Art.19
of Indian Constitution says Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of
speech etc… (1) All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and
expression; i.e. 19(1) (a) of Indian
Constitution.
Art.19(2)
Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any
existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.
Before Coming to Director Shankar’s ‘I’, a glimpse at PK, Perumal Murugan’s One Part Women, Vishwaroopam… etc.
Why
people who support Aamir Khan’s PK, Perumal Murugan’s Mathorubagan/ one part
woman, etc… for Freedom of Expression oppose it in the case Shankar’s ‘I’, and
even abstained in the case of Salman Rushdi, Thuppakki, and Vishwaroopam. In this
article, I talk only on the facts known to me, leaving the unknown things up to
your analysis.
Firstly,
Amir
Khan’s PK Movie – am not critical about the movie, because am yet watch it.
People
often define superstition… in this way… it may be true or may not be, but I follow
it because our ancestors did it. But it is not that… We are not ready to understand/
even perceive, we are rushed by sludge of unwanted.
We always fail to remember that
we are just minutest of minute in Infinity. Known is drop, unknown is ocean. “Abstaining
things blindly is equally disastrous as following things blindly.”
And also
if you think, you know everything or stern believer of your senses, please
check the below link and it might shake your fundamental.
I bought
you this link, just to invoke the point that our senses and little intelligence
cannot understand certain things. So nothing big in this… lets proceed.
Secondly,
About
Perumal Murugan’s Novel
Perumal
Murugan’s Book Translated in to English by the End of 2013, so here is the proof
of Book Review in your favourite Caravanmagazine J
So it is
very clear that, it is not the matter of 4 year old novel, it came to the light only when it was translated in to English and at the same time no way the party in the power, linked to the issue. Even if
Communist Party, i.e. I mean even if the third front would have reached the thrown, few
narrow minded people might have raised the issue, am I right. The party in the
power with its commander, marching towards the Growth, no.. no.. it is Development - the
right term. The matter of concern is different.
First
who is Mr. Perumal Murugan? Second who published the Novels? You know better
than me. so moving ahead...
Finally
why it become controversial?
Nothing
narrow mindedness in the opposition, says people who have really read the book. (Must Read
the below article – unbiased & critical on both Communist & Hindutva
ideologies – but seems little biased to his own ideology/religion/believes)
Why
Director Shankar jettisoned? Why people who support above cases for Freedom of
Speech & Expression, don’t do so in Shankar’s I? Why they turned other
side?
What Director
Shankar Expressed through his Past Movies may explain the reason for the
opposition triggered? What he has infused in to the audience?
Movie Gentle man – had Critical
eyes on Reservation policy – in reality which actually failed to reach the
needy.
<Ref. Constitution> Art.16.
Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Art. 46 – to promote
educational & economic interest of SC, ST & Weaker sections.
Critical
Analysis on Reservation policy in India
Argument
on the extension of Reservation
Anti-Reservation
protest, Claim for meritocracy…
Mudhalvan movie – addressed the
Middle-Class’s apathy and questions
Have a
look at the Song – “Mudhalvane” – Greater emphasis given to the Snake &
Ladder (Paramapadam) – one winning this game will be opened in to the Swarga Vaasal
J few point about the game in the
following link.
About the Snakes and Ladders
The
Movie also talked about the corruption at the individual level. The corrupt is not only among the higher echelon and rich, but also among the small shop keeper, bus
driver.... It also drives the message in the Bandh/Driver's strike scene - depicting them as heartless - putting the public suffer - ego of the Worker union is exposed/illustrated; again this Unionism is the asset for many political ideologies. The movie aspires for the Caste less, Crime less, corruption free society. It doesn't end here, Again the
problem is Manuneethi Cholan was emphasis at the end (The logo used in the
Complaint box).
Anniyan movie – Beyond an Entertainer/Commercial
Hit - the movie revolve around the typical manifestation of Brahmanical
lifestyle – Director Shankar tried to infuse his belief about Hell &
Heaven, More emphasis on Thyagaraja’s Panchratna Keerthanas.
He didn't stop there, but went up to Kumbibagam, Miruganjambom, kiribhojanam… the Punishments
of Naraga as prescribed in Garuda Puranam.
The man
who have taken up spreading i.e. in your
language ‘stuffing’ the general audience or public with the Hindu Belief
system & Brahmanical thoughts indirectly, is no way deserve “Freedom of Speech
& Expression”. This is the right time we were waiting for so long to pull him down. That is now being carried out through Netizens & Social Media.
Due to
time constraint I have not worked on other movies of Director Shankar… you can do your
step further if required… Indian Movie
– Ancient Indian Martial Art – Varmakalai Emphasised – Netaji glorified; Sivaji movie – Searching for life
partner in a temple – Deepavali celebration,
The lot
of Indian’ness or you may say it as religious bias, which he carry
forward in his movies might be the reason for being jettisoned by the beholder of “Freedom
of speech & Expression”. The same might be the reason which fetch him a lot of criticism
through Social Media.
And also
see,
An
analysis or review of Shankar Movies (old article)
Perumal
Murugan Novel hurts only little section of the people, Just for the sake of
narrow minded Hinduta fundamentalist & RSS backed people the Freedom of
Expression should not be sacrificed. So same stand in the case of PK. But when it
comes to movie like ‘I’, I don’t want to appreciate Vikram’s Dedication to the
profession on the footsteps of great actor like Kamal Hassan, but I want to pull
down Director Shankar so making it much louder that, Social Irresponsibility on the Director side for vilifying a
Transgender in the denigrating role. How far it is right?
also Smiley's letter have some point, do check
http://orinam.net/open-letter-to-director-shankar-eng/
The movie made a sarcastic remark on the Ad films which drive the modern day literates- the director touched thing by mocking – it again clarifies that Ad Films are made for money, Ad film actress work for money and finally, it clarifies only Fair girls are roped in to act in the fairness cream ad, they never make dark skin in to fair; and also poisonous pesticide content in the Ice Drink, Hair dye ad, chocolate bath etc. see the sarcasm in the movie – it also talk about the essential ethos and humanism in a public figure (here Ad film model ‘Lee - vikram’) and the movie also give an impetus to think on Ebola which mean Bio-weapon & Bio-terrorism (Here the Virus ‘I’ ) – most of the research being directed towards such disastrous means. All above it talks about the people’s Greediness, pride, cunningness, jealous and slightly touched about Ephebophilia, Hebephilia etc (Most of the Rape cases reported are committed by the close family friends). The movie and the director's idea shown is Social Irresponsibility at large, in your viewpoint.
also Smiley's letter have some point, do check
http://orinam.net/open-letter-to-director-shankar-eng/
The movie made a sarcastic remark on the Ad films which drive the modern day literates- the director touched thing by mocking – it again clarifies that Ad Films are made for money, Ad film actress work for money and finally, it clarifies only Fair girls are roped in to act in the fairness cream ad, they never make dark skin in to fair; and also poisonous pesticide content in the Ice Drink, Hair dye ad, chocolate bath etc. see the sarcasm in the movie – it also talk about the essential ethos and humanism in a public figure (here Ad film model ‘Lee - vikram’) and the movie also give an impetus to think on Ebola which mean Bio-weapon & Bio-terrorism (Here the Virus ‘I’ ) – most of the research being directed towards such disastrous means. All above it talks about the people’s Greediness, pride, cunningness, jealous and slightly touched about Ephebophilia, Hebephilia etc (Most of the Rape cases reported are committed by the close family friends). The movie and the director's idea shown is Social Irresponsibility at large, in your viewpoint.
I don’t
know where we fail to understand this, a Hindu cannot be/shouldn't be a Villain, Neither
Muslim nor Sikh, Male shouldn’t be a villain, Neither Female nor Third Gender. Then who else can be portrayed as... some body from mars or Saturn.
First if we try to understand the fundamental, it can clarify much better, Terrorist/Criminal/Bad/Evil minded/ pervert can be from any region or religion. Hero or villain can be chosen from the available options that we see in our day-to-day life. No one can reject this, Good & Bad exist with in everyone, but the proportion might vary. Director Shankar in his Movie ‘I’ broken the Stereotype of Villain, pushed a Third Gender as one of the Villain, other than this whatever portrayed is have been made is the attributes of a Commercial Movie. The movie vilified only Osma or someone (Third Gender character) not like Perumal Murugan's novel which denigrates an entire community/ region or PK’s mockery at belief system of certain section of people.
First if we try to understand the fundamental, it can clarify much better, Terrorist/Criminal/Bad/Evil minded/ pervert can be from any region or religion. Hero or villain can be chosen from the available options that we see in our day-to-day life. No one can reject this, Good & Bad exist with in everyone, but the proportion might vary. Director Shankar in his Movie ‘I’ broken the Stereotype of Villain, pushed a Third Gender as one of the Villain, other than this whatever portrayed is have been made is the attributes of a Commercial Movie. The movie vilified only Osma or someone (Third Gender character) not like Perumal Murugan's novel which denigrates an entire community/ region or PK’s mockery at belief system of certain section of people.
Why you
people abstained during the protest for Innocent Muslim, Viswaroopam’s
Controversy, Thuppaki… etc., why didn't you raise voice for Freedom of Speech in those cases, because
it is Zero-Sum gain for you? The character of these protest must be looked with
open minds, often they are more explicit.
Also read
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-most-precious-of-all-freedoms/article2656995.ece
Also read
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-most-precious-of-all-freedoms/article2656995.ece
If there
is something Freedom of speech, it should be to all and in the same way if
there is some exception clause under Public Order, Social Harmony, Decency, and
Morality… It should be for all. Of course I believe in equity rather than
equality. Then it should be in the sphere of Social, Economic, and Political
but not in the intelligential propaganda.
After
reading the article, you might be feeling like branding me… than make it
somewhere beyond Capitalist and Communist or in middle of that… Buddha’s Middle
Path J
Ps.
While
starting, I thought of addressing to some particular section of People (that
why often I have used ‘Your’), but after completing it I forgot the ‘To Address’, so am forwarding it to
all of you. Hope It may reach the intended group :P
