>> Why did she name the girls in FIRE as Radha and Sita,
Yes exactly Naresh, I wonder. Why did she protest vehemently on being asked to simply change the characters names !!! Seems like Deepas motivation was to shock and titillate, and not really make a progressive film, as she claimed repeatedly on TV
RE:On Fire
by Neeraja MBalchander on Jan 29, 2007 10:14 PM
Really, it is a story writer's wish. I feel that modern Indians lack the maturity our ancestors had. Seriously, the sculptures at Khajuraho are a revelation to anyone, and a king actually paid for that to be created, on a temple premise. Now we have meaningless objections to shooting real-life stories. Widows must be respected, but widows are exploited. And that is a fact. Does it hurt to see that on screen because it is close to home? And about Radha and Sita as names in Fire, there could not be better names for those! In fact, I believe that Sita was exploited all her life. She should have fought for her rights, instead she is ennobled because she remained bent by humiliation and blame for no fault of hers. The modern sita finds an alternate. So what!Why should all Radhas keep longing for Krishna who is happy with his 18000 wives. Don't mistake me, I have as much love of the Epic of Bhagavatam, but I also respect the rights of a director. That is the meaning of Freedom of Expression. Even if you find a statement unacceptable, you sould allow it to be said. That is reflective of our culture, which is great, strong, tolerant and beautiful. Frankly, Fire was not even a great movie. I can't understand why there is such a big hue and cry about a not-so-great movie!
RE:RE:On Fire
by Saurav Basu on Jan 29, 2007 11:51 PM
Your beliefs stem from your ignorance....Bitten by the snake of samsara, one cannot appreciate renunciation
RE:RE:On Fire
by KULDIP KUMAR on Jan 29, 2007 10:56 PM
Dear Neeraja MBalchander Why we are such or what made us to be such that we know Sita was wronged, AND wronged to the limitless extent by her husband but even then we dare not say Ram was bad!! Ram was merciless not worth of being called bhagwan! Bagwatam reveres all sorts of religious deeds whom today we call adultary, rape immorality. Why do we have " much love of the Epic of Bhagavatam " when it contains such things. Why do we NOT stand straight and say look these are the books which make a widow Radha Sita a prostitute! Why a book that "ennobled Sita because she remained bent by humiliation" is not opposed by us! when we say "She should have fought for her rights" Who has made us as such that we know Sita was wronged but we worship who wronged her! We more need our ancestor Kabir Raidas today
RE:RE:On Fire
by Jayant Chaudhary on Jan 29, 2007 11:46 PM
Neeraja,
You better learn some history and religion... do not just go by what is said by some of those who claim to know Hinduism and bend the story to make it look bad....
Can you explain how Sita Ji was exploited?? Ask your questions and I will be happy to answet them.
And where is it proven that Sri Krishma was enjoying 18000 wives??
DO NOT offend people by writing such inaccurate things.
RE:RE:RE:On Fire
by pooja sriv on Jan 30, 2007 02:11 AM
Please explain, why was Sita asked to walk thru fire to prove her purity? Secondly, even after doing so, why was she made to leave when she was expecting? Was it her fault that she was kidnapped?
RE:RE:RE:RE:On Fire
by Jayant Chaudhary on Jan 30, 2007 10:32 PM
Sure I can explain...
To begin with keep in mind, this "avatar" of Ram & Sita was to show how an ideal son/husband/king/wife should behave while getting this earth rid of (Raakshas) demons and evils people. Ram had to come to this earth as a human and lived as a human.
Son: He never questioned the orders given by his father and to keep his father's promise (given to Ram's step-mother), Ram gave-up his kingdom and went to forest ("vanwaas"). This might sound not a big deal, but think of abandoning all the comforts and luxuries of palaces and being the crown prince to live a hard life in jungles. It is mighty tough and grant gesture.
Husband: He took his wife Sita in vanwaas only because Sita insisted. Here Sita was playing the role of an ideal wife. In a marriage, husband-wife have to share joys and sorrows together. One can not abandon the spouse when misfortune befalls on the spouse. Then Ram took care of Sita as best as he could and kept searching for her when Ravan kidnapped her. Ram fought against all odds (searching in forests, fighting demons, crossing ocean and defeating mighty armies of Ravan etc..). Ram also cried and grieved due to separation from Sita.
King: Though as a husband he never suspected Sita and never believed that some untoward thing might have happened (between Ravan and Sita), as a King he had to make sure that there will not be any iota of doubt in the citizens of his kingdom about it. Therefore, he had to ask Sita to give "agni-parikshaa" (walk through fire). Please keep in mind, fire is the symbol of purity in Hinduism. Fire is also called "Paavak" in Sanskrit and word "Paavan" (meaning pious) is derived from "Paavak". So what is better than Paavak to testify that Sita was pure i.e. she did not succumb to riches and powers of Ravan when in captivity. Let it be known that Ravan was king of "trilok" and most powerful person at that time. Ravan was also immortal (due to "amrit" in his naval). It is also known fact that Ram (and others) cried when Sita was going through it. Ram had show this to the world that as an ideal King, one has to make sure that no one can doubt intentions and actions of a King and there is no room for allegations. - However, as fate would test Ram's principles later, a laundry-man ("dhobi") accused his own wife of eloping with someone else and coming back to him. To verbally abuse him, this 'dhobi' said "I am not Ram who will take his wife back even when she has spend nights after nights in someone's place.", this could not be ignored by ideal King. Though "agni-parikshaa" was done, it was not performed in front of whole population (and you can not do that). There still left a speck of doubt in peoples mind and could not be ignored. A King has to take actions when his integrity is questioned. Now this can be debated what could have been the best action, but Sita left Ram and went to Muni Vashishta's aashram in a forest. Again as a husband it was very tough decision for Ram, but as a King he had to take it. Sita again played the role of an ideal wife who had to ensure that her husband does not earn a bad name and is not a subject of ridicule and mockery. Again Ram showed to the world, how as a King one might have to sacrifice his/her loved ones and personal pleasures. As a King one has to rule for the people and not for himself. Once again a husband grieved and lamented loss of his wife, but King had to do it's duty.
Do I think Sita was wronged?? - Yes I do, and so was Ram. But in this form god and goddess they had to endure what a normal human being would and still showed how ideal son/husband/king/wife should behave.
RE:RE:RE:RE:On Fire
by S Ramesh on Jan 30, 2007 07:11 PM
It was done to show that Ram is living like human being. Eventhought Maha vishnu is god, when he become a human like ram, he is getting the normal human charechter of suspecting wife.
As a filmaker myself i agree to some extent the need of creative freedom, but not at the cost of hurting 1000's, Art is created to touch human emotions , not hurt them. Look at what the politician is trying to say.. the fact that the Holy city of Varanasi will be looked down upon becoz of this subject. I am not saying that prostitution does not take place there, but to onepointedly focus on it wil definatly potray Varanasi as a den of helpless prostitutes. Not All ashrams in India are like that , only some very few,, and they give others a bad name.. As for Deepa mehta, for those who think she is a hero struggling for a cause,, not so,, people like her try to fish out exotic material from our culture which is not well understood in the west but many are curious about,, and she sells it to them in the name of Art even if twisting and turning it.. Why did she name the girls in FIRE as Radha and Sita, coz she knew the controversy caused would be good for the movie in the west. ..As viewers and Indians we will have to look at both sides of the coin and not be Monodimensional..
RE:Do not be monodimensional!!
by KULDIP KUMAR on Jan 29, 2007 10:20 PM
Sir, why do v hav such baseless notions "Art is created to touch human emotions , not hurt them." I don't think it is prudent definition of Art. When Saint Kabir said : Kankad pathar jodke masjid leyi banaye, was his poetry not an Art. Nobody obstructed him saying so. Why today 'we' go mad when a single piece of truth is taken out of debris. I don't comment on motives of Deepa naming her characters as Sita or Radha. But there are 100s of pros who are named as such. Do we ask name of a pros before having sex with her.Or put otherwise do we start worshiping a pros named as such. Dear Sir, it is all politics. Had there not been such hue & cry perhaps few would have gone to see Water but now everybody like me wants to view the movie. Also the opponents of movie would have been lost somewhere but now with this controversy they have become the leader!! Nobody intends to take out the truth : the system and its preparators who make the widows to adopt prostitution! Nobody dares lift veil off them.But Kabirs are in the offing!! kuldip
RE:Do not be monodimensional!!
by Gaurav Dhingra on Jan 29, 2007 08:43 PM
Naresh Sharma - when did you last time made a film that is acceptable to 100% of people? I hope you are not making fims for Tom and Jerry? Even then, many people will term them as westernised characters..
Have you seen the fim? If yes which part of the Water makes you think its about defaming Hinduism or where in the film they say bad things about Hinduism - the only thing / message delivered was abondoning ladies who are widows should be thrown out of their families, society and live as untouchables?
RE:Do not be monodimensional!!
by biz Narayan on Jan 29, 2007 08:33 PM
The reality of those names is that, two more white friends in liberal canada. Many basking in stratospehere of morality would hide this reality.
RE:Great story Suparn
by priyank on Jan 29, 2007 10:13 PM
I can see why you would. A disgraceful film on Hinduism will be accepted with open arms from followers of other major religions. Deepa's has continuously degraded Hinduism, from naming lesbian characters as Radha and Sita in Fire, to bringing out a practice that is no longer prevelant in Hindu society. But my tolerant Hindu brothers will accept this as well, just as we have accepted MF Hussain. We all know what happed to Salman Rushdie, no such fatwa against Deepa
RE:HINDU BAITING. FEAR OF CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS.
by gaurav dhingra on Jan 29, 2007 08:09 PM
I guess you have better knowledge then Deepa on different religions, have you tried your hand in film making - comeon we all would like to see all shades of life, and learn from it. Please do something about it - show the truths it doesnt matter if you are showing for any part of the society.
Hello to all who have started to debate a issue without even watching a film, or even thinking sensibly on what subject they are writing.
I have seen the film, its a excellent film, a film that shows a story, a plight of women or womens who are abondoned by their family, parents, society to attain Moksha by living seperatly like they are untouchables...
Only one question to the public here - If something happens to your father, or your son in law or your sisters husband - will you throw your Mother out of the house? Or will you ask your daughter to leave everything and move to Widows House? Gentleman I am begging for your sincere answer, if someone is showing what we have been doing to ladies in all these decades what is teh harm in that - do you want to say that DO Evil but never Talk about it?
RE:I have seen WATER - its a fantastic film
by biz Narayan on Jan 29, 2007 08:08 PM
I shall not throw anybody, But I wouldn't ask this question to anybody unless there is a specific doubt, I wouldn't ask this public unless they are considered less respectable. widows are thrown .... This is demeaning to people ( I was raised by a widow) who accepted Brahmacarya.
RE:RE:I have seen WATER - its a fantastic film
by Gaurav Dhingra on Jan 29, 2007 08:28 PM
My salute to your mother - but my friend dont cofuse Brahmacarya, with literally throwing you out or cutting you off from the society. Hindu windows have no right to ceremony, no right in property, no right of home, no right of fulfilling basic human desires like good food, clothes, companionship.
This is totally unacceptable - See the picture with your mother, you will see by yourself how rightful is the depiction of widowhood is presented there without saying any negative comment about anything.
RE:RE:RE:I have seen WATER - its a fantastic film
by biz Narayan on Jan 29, 2007 08:45 PM
The right to property is not true( it was not my mother). Good food is there, unless you are talking about non-veg foods. Many people are vegans even today. Usually many hindus used to take veg food, so it is not out of society. Company - yes, we consider company of kids, familly and respect and freedom... widows have no restriction by society after their vow of Brahmacarya...,it is bit like sanyas.
Okay those are the institution, I have fond memories...I knew she fulfilled me with almost no luxuries, I was never void, never missed the world even with some apparent serious deprivation. it is the enrgy , focus, contentment... measure with that rather than the accessories... we see a different picture.
My objection is not about helping these people, one gets dharma by doing that. I don;t think deepa is as humble.
RE:RE:RE:RE:I have seen WATER - its a fantastic film
by Gaurav Dhingra on Jan 29, 2007 08:51 PM
Lucky man you are talking about widow who is acceptable in the society, thats why I told you watch the movie OR go to varanasi to see by yourself what it is like to be like a widow. Your care taker - I would call your God Mother because she raised you up as you said, is being enjoying all facilities that is great, and our message is it should be just like this. Not the othewise. Do some research on Hindu Widows on internet and you will be astonished to read about their misery, mind it I am not talking about gen Next widows of metros, I am talking about real people who suffered.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:I have seen WATER - its a fantastic film
by Jayant Chaudhary on Jan 30, 2007 12:08 AM
Hi Sanjeev,
I totally agree with you.. These days attacking Hindus is the fad and they think it is sign of 'progress'.. Whil ei do admit that we have some flaws, but why only Hinduism is targeted?? You are correct, if she really watned to take care of some issues then she should take on present issues like what you mentioned... And also, raise issues in other communities if she has guts to stand against their fury.
What about spreading some education on AIDS that is going to really kill millions of people and most of the indians are not even aware of that. What about population and such issues that are really plauging Inida.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:I have seen WATER - its a fantastic film
by sanjeev sharma on Jan 29, 2007 10:45 PM
Mr Dhingra, Could you please tell us how many such ashrams exists in India where people are dumping widows today. If she is really concerned for the society then why not make a film about the dowry which is a prevalent problem even today? Why make a story of past but not present and try to justify it in the name of social cause. Answer is simple there are so many other movies and media coverage for that already so it will not draw that kind of attention. As for the freedom of opinion goes I bet if she has courage to make a movie on plight of women in Afghanistan or Bangladesh or even Iraq. The pseudo secular of this country have courage to attack only Hindus on the name of freedom of expression, they can%u2019t raise a single issue concerning other communities. Long live hypocrisy !!
RE:RE:RE:I have seen WATER - its a fantastic film
by Saurav Basu on Jan 29, 2007 11:49 PM
You are merely quoting myth, not scripture....Hindu widows had absolute property rights, as evident from the injunctions of most smritis...It is too bad you have not read your own Shastras and keep propagating myths in the name of free speech
RE:RE:RE:I have seen WATER - its a fantastic film
by Jayant Chaudhary on Jan 30, 2007 12:18 AM
What the heck are you talking about Gaurav (if that is your real name).. I think you know nothing at all about Hindu widows. And I am not even sure if you know anything about Hinduism or our culture.
Following is very personal story, so do not mock it. My own Aunt has seen fate take her husband away.. She had to suffer this when she had kids also, and she was not working (it was 20 years ago). She was able to join work and provide home, food, cloths etc to herself and kids. She attended all ceremonies (including marriages of others) and such without any issues. She even came to my wedding to bless us. She owns a house and she was given her share (and her husband's) in the ancestral property.
I look up to her and respect her for being able to take control of life.
Now, I can agree that some women had to suffer, but to say that "Hindu windows have no right to ceremony,...." is WRONG. Do not type cast whole Hinduism..
Indeed we live in democratic India where a bunch of elected goons can opress other ppls right to free thinking in the name of " OUR SANSKRIT and SABHYATA", what i do not understand is the need to stop a film from being screend or shot, it kinda stamps affirmation to the whole theory of the film which otherwise could have been just ignored as being fiction.
More so I feel that as an audience majority of India still believes Cinema to be a medium of just dacne routines, fake emotions and Half sized heroes bashing up thrice their size villans. We still have not come to tems with the truth that prevail in our society. That is the reason why Gujarat bans films on Godhra Riots , we just cannot accept the truth !!!!!
RE:Democracy
by biz Narayan on Jan 29, 2007 08:01 PM
We should have freedom to say when maoist films are banned in Kolkatta. just being Revolutionary to sanksrit etc doesn't mean to be abusive and make hurtful, instead it would be to be truthful. The earth , the fire, the water ... isn't there a pattern to what deepa does ? Let us not be blind to somebody's canadian fame.
Water is shodily directed with poor acting, especially the kid%u2014who is damn irritating. It's a very average film. Its just the subject that stands out and I guess thats what caught the Oscar attention. But whats commendable is the filmmaker's determination to go through with making it in spite of all opposition. Putting 5 years or so of one's life into a project is no mean achievement. Many insecure people over here feel threatened by Deepa Mehta picking the subject of hindu widow's of varansi. Its just too immature. I see no point or basis for a question like "why don deepa mehta look at other burning issues?" or "why don't intellectuals look at muslim issues?, why do they bash hindu brahmins". One even goes as far as to suggest that "indian intellectuals did not make a hue n cry about the banning of Satanic Verses. I wonder how this person is sure no one spoke against it. A filmmaker's, artist's choice of a subject is an individualistic choice. They don't have a social compulsion to work only on subjects that are burning or pressing. Deepa Mehta says a story of 1930 and never in the film tries to suggest it is 2006. So what is wrong?
RE:Water
by biz Narayan on Jan 29, 2007 07:26 PM
Thanks Sriram for one sensible defense of Deepa. If you check deepa's series, she is doing it on the sacred symbols that people in this country worshipped deep in jungles, in localities, lonely ... and with festivity. Deepa is trying to redefine those concepts, each with an opposite meaning. So the intention is an assault, the depiction is to slander all the windows who took hindu lords name in Varanashi since centuries... We know meaning of brahmacarya, Suparn or Deepa need not define it for history as well as for the present. This is the objection.
RE:RE:Water
by Mohammed Abdul Sami on Jan 29, 2007 08:37 PM
Well, for some truth hurts. Face it ...'there is no smoke without a fire'..its always difficult to digest that ones forefathers have practiced evil, but it is more dippressing and shamful to support the evil done. Mind IT.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Water
by Mohammed Abdul Sami on Jan 29, 2007 09:21 PM
I appreciate it, that you must be doing some study on ISLAM, may ALLAH grant you the wisdom to understand it.
To your accusision, get your facts right. Prophet MUHAMMAD (Peace Be Upon Him) never murdered hurt anyone, let alone the grave accussion of murder. And took Bibi Ayesha (RH) as his wife, when she was a women (eventhough she was only 9 yrs !).No harm in it.
Prophets Muhammad's(PBUH) character is the least thing that one can attack. Even at the peak of his struggle for getting the word of ALLAH across the arabs, his rival could not find a single flaw with his character...
So just think, when even his adveseries of his time , who have seen and lived with him could not find any thing wrong with him as a person (there oppositin was with the message he preached...ISLAM), does it not feel stupid of pupil like you who try to bring things out of context and try to demonstrate as if they are all well knowing !!!..
Also, FYI it was immoral practices that where prevelant in those times in arab that Prophet MUHAMMAD (PBUH) fought against and upheld the human values...
FOr those who seek truth, its in front of them. Be courageous to hold it and be truthful to your souls.
Becoz there will be a day when your souls will be held accountable !!
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Water
by saif kashmiri on Jan 29, 2007 09:52 PM
Mohd Sami is a bit confused person.Prophet got married to Ayesha when she was 6 years old and Prophet 55 yearrs.The marriage was consumed when Aisha was 9.For confirm read Sirat by Ibn Isaq and hadith by Shaih Bukhari or Shaih Muslim.These are most authentic books cosidered by muslim in whole world. saif kashmiri
RE:RE:RE:RE:Water
by Mohammed Abdul Sami on Jan 29, 2007 09:59 PM
Sorry Sreesa, if it was very preachy !!, I am not efficient enough to get my talk across in limited words. Please forgive me.
I am not here to win any argument. My only request is discussions could be non-abusive and frindly. So please discuss matters while contolling your emotions.
My other request would be to ask everyone here to search for truth. Remember no one will be spared on the day of judgement. And this day will come for sure. one's destiny is in his/hers own hands.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Water
by sarah h on Jan 29, 2007 10:23 PM
hi i suppose this message board topic is abt movie water & why is there muslim bashing going on & let me make it clear ,i 'm not a muslim ,i am student of philosophy ,the prophet of islam is responsible for some major pro women decision ,like widow remarriage ,inheritance to fathers property & most of his marriages was result of diplomatic effort to bring peace with major tribe .
in the same way condition of hindu widow is much different at todays time ,although during 1930 the condition was miserable ,thanks to effort of great social reformer like raja ram mohan roy ,the widow got their due but still lot has to be done in this regard ,
instead we should come up with suggestion how to improve their condition & law should be implement in this regard ,its quite evident things have'nt vanished entirely like report of sati making head lines once in while , its not impt to deny the wrongs but to change it ,lot has to be done in this regard in interior of india .
What were these so called educated, forward looking secular journalists doing when Satanic Verses were banned in India? Is the book so strong or Islam so weak to get shattered?
If the 'Water' team was so touched by problems of the widows, and they thought that such problem exists in reality on a large scale, why don't they run a social movement in Varanasi? Shabana Azmi claims to be involved in so many social movements! Either this movement won't be adequately funded to justify her 'commitment' to the cause OR the problem ceases to exist. Both reasons are very much likely!!
The pseudo-secularists are very good at making aberrations look like a norm, in particular when it comes to whipping Hindus.
RE:Satanic Verses
by Mohammed Abdul Sami on Jan 29, 2007 09:44 PM
I have not read this particular book but my question would be why are you so angry?, ancient India is known for many inhuman acts. Thankfully these practices have ceaded.
But it is a fact and no fiction. Things more inhuman have been documented. But what is the point being angry over it. Human are bound to make mistake, and learn from them to be better pupil.
I do not believe in any kind of secularism. For me my belive is enough to be a good human,it prohibits me from doing evil and encourages me to be a good human.
After all belive is the one that binds humanity over cast color and creed.
Your argument is without substance, arguing for the sake of argument takes no one any where !!!
RE:RE:Satanic Verses
by sanjeev sharma on Jan 29, 2007 11:11 PM
Dear sami,
Ancient India had many problems. No denying it but many of such practices are abandoned and hence I think irrelevant in present context. There are so many issues of modern world why not highlight them ? How about the plight of muslim women in modern world? why people don't raise voices for them? r they not human? yes they do!! but there is a risk involved%u2026 if you say something then some Imam will issue a fatwa and your life is endangered. That%u2019s what anger people, you can%u2019t have double standards for the same thing%u2026if making of water is freedom of expression then so do the %u201Csatanic verses%u201D and so is the Danish cartoon of prophet%u2026.let%u2019s see everything in the same light%u2026r u ready??
RE:RE:RE:Satanic Verses
by fareed ahmed on Jan 29, 2007 11:23 PM
Who says ,voices against the plight of muslim, its done all the time.But it wont make any 'masala news' for you. So No one is bothered. All the time the very existence of muslims in india is questioned , so where will you have time to think about it?? EVery local problem is made Global and every Global problem is made local. Because of that attitude , if a muslim does something wrong in Kashmir,the Keralite is held responsible and hatred towards him. With this mentality you expect people to write about the plight of muslim women? or men for that matter???
