My view aligns wholeheartedly with Bharatvarsh (see above post).
And now I add to that my unsought opinion:
I find the very idea of this film offensive. Offensive against truth, against history, against my Hindu ancestors, against the Hindu community as a whole (past and present, which includes my Hindu person). When our ancestors were terrorised by Akbar and his kind, and our people today continue to be so, I don't see that our people can afford to be so cavalier as to overlook all this continued suffering in order to watch a movie that promotes such a false, untruthful view of the oppressors.
It is no more than dawaganda.
Can anyone see these psecular 'Hindus' making movies about real historical facts - on our Hindu hero(in)es? They would never. It would be oh so 'communal' to present such terribly inconvenient facts in film, when they aren't even allowed to be in textbooks. Since they can't ever tell the unpleasant truth about islam in India (it would be decidedly uncomfortable; certainly not the idea pseculars want to promote at all), they have to concoct a fantasy that makes it look all swell. (And predictably, it's a romantic fantasy about the usual: a male oppressor and a female oppressee falling in love. It perfectly represents the state of India that they wish to maintain: keeping the dhimmi populace - the oppressee - subordinated to the oppressor: terrorism and the terrorist violence that is the falsification of history. By means of induced/contrived infatuation. For instance through the media's 1984-esque inversions such as 'we win against terrorism when we continue on after each attack as if nothing has happened' <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->) Of course I can imagine they made the film <i>look</i> good: colourful and pretty. Just like the pseculars and their media make dhimmitude look so convenient and comfortable which keeps Hindus in continued inertia.
But when one <i>knows</i> it is dawaganda, vote with your wallet.
"Although it is a great crime to speak evil words, it is an even greater crime to listen to them". In Amar Chitra Katha's comic book rendering of Kalidasa's Kumarasambhavam, the glorious Parvati said something like that on leaving a Man In Guise who was demeaning her wonderful Shiva to her face.
Similarly, when pseculars commit violence against truth it is expected of them. That is what they do. But it is a far greater evil when an aware Dharmic individual accepts it, facilitates it (say by monetary contribution or some other way of endorsing it). Just like I won't watch the christolying of Mel Gibson against Mayans in his "Apocalypto".
"Jodhaa Akbar" is <i>not</i> just a film. It is social engineering, and insidious manipulation. Why help further it.
It is against our heroic ancestors who gave their lives so we could remain free happy Hindus today with the relative peace we still have now. For me to watch such a film is treason against my ancestors.
(Before anyone nitpicks: Yes, I know I am not directly descended from Rajput heroes, Shivaji, the Reddy Rulers, and our other great heroes from the many ends of Bharat. But as a Hindu I have immediate claim on all of them, which translates into instant spiritual 'genetic' kinship. Every Hindu has that, when he chooses to recognise and acknowledge it. In that sense they <i>are</i> my ancestors and no different to me from my physical ones.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bharatvarsh: 9) People who glorify or celebrate him (akbar) are spitting on the memory of Maharana Pratap Singh and his countless followers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's how I feel. I just can't imagine why Hindus would do such a thing, even cursorily - by participating or watching such a film.
Don't know what Aishwarya was thinking. (I expect nothing of Hrithik Roshan who always insists on playing the 'loveable' psecular islamic terrorist in movies. As in, actual terrorist. I speak of the much-advertised films "Mission Kashmir" and "Fiza".) I thought Aishwarya's secularism would have been more honest, less careless. Guess I was merely wrong.
And now I add to that my unsought opinion:
I find the very idea of this film offensive. Offensive against truth, against history, against my Hindu ancestors, against the Hindu community as a whole (past and present, which includes my Hindu person). When our ancestors were terrorised by Akbar and his kind, and our people today continue to be so, I don't see that our people can afford to be so cavalier as to overlook all this continued suffering in order to watch a movie that promotes such a false, untruthful view of the oppressors.
It is no more than dawaganda.
Can anyone see these psecular 'Hindus' making movies about real historical facts - on our Hindu hero(in)es? They would never. It would be oh so 'communal' to present such terribly inconvenient facts in film, when they aren't even allowed to be in textbooks. Since they can't ever tell the unpleasant truth about islam in India (it would be decidedly uncomfortable; certainly not the idea pseculars want to promote at all), they have to concoct a fantasy that makes it look all swell. (And predictably, it's a romantic fantasy about the usual: a male oppressor and a female oppressee falling in love. It perfectly represents the state of India that they wish to maintain: keeping the dhimmi populace - the oppressee - subordinated to the oppressor: terrorism and the terrorist violence that is the falsification of history. By means of induced/contrived infatuation. For instance through the media's 1984-esque inversions such as 'we win against terrorism when we continue on after each attack as if nothing has happened' <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->) Of course I can imagine they made the film <i>look</i> good: colourful and pretty. Just like the pseculars and their media make dhimmitude look so convenient and comfortable which keeps Hindus in continued inertia.
But when one <i>knows</i> it is dawaganda, vote with your wallet.
"Although it is a great crime to speak evil words, it is an even greater crime to listen to them". In Amar Chitra Katha's comic book rendering of Kalidasa's Kumarasambhavam, the glorious Parvati said something like that on leaving a Man In Guise who was demeaning her wonderful Shiva to her face.
Similarly, when pseculars commit violence against truth it is expected of them. That is what they do. But it is a far greater evil when an aware Dharmic individual accepts it, facilitates it (say by monetary contribution or some other way of endorsing it). Just like I won't watch the christolying of Mel Gibson against Mayans in his "Apocalypto".
"Jodhaa Akbar" is <i>not</i> just a film. It is social engineering, and insidious manipulation. Why help further it.
It is against our heroic ancestors who gave their lives so we could remain free happy Hindus today with the relative peace we still have now. For me to watch such a film is treason against my ancestors.
(Before anyone nitpicks: Yes, I know I am not directly descended from Rajput heroes, Shivaji, the Reddy Rulers, and our other great heroes from the many ends of Bharat. But as a Hindu I have immediate claim on all of them, which translates into instant spiritual 'genetic' kinship. Every Hindu has that, when he chooses to recognise and acknowledge it. In that sense they <i>are</i> my ancestors and no different to me from my physical ones.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bharatvarsh: 9) People who glorify or celebrate him (akbar) are spitting on the memory of Maharana Pratap Singh and his countless followers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's how I feel. I just can't imagine why Hindus would do such a thing, even cursorily - by participating or watching such a film.
Don't know what Aishwarya was thinking. (I expect nothing of Hrithik Roshan who always insists on playing the 'loveable' psecular islamic terrorist in movies. As in, actual terrorist. I speak of the much-advertised films "Mission Kashmir" and "Fiza".) I thought Aishwarya's secularism would have been more honest, less careless. Guess I was merely wrong.