The arise of controversies with the release of Jodha-Akbar has restated that nothing can just pass by peacefully in India.There has to be a controversy.Its for sure that whatever Govarikar would have shown in the movie,there would have been a protest.If he would have shown Jodha as Akbar's daughter-in-law,even then the situation would have been the same.Why don't people just treat it like any other movie and enjoy it if they want to!Even the descendents of Akbar are supporting Govarikar!!Are 'they' wrong?Also,is there any strong and convincing proof of Jodha-Akbar relation,except Akbar's descendents??I think every person has his own views,which are the result of the information he possesses.As every person has a distinct source of information,opinions will surely vary,and so no one can create such a thing which satisfies each and every person..and hence the controversies...
It has become a routine in this country to protest against deviant view points of history.
It seems members of protesting organizations depend on such events for their daily bread, by extracting money by holding people for ransom.
When there are 2 different view points contradicting each other, why don't people just let go of it? Afterall, its just an opinion, doesn't harm anybody physically.
Firstly, how do these people know for sure that Jodhaa was not Akbar's wife? When the royal family themselves accept that Jodhaa was indeed his wife.
Then, what the heck? What if Jodhaa was actually his daughter-in-law? will we ever be able to confirm it. So, why don't they see the film as a work of fiction? They don't have to see it. No one compels them. Let them keep their a$$es in their house.
When there is a section of history books that say Jodhaa was Akbar's wife, did these morons protest against the authors of the books?
What ever happened to free speach in this country? Well, did we ever had it?
I had very high expectation when this movie released and let me tell you once I saw this movie I got a real bad headache. Nothing was good in this movie,, movie looked like TV serials like Mahabharata or Ramayana.. war sequence were pathetic.. and what was the elephant fight scene for and what was Hrithik trying to do.. Did directory think that once someone gets on elephants head it will remain calm.. ridiculous%u2026. %u2026 Hrithik was looking like a 21st century guy who just wore 15th century dress, his side locks his hair style with patches of brownish dye everything looked unrealistic. May be only character which looked good was ashuu, but sadly she doesn%u2019t know acting. Overall I wasted my money and time for this stupid movie. Everyone in the theater was laughing at few scenes which looked as if director was trying to make a joke out of epic story, Mr. Directory please get some reference from Hollywood movies to make it look realistic and catchy instead of fooling us with these kind of stupid movies.
I dont think anyone has claimed that this is a historical documentary or reflects facts. A movie is a movie, as long as it does not portray nasty stuff.
Go see it if you want, don't go if you have anything against it -thats the best protest.
RE:What a fuss over a movie!
by apurva singh on Feb 17, 2008 02:01 PM
yea what is the fuss, typical indian stray: shameless, prideless, senseless... like someone said.
The british always ruled by proxy never declaring themselves as the rulers,but as East india company.After a while they showed who they are,from then on Brits were deemed anti-indians thats why we had popular protest and social upheavls not just kings battling with them. Expalin me why the hell Hindus and Muslims together tried to restore the Mughal Zafar against British..? why Mughal kings were buried here and not a single british lords buried in India..?
RE:@British rule
by RANJAY KUMAR on Feb 17, 2008 02:00 PM
British were direct rulers, Hindus don't have any hatred towards Brits anymore but the rift between Hindus and Muslims is humongous, you guys keep on portraying rosy picture, may be because you are muslim. Mughals were uprooted from their own homeland, so they had no choice but to liv ein India. Baburnama, has nothing but hatred towards hindus.
RE:British Army
by sadaChiddi on Feb 17, 2008 01:48 PM
The british always ruled by proxy never declaring themselves as the rulers,but as East india company.After a while they showed who they are,from then on Brits were deemed anti-indians thats why we had popular protest and social upheavls not just kings battling with them. Expalin me why the hell Hindus and Muslims together tried to restore the Mughal Zafar against British..? why Mughal kings were buried here and not a single british lords buried in India..?
RE:British Army
by RANJAY KUMAR on Feb 17, 2008 02:02 PM
Queen was the head of the State, get your fact together. You are muslim, its your faith just do not open old wounds.
RE:British Army
by apurva singh on Feb 17, 2008 01:58 PM
1857 was an arrangement of convenience. you cannot imagine the hatred that hindu warrior community has for muslims. we have a history or 1400 years of bitter resistence spearheaded by rajputs. how can there be any compromise with a community which killed 30000 hindus one by one in chittorgarh because each one refused to convert to the evil religion. and out hatred and bitter resistence is epitomized by rana's struggle in mewar.
RE:British Army
by usman karim on Feb 17, 2008 02:09 PM
Dear Apurva It is very unfortunate that you are repeatedly writing that Hindus were hating Muslims in the last 1400 years.Infact Islam is the most respected regligion in Indian subcontinent. Hindus are not neither hating Islam nor muslim. Hindus were opposing Muslim ruler politically but they were not opposing Islam or Muslim. By simple logic you can understand this as you will find lacks of punjabi muslim,rajput muslim,bengali muslim,behari muslim,tamil muslim,telgu muslim ,brahamin muslim, marathi muslim etc etc across india.How can it be possible my brother. I would like to tell my brother you can change the force of people by forece otherwise Hitler 's ideology,communist's ideology were ruling this world.
RE:British Army
by RANJAY KUMAR on Feb 17, 2008 02:17 PM
Mr Karim, the way you have been taught history is not the actual fact. There may have been some self conversion but there have been forced conversion as well. Sufis were respected but then you had Aurangzebs too, Yes Hindus and Muslims hate each other, have you forgotten 1947 partition, 1 million people were slaughtered?
RE:RE:British Army
by usman karim on Feb 17, 2008 02:34 PM
Dear Mr Kumar I have got the same education what you have got from Indian schools wherein syllabus is set by our government.Wherein it is tought that Muslims are invader and Muslims rulers focefully converted Hindus into islam.But i have applied my mind also after getting education.Two things are absolutely not possible 1.you can not change by force ideology of any human being because it is not a physical thing.You can murder any human being,deny him basic human rights,deny him job,deny him money but not regligion.It is conviction of individual that make him hindu,muslim,sikh,buddh even a criminal believe in voilence so he is criminal. 2.You can stop individual from inhaling oxygen because this is also not a physical entity otherwise long back tyrant rulers were even stopped humans from inhaling oxygen (like hiter,masuloni,britishere etc ) It happens when some misguided people forcefully covert people from other religion but saying all the hindus sikh,christain were focefull converted to islam is wrong
RE:British Army
by Balaji DS on Feb 18, 2008 10:26 AM
MUTANT B
yes mr karim,Hindus were forced to get converted to muslims.It happened in karnataka even during the reign of tippusultan. So there are evidences like certain kannada speaking communities of hindu(chettiyars) in south part karnataka itself moved to tamilnadu.I heard them saying, "we have migrated only because of the fear of mughal rulers.
RE:British Army
by usman karim on Feb 17, 2008 02:20 PM
It is respect towards Islam because of that all cast and creed getting attracted towards Islam in India.May be individual mulims were bad and done wrong things against other regligion.
RE:British Army
by apurva singh on Feb 17, 2008 02:38 PM
not really. ONLY 12% india is muslims, in spite of islam being "great"!! muslims are those who could not defend their honor. hindu warrior community like rajputs, marathas, sikhs and jats do have a v deep hatred towards islam; it is nothing but 1400 years of bitter resistence. maybe urban middle class educated hindus from other communities do not hate muslims so much. that was one good side effect of nehruvian propaganda. i am just stating a fact.
RE:RE:British Army
by apurva singh on Feb 17, 2008 02:43 PM
mr karim, don't live in your imagined world. look at real life. two cousins of mine converted to xianity. it is a slur on our family name. but that is a separate issue. they converted because they had mediocre jobs and future, and unfortunately the ran into some xians. they got jobs in mumbai and married xian girls and converted. it was pure greed. coercion and threat of death was a standard practice among islamic. this is well documented in history. it was conversion or death. after some time. people accept thier new "religion". after a couple of generations, all is forgotten. in some religions like hinduism, you CANNOT reconvert into a hindu. so it is a one way ticket.
RE:British Army
by usman karim on Feb 17, 2008 03:03 PM
Dear Apurva Wherever might people ruled , they try to impose their will on weak peole.They may deny you foods,money,job etc etc irrespective of hindu,muslim,christain or sikh rulers.They may even force you to convert to their respective religion But saying everybody converted to Islam just because some muslim ruler had forcibly converted them into islam is jok. Britishers ruled india for 200 years.They were far more intolerant towords indian.They ruled india with iron hand. Tell me , were they successful inverting even 1% indian to chritanity. It only indicates that you can change anybody conviction by force. Most of the people are getting converted towards other religion because of conviction and acceptibility and simplicity of religion. Only handful people are getting converted because of force or greed etc etc. Muslim never ruled china but Xingiang state of chaina has muslim majority.Muslim never ruled russia but 5 states of russia are muslim mojority estate. Muslim never ruled American but roughly 3% american population are muslim. How can you deny all these facts. Please try to understand the simplicity of Islam.
RE:RE:British Army
by Ashish Kanekar on Feb 18, 2008 12:04 AM
Simple answers
Regarding Russia - a few of those states were annexed by Stalin around WWII. China - Same deal, china annexed that province like it did Tibet or Aksai Chin. America - 3% of the population is Muslim due to immigration of muslims to US.
Brits were not more intolerant than Mughals. In fact Queen Victoria specifically instructed that local traditions be respected. Hardly any temple has been destroyed and a church built in its place. They may build their churches and aggresively convert but they do not raze down temples like the Mughals do.
British rule was far more benevolent to Hindus compared with Mughal rule.
RE:Jodha Akbar
by upekshit hai on Feb 17, 2008 01:44 PM
He has made greatest film of all Time..'Swades'..and do not forget 'pal pal hai bhari..' bhajan..still u call him bastaard..u r mad..check ur brain to neurologist
RE:RE:Jodha Akbar
by usman karim on Feb 17, 2008 01:52 PM
Most of the Moghul emperor were not true Muslim but they conquered India to server their own interest.Under Moghul rule even muslims were massared.Muslim tooth and nail opposed the Din Elahi religion spread by Akbar so got punishment from Akbar also.In the old time whosoever opposed king get punishment.It is because of the Guru Arjut Dev were given punishment because he was opposing Moghul king politically not religiously.Even other Sikh guru got punishment from Aurangzeb just because these gure were supporting the brother of Aurangzeb.
Hindus need to have self pride and fight for it. Not just give up and give your daughters to save yourself from trouble and terrorism. All Hindus should be united as Hindus and protect/support other Hindus. Vote for parties that are proHindu. In India, Hindus are abused because they don't take stand and fight for themselves.
RE:Hindus need to protect themselves and their pride
by apurva singh on Feb 17, 2008 01:46 PM
dont listen to minority propaganda from people like sada. pratap did not need any muslims to fight in his valiant and glorious resistance. hakim kha was a mere ally who wanted revenge from akbar since hakim was sher shah surs descendant. poor converts like sada etc could not protect their honor and are now trying to justify their conversion. we hindus should be proud of our 1400 years resistance spearheaded by great warriors like pratap.
RE:Hindus need to protect themselves and their pride
by sadaChiddi on Feb 17, 2008 01:49 PM
was a mere ally??so he need a ally not not as generall..?what is this nonsense.. The point still holds that this was not a religious fight...period.
RE:Hindus need to protect themselves and their pride
by sadaChiddi on Feb 17, 2008 01:34 PM
Stop hate and Get a Life The Great Hindu King Rana Pratap's military general is a Muslim - Hakim Khan Suri The Great Maratha King - Shivaji's trusted Military general is -Haider Ali Kohari; Ibrahim Khan and Daulat Khan were prominent in the navy; and Siddi Ibrahim was chief of artillery.
the issue doesnt end here Aurangazeb relied on the Hindu King Raja Jai Singh to defaet Shivaji,Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh
This is how the Mughals and the Hindu kings lived.RSS and their sister organizations dont want you to know this,because their favourite pass time is to pit Hindus and Muslims citing Mughal rule in India
RE:Hindus need to protect themselves and their pride
by RANJAY KUMAR on Feb 17, 2008 01:48 PM
Hakin Khan Suri was a grandson of Shershad Suri, he sided with Rana to get his kingdom back. Raja Jai SIngh was from the same lineage of Jaipur, so no wonder he fought for Aurangzeb. If the muslim rule was so beautiful then why so much hatred between Hindus and Muslims?
RE:Hindus need to protect themselves and their pride
by Ali boy on Feb 17, 2008 01:56 PM
chaddi walo ka asar hai baba.We should remove this chaddi from the nation.
RE:Hindus need to protect themselves and their pride
by Ashish Kanekar on Feb 18, 2008 01:59 AM
What Shivaji trusted military generals Muslim....
There may have been a few on periphery but the majority of the people who gave life for him were Maratha hindus. Names like Tanaji Malusare, Baji Prabhu Deshpande, Murarbaji Deshpande... etc.
Following the death of Shivaji and the execution of Sambhaji by Aurangzeb and enraged Maratha nation fought for 27 years to bleed the Mughal empire and the fight was led by Tarabai, Ghorpade and Jadhav.
Muslims had no significant hand in the building of the Maratha empire. Now run along....
Rajput women, who were married to Mughals were never remained hindu at first place after the marriage, Many Rajput kings had compromised but categorically refused to wed their women. That tells the story, Ashutost Gowarikar unnecessarily just opened an old wound.
RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by sadaChiddi on Feb 17, 2008 01:17 PM
Now come to the issue?You are now talking about religion ok. And take this, Muhals were hardly islamic, they drank alhocol enjooyed intoxiatcion went as far as to inventa new religion itself all just to please their subjects read Ramila Thapar interview in rediff
RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by stav on Feb 17, 2008 01:29 PM
These morons are wounded anything which comes on the screen or print. they suffer from self confidence. At the same time Ramila Thapar is a third rate historian and a first rate politician, she should leave JNU and join the CPI, though i agree with her opinion about the mughals, who were pretty secular Akbar was.
RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by RANJAY KUMAR on Feb 17, 2008 01:36 PM
19 hijackers who did 9/11 were going into pubs as well, Babur and many muslim invaders used islamic intoxication very smartly. So that is useless logic.
RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by sadaChiddi on Feb 17, 2008 01:39 PM
Thanks for educating me that the only event where people got killed was on that fate ful day. 3000 (600 of them muslims)is such a big amount that 10s of millions of people died in world wars pales in to insginifcance.. Do you have a heart for the millions of Iraqi children subjected to cluster bombs..? are the current internal fight which resuulted because of the occupation.. They are humans too Mr.Ranjay
RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by RANJAY KUMAR on Feb 17, 2008 01:54 PM
2 wrongs don't make a right. Muslims and Christians are both imperialists, Its your war fight it.
RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by apurva singh on Feb 17, 2008 01:26 PM
romila thapar is a typical nehruvian. she can subtly put a pseudo secular coating to anything. portraying mughals as slightly less muslims, more benign and secular. we have been brainwashed with trash history in schools in which 1400 years or hindu resistance and struggle has been dishonored and psychotic muslim invaders been glorified.
RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by sadaChiddi on Feb 17, 2008 01:30 PM
Read award winning book Last Mughal and White Mughals by william darlymple..Is he a Nehrivian..?
RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by suresh roy on Feb 17, 2008 01:45 PM
Apurva Singh, Very Well said, this should be the message all Indians should understand & digest.
RE:RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by sadaChiddi on Feb 17, 2008 01:32 PM
How the hecll will you expalin the fact that bulk of Mughal army was made up of Rajputs?? Theses are not civil responsibilities..? Tell me , why Shivaji should have not one but dozen Muslim generals in his army?? Those kings are far far more superioe than the politicians who use hate in this democractic setup
RE:RE:RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by RANJAY KUMAR on Feb 17, 2008 01:37 PM
Bulk of british army was made of Indians, so Brits were not anti Indians? You got to be kidding me.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Rajput women married to Mughals
by sadaChiddi on Feb 17, 2008 01:45 PM
They always ruled by proxy never declaring themselves as the rulers,but as East india company.After a while they showed who they are,from then on Brits were deemed anti-indians thats why we had popular protest and upheavels nit just kings battling with them.
