes âAnd when I said that 'not true' I pointed it out that your statement about Kalam's upbringing is not trueâ. Oh Really?

This is called shifting the goal post...Now you have started placing total emphasis on my post about Kalam in order to avoid answering the question I had originally posed to you in the earlier post...Hmm...

08-21-2007, 01:09 AM

Ok, back to your post:
What is it:

QUOTEthere is definitely some truth to the fact that all Muslims will always put their religion even before their country
or
QUOTEthere is definitely all truth to the fact that some Muslims will always put their religion even before their country

08-21-2007, 01:14 AM

QUOTE(Viren @ Aug 20 2007, 08:39 PM)Ok, back to your post:
What is it:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEthere is definitely some truth to the fact that all Muslims will always put their religion even before their country
or
QUOTEthere is definitely all truth to the fact that some Muslims will always put their religion even before their country
[right][snapback]72282[/snapback][/right]
</div>

What part of the statement I made earlier i.e 'In my second last post, if I made a statement and you immediately pointed a accusatory finger saying it is not true, so onus of proving whether the statement is âtrueâ or not first lies with you or me?' you do not understand?

08-21-2007, 01:20 AM

Ajatshatru:
You initially stated:
QUOTEthere is definitely some truth to the fact that all Muslims will always put their religion even before their country

I listed skeptism on this and cited references that is it really 'all' we are taking here? Now, I can see where you are coming from and how much you can stand behind your original statements.
Thanks - discussion ends here.
Mods: thread clean up please.

08-22-2007, 11:22 AM

Ajatshatru,
Please don't make personal attack on form member.
All have common concern regarding Hindusim or India or Indic ethos, dicsussion should be civil, if someone contradicts your views, please don't take it personal.

We are not deleting your post, they are just invisible/queued.

Moderator.

ramana · 08-27-2007, 10:14 AM

I just saw "Chak De India". It is a very good example of how the groups in India lose out to others when they try to grab the pie for themselves and win big when they cooperate and confound the outsiders.

I recommend the movie to all.

Good job Sharukh! I thought you lost it with Kabhi Alvida Na kehna.

I only hope BJP passes the ball to INC and help them win the match.

08-28-2007, 12:34 AM

In prison Lord Hanuman, Beckham 'inspired' DuttQUOTENew Delhi: Sources close to Sanjay Dutt have revealed that apart from doing prison work at Pune's Yerwada jail, the actor spent a considerable amount of time reading the sacred Hindu text Hanuman Chalisa.

The night he read the sacred book 101 times and slept, the next morning he woke up to see a monkey on a nearby tree. The same day he heard the news of his release by the Supreme Court, reported UNI.

When Dutt saw the monkey, he reportedly mentioned it to his friend and co-convict Yusuf Nullwala and snd at that moment, both agreed that ''something good was going to happen.''

Three days later, Dutt's lawyers were able to convince the court that it was indeed unjust to be given a six-year jail term without being told why.


now read comments.

Shambhu · 08-28-2007, 01:08 AM

....Wonder which scriptures Sanjay Dutt read when he helped the Jehadis.

I hate the racist b@stard churchill, but agree with what he said, "Nothing concentrates a man's mind like the thought of being hanged".

Pakjabis, Shabana Azmi, Romila Thapar, Margaret Roy...put pressure on them continuously, and they will sort themselves out in a hurry...Universal formula.

08-28-2007, 08:33 PM

For one, prisons are easy hunting grounds for the soul-saver types. In US, if I'm not mistaken, the percentage of maximum converts happen in such 'rehabilitation facilities'. I think someone on IF had even put a link in some ISKON related thread as to the nice work ISKON have done in spreading Hinduism.

If Dutt goes to jail, and is enlightened enough on his own to read Hanuman Chilisa, gets his bail approved and he credits his new found spiritual awakening, what's the problem?

Misdeeds in pasts landed him in jail. But hey, look what got him out <!--emo& Wink

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' />
Pysc-ops is a sword that cuts both ways - use it effectively.

08-28-2007, 11:43 PM

Dhokha -The Muslim viewpointQUOTEWhy do you want Dhokha to be tax-free?
I want Muslims, Dalits and Assamese to come see my film. Iâm not interested in bouquets. I want to go and see the film in a cinema hall with the young generation from the minorities who stand up and say I have said what they feel.

The message of the film seems to be that India treated Muslims unfairly. Isnât that a tough stand to take?

If youâve seen my previous films like Tamanna and Zakhm, youâll know this is not the first time Iâm taking a stand. I believe in the film and am not scared to answer questions. Iâd have been frightened if I had spent my life only making popcorn flicks or regressive TV serials.

Why does the film stay away from showing Pakistan needling in Indiaâs affairs?

Was Pakistan responsible for the Gujarat riots? Has Narendra Modi come from Pakistan? Did the Best Bakery case happen due to Pakistan? Read the Srikrishna Comm-ission report and you will know what I am talking. For saying this, Dhokha might get banned in Gujarat. But havenât I said the truth?Â

You send out the message through your protagon-istâ Muzammil Ibrahim. Did you pick Muzammil because he is a Muslim?

See, I wanted someone who would look Muslim and be natural in performing the mosque prayers. The character had to look believable.

You have not talked about the minority in India in general. You chose to tell your story through only a Muslim?

Today, what is the divide? Isnât it Islam versus the rest of the world? The world changed after 9/11. Thereafter, Muslims were looked upon differently. Itâs almost as if every Muslim is related to Osama Bin Laden. Yes, Iâm telling the story of Dhokha through a Muslim, but isnât the Muslim minority the largest minority in our country? (pauses).

Shambhu · (This post was last modified: 08-29-2007, 12:05 AM by Shambhu.)

QUOTE(Mudy @ Aug 28 2007, 11:43 PM)Dhokha -The Muslim viewpoint<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEWhy do you want Dhokha to be tax-free?
[color=red]

Today, what is the divide? Isnât it Islam versus the rest of the world? The world changed after 9/11. Thereafter, Muslims were looked upon differently. Itâs almost as if every Muslim is related to Osama Bin Laden. 
[right][snapback]72595[/snapback][/right]
</div>

No you little liar filmmaker, but every muslim does pray to the Big Bloodthisrty Allah and want "the most perfect human being", a murderer child molester rapist, to intercede on his behalf and get him into the Pak Paradise Phull of Porno Pastimes.

I know, some people have been born into and trapped by islam, but there are many others who look forward to this rotten, stinking "spirituality"...never thinking of analyzing what exactly they are promoting, never taking off their rose (or blood)-coloured glasses when they read about Muhammad's sexploits and sadistic murders..

08-30-2007, 03:10 AM

Was posted in a yahoogroup:
QUOTEPooja Bhatt is married to Munish Makhija (aka Channel V veejay Udham Singh), who was born and raised in Delhi.

To understand Pooja Bhatt, it might help to know that she hails from an extremely mixed family. Her father Mahesh Bhatt is himself a (self-described illegitimate) product of a Hindu Brahmin father (Nanabhai Bhatt)and a Shia Muslim mother since Nanabhai Bhatt already had a legal wife when Mahesh was conceived out of wedlock.

Pooja is the daughter of Mahesh Bhatt and his first wife Nadira Zaheer Babbar. Pooja apparently comes from Gujarati, Muslim, Armenian, Scottish and Burmese backgrounds. Here is the rest of the Bhatt bollywood clan:

Mukesh Bhatt
Mahesh Bhatt
Bhawna Bhatt (Mahesh's daughter)
Pooja Bhatt (Mahesh's daughter)
Sidharath Bhatt (Mahesh's son)
Vikram Bhatt (Mukesh's son)
Emraan Hashmi (nephew of both Mahesh and Mukesh Bhatt),
Soni Razdan (Mahesh Bhatt's ex-wife)
Onjolee Nair (niece of Mahesh Bhatt)
Mohit Suri (Mahesh's nephew)
Smiley Suri (Mahesh's niece, younger sister of Mohit suri)
Parveen Shahani (Emraan's wife)


It's really interesting to note that:
QUOTEproduct of a Hindu Brahmin father (Nanabhai Bhatt)and a Shia Muslim mother since Nanabhai Bhatt already had a legal wife when Mahesh was conceived out of wedlock. 
In an interview over an year ago (discussed on this forum if I'm not mistaken) Mahesh Bhatt had noted his secular roots into the fact that his parents were harassed by grandparents because of their intercaste/religion marriage. But it seems like the reasons for 'harassment' were entirely misplaced since Pappa Bhatt was playing producing out-of-wedlock kid(s?) and any sane family would express concerns. Anyway, old news.

To issue at hand on Pooja Bhatt's movie, seems like another futile attempt to revive her dying career which had her lately sitting as a judge in some kids talent show contest (Boogie-Woogie type show) on Sony TV. But I'm sure our EBs (energizer bunnies) will stone and protest against this movie and ensure that movie survives beyond first week in theatres.
Like it happens to all Deepa Mehta movies.

As for her requests for making it tax-free, instead of tax payers subsidizing the movie, she should be requested to NOT charge for the public for movie, since it's all for a 'good cause'. Let's see how long the bogus ideals last when the movie fananciers (aka 'do number ka paisa' walas) come knocking on the door.

These guys run the perfect scam:
- embrace an idealogy of the day
- shed crocodile tears for perceived victims
- play victim of harassment for their shoddy work
- wash black money by investing in venture
- make white money with ticket sales
- ask government to subsidize their business
- collect international awards
- tax-free paid tours to phoren nations
- recirculate movies as a fact to alter history
- screen movies for free at donor events to raise even more money

03-01-2008, 09:20 AM

Saturday, February 23, 2008 - Commentary

Between the distorted tributes to Akbar Ghazi and the fake Kabir Khan, it is hard to understand why the Islamic Republic of Pakistan really needs an ISI when they have Bollywood and its agents in the trade-award lobby planted in India to do their job for them right under the eyes of the Indian public.

This agenda of Bollywood continues this year with Filmfare, once known to ignore popular Hindi blockbusters in favor of Naseeruddin Shah type cinema in the name of 'appreciating art', now having dropped all pretensions of that neutrality and dignity.

The filmfare sponsors were linked to the mid-east funded underworld not too long ago. But they don't even bother pretending not to be an Islamist charade anymore.

The awards are hosted at Adi Chopra's studio, where Chopras are given some made up power award. What is the need for a made up 'power award' in a critical appreciation environment anyway should be the first question? But that apart, why are chopras given these made up power awards?

The answer is not because they were able to make Uday Chopra into a superstar. It is because Chopras are serving as vessels to promote certain Khan actors in Hindi's cinema, not for any other reason. The show is emceed by this khan, Shah Rukh Khan, who conveniently, is again nominated for the award, standing along with Saif Ali Khan who's linked to a Kareena Kapoor, who is also now all of a sudden being given award after award as if she is the new Nutan. Why? You can't be sure whether her award is for her performance in some movie, or for her performance of dumping her man for some Khan in real life.

This is not to ignore the Shahrukh Khan Community peons Farah Khan, and Sajid Khan, whose works like Heyy Babyy and OSO are also deemed worthy of an award nomination.

After a series of gimmicks, the actor award goes to....who else? Shahrukh Khan, the supposed host. Nobody asks how can any actor, who is supposed to be a nominee for awards gets to be a host also.

This is nothing new of course. Even in years 'baadsha' Khan is rejected by the audience, Filmfare likes to create a false illusion and make up some award for Khan.

The whole charade is a first class repulsive political tamasha. The BJP (or some other) government before it comes into power should take note that Bollywood and its media are nothing but the media arm of the Islamist congress party. That congress has been getting routed and its government is about to fall from Delhi but bollywood has so far gone unscathed. And it shouldn't anymore.

Because Bollywood's trade and award lobby have become unabashedly political along that ideology (it can be seen through Zee Cine Awards, IIFA, Star Screen awards, Filmfare and trade write-ups). The politics of it is that if you're a Hindu, and make a movie on Hindu cultural values or heroes, you will get the shaft at the awards. On the other hand, make a semi-coherent movie starring a Muslim Khan actor, or distort towards heroism of a Jalaluddin Akbar Ghazi in Jodhaa Akbar or some fake Kabir Khan in Chak De, well you might as well book yourself a filmfare award now. It would be one thing if there was a semblance of balance reflecting the reality of Hindustan as a whole but there isn't. This crowd is something else, belongs somewhere else. This is not the Hindi reality.

The question is why are Hindus patronizing this charade, let alone allowing this in the name of Hindi cinema? What we have here is essentially subsidization of Pakistani-Punjabi culture in the guise of Hindi cinema. Pakistani-Punjabi because those Punjabis who lean Hindu too get the shaft from the trade/award lobby. And all this is increasingly being done dropping all pretenses of dignity and secularism. These people benefitting from secularism are themselves operating in communal camps when they can.

But be that as it may then. They can self-congratulate themselves right now. But Bollywood and its awards are going to be treated in the same manner from now on in response; without pretense of the esteem and dignity that an award is supposed to represent in the first place.

And politically, the producers and lobbyists need to keep in mind that the climate can change in 10 Janpath soon. They will have to go pleading to the very people being angered right now.

Courtesy: IBOS Network

Husky · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2008, 10:35 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(k.ram @ Mar 1 2008, 09:20 AM)Saif Ali Khan who's linked to a Kareena Kapoor, who is also now all of a sudden being given award after award as if she is the new Nutan. Why? You can't be sure whether her award is for her performance in some movie, or for her performance of dumping her man for some Khan in real life.[right][snapback]79132[/snapback][/right]EDIT Other than it being about Kareena, the following is not really related. Not that we couldn't already tell from her name:
bolllywood.blogspot.com/2007/12/merry-christmas-from-kareena-amrita-and.html (WARNING: photo of two IMO scary-looking people)
QUOTE"I've been celebrating X'mas ever since I was in my mom's arms. Not many know that my mother is half Christian and that Christmas is celebrated in our home in a big way. We attend midnight mass, decorate a Christmas tree and do everything that a traditional Christian family would," says Kareena.(Umm, decorating fir trees for Winter Solstice has nothing to do with christianism. Didn't she go to school before dropping out - or whatever she did?)
Can't find it now, but elsewhere it was stated that Kareena considers herself "1/4th christian" <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> (I never did understand cinestars' logic.) Didn't anyone tell her that her christian gawd doesn't tolerate any other God and instead commands his followers to not only keep themselves away from other Gods and their followers, but also to do away with them? In other words, her one gawd wants her to do in the other 3/4 of herself.... <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' />

Bodhi · 03-01-2008, 12:15 PM

QUOTEWe were married twice,â says Farha, âOne time we married according to the South Indian rituals because Shirish is a South Indian and the other time, we had a nikah because I am a Muslim.

http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit10312005/vimlapatil.asp


She is a "muslim" but her husband is a "South Indian" and not "Hindu". Why is she embarrassed?

On one hand you have Saroj "Khan", Gauri "Khan", and so on... but if a Farah Khan marries a Shirish Kunder - she will remain a Muslim and continue to have a "Khan" tag. The 3 new born triplets will be 3 more "Khans" too, you bet.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 03-02-2008, 06:54 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Mar 1 2008, 12:15 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEWe were married twice,â says Farha, âOne time we married according to the South Indian rituals because Shirish is a South Indian and the other time, we had a nikah because I am a Muslim.

http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit10312005/vimlapatil.asp


She is a "muslim" but her husband is a "South Indian" and not "Hindu". Why is she embarrassed?

On one hand you have Saroj "Khan", Gauri "Khan", and so on... but if a Farah Khan marries a Shirish Kunder - she will remain a Muslim and continue to have a "Khan" tag. The 3 new born triplets will be 3 more "Khans" too, you bet.
[right][snapback]79138[/snapback][/right]</div>What "S Indian rituals" is she talking about? All South Indian rituals are specifically Hindu or otherwise Dharmic - even where these are regional, they are very much tied to the local expression of Hindu or other Dharma. There are no non-Dharmic S Indian rituals. (Unless the DMK have suddenly invented new rituals for themselves like baptism or something else that's a stepping stone to christoislamism and are now advertising these as 'S Indian rituals', which they can never be anyway. I doubt this Shirish is a DMK dude though, as he's open minded enough to wear traditional N Indian clothes and his parents have given him an India-wide name.)

Farha can brave the vengeful ummah and state her husband is Hindu/Jain or Buddhist, as the case may be. She has dared them enough already in stating her husband is S Indian yet not muslim and that he has 'rituals' that were not islamic as opposed to the nikah she had performed. If a Faithful is going to hang her for marrying out of her 'True faith', she has already given them enough rope by admitting this much.

This Shirish Kunder/Kumar (the article has spelled his surname both ways several times, so which is it?) is playing the dhimmi in his marriage as well. He doesn't strike me as the kind not exposed to the workings of the non-Hindu Indian world - that kind of Hindu would never knowingly marry outside the religion anyway. So it's valid now to ask: what kind of person would let their own identity be taken from them and be belittled and negated by their spouse? What kind of marriage is that anyway? Is he so much younger than her that he has not yet learnt self-respect and the right to his own identity?
I don't know why he cared so much for his own identity to bother getting married according to his own Dharmic rituals and yet couldn't bother to explain to his wife that his religion has a name too and it's not the irrelevant geographical term "South Indian". I hope he reads this interview of hers and does one of two things: he either tells his wife that his identity is <Hindu/Jain/Buddhist> and that she should say it right and stop deceiving people (is she ashamed of who he is?); or he gives his wife the contact details of a divorce lawyer. The mistake against him is such a colossal one on her part that the second option is quite valid in this case, IMO.
Unless he doesn't care about his traditions/who he is after all, in which he can ignore her offence altogether.

03-03-2008, 08:09 PM

There's one thing I just don't get. We keep complaining that Bollywood is anti-hindu and it always shows muslims in a good light, and so on. Why is it no rich Hindu, perhaps an NRI, wants to make some good pro-Hindu movies, then? Is it because we can only complain, and not put our money where our mouth is? Why can't the rich NRI hindus get together, and start making movies? They have enough money for expensive weddings and stuff, but won't spend a dime for something like this. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /> So we only have ourselves to blame.

03-03-2008, 08:14 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ Mar 2 2008, 06:50 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Mar 1 2008, 12:15 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEWe were married twice,â says Farha, âOne time we married according to the South Indian rituals because Shirish is a South Indian and the other time, we had a nikah because I am a Muslim.

http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit10312005/vimlapatil.asp


She is a "muslim" but her husband is a "South Indian" and not "Hindu". Why is she embarrassed?

On one hand you have Saroj "Khan", Gauri "Khan", and so on... but if a Farah Khan marries a Shirish Kunder - she will remain a Muslim and continue to have a "Khan" tag. The 3 new born triplets will be 3 more "Khans" too, you bet.
[right][snapback]79138[/snapback][/right]</div>What "S Indian rituals" is she talking about? All South Indian rituals are specifically Hindu or otherwise Dharmic - even where these are regional, they are very much tied to the local expression of Hindu or other Dharma. There are no non-Dharmic S Indian rituals. (Unless the DMK have suddenly invented new rituals for themselves like baptism or something else that's a stepping stone to christoislamism and are now advertising these as 'S Indian rituals', which they can never be anyway. I doubt this Shirish is a DMK dude though, as he's open minded enough to wear traditional N Indian clothes and his parents have given him an India-wide name.)

Farha can brave the vengeful ummah and state her husband is Hindu/Jain or Buddhist, as the case may be. She has dared them enough already in stating her husband is S Indian yet not muslim and that he has 'rituals' that were not islamic as opposed to the nikah she had performed. If a Faithful is going to hang her for marrying out of her 'True faith', she has already given them enough rope by admitting this much.

This Shirish Kunder/Kumar (the article has spelled his surname both ways several times, so which is it?) is playing the dhimmi in his marriage as well. He doesn't strike me as the kind not exposed to the workings of the non-Hindu Indian world - that kind of Hindu would never knowingly marry outside the religion anyway. So it's valid now to ask: what kind of person would let their own identity be taken from them and be belittled and negated by their spouse? What kind of marriage is that anyway? Is he so much younger than her that he has not yet learnt self-respect and the right to his own identity?
I don't know why he cared so much for his own identity to bother getting married according to his own Dharmic rituals and yet couldn't bother to explain to his wife that his religion has a name too and it's not the irrelevant geographical term "South Indian". I hope he reads this interview of hers and does one of two things: he either tells his wife that his identity is <Hindu/Jain/Buddhist> and that she should say it right and stop deceiving people (is she ashamed of who he is?); or he gives his wife the contact details of a divorce lawyer. The mistake against him is such a colossal one on her part that the second option is quite valid in this case, IMO.
Unless he doesn't care about his traditions/who he is after all, in which he can ignore her offence altogether.
[right][snapback]79159[/snapback][/right]
</div>

People like this guy Sirish are as bad as Muslims, if not worse. We shouldn't even bother about these blokes, they're not hindus to begin with, they're just born hindus, that's all. We can call them hindus of the nehruvian kind, and we all know that's worse than Islam. <!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> So let's not get worked up over this, majority of hindus are like Sirish anyway, so let's concentrate on consolidating what we have.

03-03-2008, 08:32 PM

QUOTEso let's concentrate on consolidating what we have.

Was watching Real time with Bill Maher and heard Maher state an interesting statistic. He didn't attribute source or study - though I'd be most interested if anyone can find it.
He stated that of all the religions a person person most retentive of his faith/religion is a Hindu (84% chances that he/she'll stay Hindu his/her whole life). Least was Jevoha's witness (some 30%+ chances).
<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rock.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rock.gif' />

QUOTEperhaps an NRI, wants to make some good pro-Hindu movies, then?
Without big budget, big name stars, few made up romance scenes around flora/fauna and song/dance routine, they end up as documentaries. How many here watched say Sardar Patel(Paresh Rawal staring) or Veer Savarkar etc.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?