Bollywood: the Ideology of India

[Zibago]

The problem is simple. Pakistani do not have enough infrastructure for a diverse and vibrant film industry

?

Even what even movies they make are cheap china brand copy of Bollywood.

Yeh keh kon raha hy

 

[Hamzay]

There was no India before '47. As much as I have heard in this forum. Was there any country called India before 15th Aug 47? Heck Pakistan have their Independence day before us! how can you break something which was not even existing. What Jinnah broke was a British colony. So there is nothing for me to admit there.

What Jinnah broke was a British colony then what was Nehru and Gandhi and the whole Congress and Hindu lot were opposed to? Actually India today (a Hindu colony) hasn't yet got over the partition of 1947. Bollywood is still making films on it; recent example is Begum Jaan

You have used a very weak argument and you have no way out. So admit that Jinnah broke Mother India in 1947, and to break it he used Two Nation Theory.

A certain blood telegram might have made your own formermen country some what ... unhappy, isn't it? Yet you forgot to mention that! How cute!

Military operation in East Pakistan wasn't different from those in East Punjab, Kashmir, Mani Pur and the rest of North Eastern and southern Indian states.

As I explained in my previous post, the people of East Pakistan voted 'for Pakistan' in 1970; in the general election, and in 1971 there was no voting held in East Pakistan/Bangladesh in which people decided they wanted secession. It's actually India's bad luck that on legal grounds it can't prove that formation of Bangladesh was a constitutional act. It was the result of direct Indian military intervention, arming and funding of terrorists to impose their will on the masses. India or Bangladeshis today can say that it was Punjabi oppression that forced East Bengalis to demand separation, and even Bangladesh may distance from Two Nation Theory altogether, but no one can deny that East Bengalis were hardcore believers of the Two Nation Theory in 1947. In other words, Bengalis of East Pakistan (Bangladesh) did not want to live with Hindus in 1947. Jinnah had not forced them at gun point to support him over this theory.

Add all the muslims killed in India in past 50 years and also add all the other minorities killed. Then compare it with the brutal killings of operation search light. No wonder your nation broke while ours --still having many imperfection-- keep on going strong. You see there is a difference in faltering, falling and getting back at your feet AND breaking your leg -- permanently.

Killings of Operation Searchlight were condemned and are still condemned by Pakistanis. It was not a wise decision. But you can't argue on figures. You have yours, we have ours and figures don't match.

In present Pakistan however, the people haven't disowned it. They are still united under the banner of Islam (loosely or strongly).

Whenever there's a call in the name of Islam, all people regardless of their ethnicity and cultural values offer their services for Islam/Pakistan. I'll give you examples of our religious and political parties; Pakistanis of all colours and tongues have been part of religious and political parties. Jamat-e-Islami, Jamiat-ul-Ulama-e-Islam and others (regardless of their vote bank and influence) house all Pakistanis, same is true for political parties like PTI, PML, PPP.

When there's a cricket match with India, all Pakistanis take it like a passion, because they consider India as their enemy (Two Nation Theory is still alive in their hearts).

Yeah Yeah! There is! It is called the great and mighty USA! State of Alaska? Hawaii? Never heard them brooding and breaking apart. Hawaii is infact too far from mainland USA.

Alaska was 'purchased' by the US, and Hawaii became the part of it through a referendum in 1898. Read some history before making an argument. Don't give wrong examples.

Then why the hell Pakistan didn't refuse from being east bengal from being a part pakistan from the beginning? Two nation theory had roots in Iqbal's speech in 1930 in Allahabad or even before that! Was his and Jinnah's vision so clouded that he saw the impossibility of Hindu Muslim living together but NOT the impossibility of Urdu Speaking folks of West and Bengali Speaking folks of east living together? Or presence of hostile India sorrounding East Pakistan?

Jinnah's demand to Mountbatten for providing a corridor through India to East Pakistan is on record. In 1947, Jinnah, despite knowing of the meanness of Nehru and the rest of Indian leaders, didn't think India would continue damaging Pakistan with an aim to destroy it.

Infact even today your thinking that --base in Karachi/Islamabad-- shows your ignorance and arrogance! The entire narrative that 'Defence/Upward mobility of East Pakistan lies in West' was stupid to begin with! The dominance of Punjab fat-arse politicians in Pakistani politics broke it. You treated East Pakistani as sub-ordinates and no wonder they left you!

Then you imply that 'Punjabis and Bengalis were two different nations who couldn't live together'. It made Bangladesh create in the name of Bengali nationalism. Bengali nationalism again is not equal to Indian nationalism, and my argument that Bengalis of East Pakistan not on a single instance desired that they wanted to be part of India or West Bengal. Indira Gandhi's or India's will, desire, or compulsion is not important at all. Did I ask you to give Indira Gandhi's or India's stance on it? I said, East Bengalis never showed a desire for a reunion with India. It means they still believed in Two Nation Theory that they couldn't live with Hindu majority with an addition that they couldn't live with Punjabis.

And Indian nationalism can be proven wrong in many Indian states if Pakistan with the help of a Super Power intervenes militarily in these states the way India did in 1971.

No wonder she chose nothing to do with East Pakistan once broken -- she only hailed them as a free nation with free capital and done with it.

She knew Muslim Bengalis didn't want to live with Hindu majority.

Even more! Even if B'deshi at that time would have begged her to let them join India, she would have refused it! for the above mention reason.

Bangladesh's economy is better than all states of India today except Maharashtra. So it's a shame for Mother India. Muslim Bengalis knew they wouldn't be able to progress under Hindu India, and that's why their economy is much much better than West Bengal's economy as well.

Okay then name Two nations? One Hindu nation ie Hindustan and Two??? muslim nations ie Pakistan and B'desh. As we say, it literally does not add up

Yeah; the subcontinent broke twice in the recent history. First in 1947 into one Hindu majority state and another Muslim majority state and then in 1971 when Pakistan broke into two Muslim majority states. Today the subcontinent has 3 states (Two Muslim majority states and 1 Hindu majority); based on Two Nation Theory.

It was a mere resolution and was never adapted into practice as there were only two states which were formed.

This resolution was indeed adapted into practice with a modification. Pakistan was created on the basis of Lahore Resolution; and Muslims of whole India voted for this resolution in 1945/46 elections.

Sikandar Hayat khan, Punjab Premier and leader of the Unionist Party, who had drafted the resolution, declared in a Punjab assembly sppech on 1 march 1941 that he was opposed to the Pakistan that would mean “Muslim Raj here and Hindhu Raj elsewhere… If Pakistan means then I will have nothing to do with it” . He reiterated his plea for a loose, confederation with considerable autonomy for the confederating units. In his mind 'States' were contiguous regions in India where Muslim were given autonomy and India would perhaps be a federation.

Get your facts straight. The Lahore Resolution was not drafted by one man, but by a working committee. And why would a Unionist draft the Lahore Resolution? It was presented and passed by All India Muslim League.

Partition on religious ground was something which Jinnah had in mind and his idea was of two nation. Hindu one and one for Muslim. That is what happened. Obviously later his idea failed spectecularly.

Bangladesh court upholds Islam as religion of the state
Country's top court rejects 28-year-old petition to revoke constitutional provision declaring Islam as state's religion.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...lds-islam-religion-state-160328112919301.html

So whether India or even Bangladesh accepts it or not, Two Nation Theory was alive in East Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971 and is still there.

For me, India is the land of secularism and freedom. Religion isn't forced upon you here. If it is, in some rural areas, you can always move to a city.

Wednesday 5 April 2017
Muslim man dies in India after attack by Hindu 'cow protectors'
Police say 55-year-old died two days after mob targeted his cattle truck in latest in spate of killings in name of sacred animal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...in-india-after-attack-by-hindu-cow-protectors

If they are forced to move to cities, it means all people have to live in urban areas of India if they want religious freedom?

This proves that Jinnah was right throughout his struggle in Pakistan Movement:

29 JUNE 2017

Not In My Name: Indians protest attacks on Muslims

Demonstrators stage silent protests in at least 10 Indian cities against wave of attacks on Muslims by 'cow vigilantes'.

Thousands of people have turned out in protests across India against a wave of attacks on Muslims by mobs that accuse them of killing cows or eating beef.

Waving "Not in My Name" banners and "Stop Cow Terrorism" placards on Wednesday, protesters braved monsoon rains in at least 10 cities including Mumbai, Kolkata and New Delhi where a cast of intellectuals and activists were joined by relatives of recent lynching victims.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/indians-protest-attacks-muslims-170628192032011.html

And this also proves that Two Nation Theory is still valid

TRUMP AND HINDU NATIONALISM: A MATCH MADE IN BOLLYWOOD

BY ANDREA R. JAIN OCTOBER 17, 2016

But the event’s most outstandingly awful moment came with a dance performance in which two sets of Indian actors, each consisting of a man and a woman engaged in a romantic dance, were suddenly attacked by terrorists adorned in stereotypical “Islamic terrorist” garb bearing lightsaber-like guns.

The U.S. military then swept in and saved the dancers. Following the heroic rescue, the dancers and military men stood for the U.S. national anthem and then danced together to Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.”

http://religiondispatches.org/trump-and-hindu-nationalism-a-match-made-in-bollywood/

On a side note:

In this context, the unrelenting interest political parties and successive Indian governments have taken in the production of exemplarity on the big screen and in the control, mostly through censorship and taxation, of cinema is striking. Then, in the 1990s, the rise of Hindu nationalism, the liberalization of the Indian economy and the renewed affection of the Indian middle class for cinema halls, previously deserted in favour of home entertainment, generated more production and more revenue.

https://samaj.revues.org/3000

 

[VCheng]

Just in case you want to shake India from its very foundation to a national collapse, you have to close Bollywood. You should know how.

Okay, I will ask the obvious question here: Just how do you propose to "close Bollywood" to trigger India's "national collapse"? If only it were that easy.

 

[T-72]

Haven't watched a movie in years, nobody cares, it's just an entertainment industry. In the south they have a mollywood, Bengal has tollywood lol

the event’s most outstandingly awful moment came with a dance performance in which two sets of Indian actors, each consisting of a man and a woman engaged in a romantic dance, were suddenly attacked by terrorists adorned in stereotypical “Islamic terrorist” garb bearing lightsaber-like guns.

The U.S. military then swept in and saved the dancers. Following the heroic rescue, the dancers and military men stood for the U.S. national anthem and then danced together to Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.”

lol, srsly ?

no Trump wig govinda ?

 

[Shajida Khan]

Adaab
Mizaaj Sharif Muhtarma

Ae mere Rehnuma, aapki khidmat mein is naachez ka Adaab Arz hei!

 

[El Sidd]

Ae mere Rehnuma, aapki khidmat mein is naachez ka Adaab Arz hei!

Rehnuma ki zarorat apko nahi.

Raasta ap bakhoobi khud jaanti hai. Pehchanti hai.

Rehnuma to sirf nishandahi krta hai.

Haal ahwaal baab asbaab sab behtar hain? Khata kalami ki maazrat.

 

[Shajida Khan]

Rehnuma ki zarorat apko nahi.

Raasta ap bakhoobi khud jaanti hai. Pehchanti hai.

Rehnuma to sirf nishandahi krta hai.

Haal ahwaal baab asbaab sab behtar hain? Khata kalami ki maazrat.

Bas aapkee hi dua hein mere sarparast varna is nacheez ka kya. Aaj yahan, kal na jaane kahan.

 

[El Sidd]

Bas aapkee hi dua hein mere sarparast varna is nacheez ka kya. Aaj yahan, kal na jaane kahan.

Dua Karna to kaam ha hamara.
Or duniya k har sheh nacheez hai.

Zara karam farmayen or arz kijiye.

Why is Bollywood a North Indian/Brahmin monopoly?

 

[scionoftheindus]

Why did Mahmud of Ghazni invade India 17 times?

Because he agreed with me that a strong neighbour under Hinduvta was a threat and peaceful coexistence was not a choice.



I didn't say it was Pakistan. It was India since Indira Gandhi was a child herself. Bollywood is the key to unite India as if it's an ideology.

With around 35% of the population being illiterate, films constitute an extremely significant medium to reach the majority of the population and unite it through the construction of a common imaginary.

South indians dont watch hindi movies (extremely less)..they are as patriotic as any other north indian.. (I am a south indian too)...what unites india is its thousands of years of culture and religion.

 

[SrNair]

172 million Muslims of India including millions of Kashmiris.

In very simple words: no Bollywood, no India.

Until now ,I have only seen one bollywood film in my life
3 idiots .

Bollywood is nothing.

The idea of India is just deep that you cant fathom

 

[Shajida Khan]

Why is Bollywood a North Indian/Brahmin monopoly?

Mere Huzoor,
Bollywood goes through eras and changes favorites like fashion.

Starting with actresses, my elder siblings have a thing for South Indian actresses in Bollywood. Sridevi --a south indian actress-- once ruled the hearts of millions in India. At that time, dance was of prominent importance. Those actresses who used to practice classical south Indian dance were supposedly great at controlling their facial expressions and were able to convey all types of emotions using their facial expressions. So south Indian heroins used to rule the roost there. IIRC there were others like sridevi as well. Then came Madhuri Dixit, a Brahmin and north Indian, from the same lines. She also had a mastery of dance and she remained favourite of bollywood. Together with her was Juhi Chawla, a Punjabi actress with beautiful features she was sort of second to her. The current era is dominated by looks mostly and acting and expression plays second fiddle and we Indian being crazy for white skin prefer those actresses with fair complexion.

Now with actors, in the past there were certain image of actors which were very popular. in 80s movies -- contemporary with sridevi, angry young man was a popular sterotype and like of Amitabh Bacchan --A hindu non brahmin with punjabi mother-- got really hit at that time. Then we had likes of Anil kapoor who were popular with similar image in 90s, an example would be Tejaab where he acted against Madhuri Dixit. Then among a certain portion of population -- mainly lower middle class -- angry poor young man kind of heros were very popular. Mithun Chakraborty -- A bengali brahaman-- comes to mind. These heros had no formal training in finer arts like dancing and used to do whatever was fanciful on screen. This is why some of their dance songs looked similar to monkeys jumping. Then came Hritik Roshan --A Kashmiri pundit IIRC-- and he changed the entire dancing actor scene in India. He had a very good control over his body and a formal training in dance so he became an instant hit. He laid the foundation of agile and young heros stereotype which is still continuing. In parallel, also came the empire of Muslim actors, the Khans of Indian film industy, Amir, Sharukh, Salmaan who captured the young romantic hero and college student image, which was very popular back in 90s. They have diversified but they still play that image from time to time.

So you see, It is much less of a particular caste or religion or region but skills like dancing which was dominated by south actresses, fairness of skin and in fashion sterotype or image which has decided who ruled the roost in Bollywood. Actors and actresses from all the communities and religons and regions had their time and it comes and goes. If only, the north east Indian are really under representated in our film industry.

Is nacheez ko bas itna hi ilm hei. Umeed hei ki aap ko pasand aaye!

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

172 million Muslims of India including millions of Kashmiris.

In very simple words: no Bollywood, no India.

Yea except South of the Vindyas nobody watches Bollywood

First you guys should learn whats Bollywood first.

 

[El Sidd]

Mere Huzoor,
Bollywood goes through eras and changes favorites like fashion.

Starting with actresses, my elder siblings have a thing for South Indian actresses in Bollywood. Sridevi --a south indian actress-- once ruled the hearts of millions in India. At that time, dance was of prominent importance. Those actresses who used to practice classical south Indian dance were supposedly great at controlling their facial expressions and were able to convey all types of emotions using their facial expressions. So south Indian heroins used to rule the roost there. IIRC there were others like sridevi as well. Then came Madhuri Dixit, a Brahmin and north Indian, from the same lines. She also had a mastery of dance and she remained favourite of bollywood. Together with her was Juhi Chawla, a Punjabi actress with beautiful features she was sort of second to her. The current era is dominated by looks mostly and acting and expression plays second fiddle and we Indian being crazy for white skin prefer those actresses with fair complexion.

Now with actors, in the past there were certain image of actors which were very popular. in 80s movies -- contemporary with sridevi, angry young man was a popular sterotype and like of Amitabh Bacchan --A hindu non brahmin with punjabi mother-- got really hit at that time. Then we had likes of Anil kapoor who were popular with similar image in 90s, an example would be Tejaab where he acted against Madhuri Dixit. Then among a certain portion of population -- mainly lower middle class -- angry poor young man kind of heros were very popular. Mithun Chakraborty -- A bengali brahaman-- comes to mind. These heros had no formal training in finer arts like dancing and used to do whatever was fanciful on screen. This is why some of their dance songs looked similar to monkeys jumping. Then came Hritik Roshan --A Kashmiri pundit IIRC-- and he changed the entire dancing actor scene in India. He had a very good control over his body and a formal training in dance so he became an instant hit. He laid the foundation of agile and young heros stereotype which is still continuing. In parallel, also came the empire of Muslim actors, the Khans of Indian film industy, Amir, Sharukh, Salmaan who captured the young romantic hero and college student image, which was very popular back in 90s. They have diversified but they still play that image from time to time.

So you see, It is much less of a particular caste or religion or region but skills like dancing which was dominated by south actresses, fairness of skin and in fashion sterotype or image which has decided who ruled the roost in Bollywood. Actors and actresses from all the communities and religons and regions had their time and it comes and goes. If only, the north east Indian are really under representated in our film industry.

Is nacheez ko bas itna hi ilm hei. Umeed hei ki aap ko pasand aaye!

Mashallah.
Kafi gehri nigah hai apki. Ilm jitna ho dosre ke liye ilm hota hai.

Is mutabiq to Bollywood pora India show krti hai?

Mujhe zyada shoq nahi per mehsoos hua k sirf North India is shown and portrayed in Bollywood

 

[wiseone2]

You might be surprised at the title of this thread, but I have found this the strongest string that unites India's multilingual, multicultural, multi-religious masses and a multitude of issues and problems.


Bollywood is the opium of masses.

Hamzay

Conclusion: India doesn't have an ideology like the 'Two Nation Theory' that created Pakistan. So, India has to 'sedate her wild populations' with Bollywood. This is the cheap vision of this 'great country'.

How do you come with such articles ? I do not know if it reflects lack of understanding or lack of access to facts

 

[Hamzay]

your greatest but not cheap ideology is making suicide bombers and spreading terrorism to create unrest in the entire world and certainly that unites pakistanis even more cuz you have nothing else to do.

Who killed Rajiv Gandhi with a rose?