HVK Archives: The Fire that nauseates
The Fire that nauseates - The Daily
RKB
()
December 15, 1998
Title: The Fire that nauseates
Author: RKB
Publication: The Daily
Date: December 15, 1998
This is getting to be a bit longer than I expected it to. But
the fact of the matter is everything is getting to be a bit
confused and silly. I am talking about the movie FIRE, and the
issues it has raised.
Firstly under the present laws, the Central Board of Film,
Certification had no business passing a movie like FIRE that
dealt with homosexuality. I am not saying here that I am
against FIRE being exhibited. All I am saying if you have laws
in the country, you either adhere to these laws or you change
the laws. An official body cannot on its own, make new laws.
An official body cannot on its own, make new laws. That is left
to the lawmaking body that the people have created for
themselves, and called it Parliament. The Lok Sabha makes laws.
The CBFC does not. Under the law homosexuality is illegal. It
exists. In certain places it even thrives. But that does not
make it legal. The law governing homosexuality in India is as
outdated and obsolete as the law on sex, and needs to be
reviewed and changed. But at the moment that is the law.
Defending the contains of FIRE is defending the propagation of
something illegal.
Secondly, the movie itself presents the perverted point of view
that in the absence of heterosexual satisfaction in a particular
relationship it is the best thing in the world do opt for a
homosexual relationship which will be far more rewarding. Now
just reverse the situation. Suppose FIRE had dealt with two
neglected men instead of two women. Imagine a situation where
the wives of two blokes are carrying on in mich the same as the
guys are doing FIRE, and the men find solace in each other's you
know what. So is that alright too? As a man I find the very
scenario nauseating. And I'm not given to a weak stomach. But
Jesus! Just imagine FIRE in reverse, and it's disgusting.
Thirdly, when I had stated that people like Shabana Azmi and
Sitaram Yechury are usually found protesting at things that are
so bloody convenient to protest about.... things that go deep at
provoking the Hindu majority that it usually liberal about most
things. Agreed berserkers belonging to the Shiv Sena have gone
and smashed a few cinema halls... but be glad they haven't
smashed Shabana Azmi's head. Considering the provocative
Hinduised theme of the movie, Azmi should be glad that it was
not a Muslim theme that she was acting in. But I don't see her
acting in a movie with such a provocative Muslim theme in the
first place. After all why is why is it that all of Shabana
Azmi's efforts are directed at mocking at Hindu themes? Not
that Hinduism does not lend itself to exactly these kinds of
variation. It does. Lesbianism or homosexuality for that
matter is nothing new in Hinduism. But then neither is Sati or
female infanticide. Merely because at one time Sati was
practised in certain parts of the country will someone making a
film glorifying the practice of Sati be defended in the same
manner as say FIRE has been? And what about female infanticide?
How about a movie glorifying that too? I bring this up here
only to point to the silly argument being propounded that
lesbianism and homosexuality have been around for centuries. So
what? The caste system's been around for centuries too.... does
this mean that we should now make a film justifying the manner
in which all lower castes used to be treated merely because it
was the traditional thing to do at one time?
Fourthly, Shabana Azmi and people like her have every right to
protest the attack against FIRE. No one is denying them that
right. But the people protesting at the exhibition of the movie
FIRE also have the right to stage those protests. This is a
democracy. Freedom of expression exists for all. And as to the
Shiv Sainiks stripping in front of Dilip Kumar's house, well
guys why not? Would Shabana Azmi & Co have preferred it if they
have stoned Dilip Kumar's house? I am sure they would have....
because that would have given them the moral justification that
they lack at the moment to point to the worst aspects of the
Shiv Sena. By merely stripping in protest the Sena caught all
these pseudo-liberals on the wrong foot.
And fifthly, my main argument. When the Muslims went on the
rampage over THE SATANIC VERSES, how come not one of these
pseudo-liberals raised their voice against the ban on Rushdie's
book? Till today Shabana Azmi & co have not thought it fit to
protest the ban on Rushdie's novel. Till today no one have
bothered to raise their voice against the manner in which
Pradeep Dalvi's play Mee Nathuram Boltoy was withdrawn after
violent protests by Congressmen. The argument that Nathuram was
a killer does not wash. Even a killer has the right to be heard
in a democracy. Just as a lesbian does. So why do we have
different standards ones for Nathuram? Just because FIRE has
won a few international awards? And Nathuram has not even been
allowed to be performed? And if international awards is the
main criterion for everything that will be shown in this
country, what about Nine Days To Rama... the movie that
presented things again from Nathuram Godse's perspective? What
about Last Tango in Paris? And so on and so forth?
As I have been saying practically everyday for the last ten days
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Freedom of
expression does not exist only for FIRE. It also exists for
Nathuram.
And democracy means exactly that.... that opinions howsoevermuch
obnoxious to your way of thinking have to be heard, because they
have a right to be aired. Just as the makers of FIRE have the
right to exhibit their movie, the producers of NATHURAM have the
right to perform their play..... and booksellers have the right
to sell THE SATANIC VERSES. Unfortunately at the moment FIRE
seems to have garnered all the rights for itself through a
pseudo-intellectual alliance between the Left and the
dunderheads let by Shabana Azmi.
And I'll be back...
Back
Top
|
