<p>'The Accidental Prime Minister' ran into controversy since the time its trailer was released. The Congress has said that the film, which is based on former prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh's tenure as PM, distorts facts and has demanded its screening before the film is released.</p>

<p>The film's lead actor Anupam Kher, who has portrayed Dr Singh on the screen, speaks to WION Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary about the film, the challenging role and the controversy around it.</p>

<p>Here's the full transcript of the interview:</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> Dr Manmohan Singh was called a 'Silent PM'. He never spoke. So how challenging it was to give voice to the 'Silent PM'?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> It took me 7-8 months to get into the skin of his character and portray it on screen. It was very difficult because he expresses a lot of emotions with his blank face - whether it's joy, sorrow, or&nbsp;he is hurt - and you still had to convey how he is feeling. I have done more than 500 films in my 35-year-long career, but I have never played a more difficult character on screen than this one. Dr Singh was not the leader of a foregone era, he is very much alive in the consciousness of current generation. People have seen him, they know how he behaves, so it became a big challenge for me to portray Dr Mamohan Singh on screen, especially his voice. I went back to my training days in National School of Drama (NSD) - how we used to do the voice training. I also watched his hours-long footage on YouTube and different channels. But he was not always a 'Silent PM'. I think he was hurt during his second stint - from 2009 - and that's why he became quiet. But he used to speak a lot earlier - he gave interviews to many people, spoke at various forums. I think he was hurt during the 2009-2014 stint, he was upset, so he became a 'Silent PM'.</p>

<p>It was a lot like what happens in our homes - sometimes the elders like our grandparents stop talking to us because they get upset. He had a great sense of humour, which comes across in the film. You will see his resilient character, a certain degree of stubbornness.</p>

<p><strong>WION: </strong>At a personal level, are you a fan of Dr Manmohan Singh?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> I became his fan after doing the film. I think he is a very charming man. There is a lot of charisma about him in a very different manner. He is not an extrovert, but I like his poetry and other interesting things that I learned about him during my research. When people will watch the film, they will see a very differnt character of Dr Manmohan Singh. When you will see a film of two hours, you will come across small nuances - his loneliness, his dejection, his joy and how hurt he was, his triumph and the way he used to think. He is very human, and that is what the film's character has portrayed him. He was also weak in some ways, to let other people dictate him. The reason for this is because he was not a politician, he was a bureaucrat.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> But did you feel he was helpless?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> There was no need to do a film to show this. This was felt across the country by its citizens. We did feel that what's stopping him from taking certain decisions? Nobody questioned his honesty, his integrity, but sometimes we&nbsp;used to feel frustrated '<em>ki yaar ye kuchh bolte kyun nahi? Ye kuchh karte kyun nahi?</em> (Why doesn't he speak? Why doesn't he do something?)'. From whatever I've read, his wife also used to feel the same. He will be proud of my portrayal of his character.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> Do you believe he will be happy after watching the film?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher: </strong>I have a feeling that if he does not feel hesitant after watching the film, he will definitely hug me and might even ask me to have a cup of tea with him. And I am saying this with sincerity.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> And what about Sonia and Rahul Gandhi? What will they think about you after watching the film?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> Well, I can't give a reaction on that. They will perhaps say 'Don't have tea with him'.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> This film was controversial, now it has turned political after the BJP tweeted the trailer from its official handle. So there is an impression that the BJP is promoting this film and wants to gain political mileage out of it just before elections. What do you have to say?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> I personally feel that a film can't decide voting pattern. Indian voter is very smart, otherwise there wouldn't have been surprises in election results. A political parties always use some things for their advantage - it has happened in the past too, with Congress. I remember reading tweets from politicians when '<em>Udta Punjab</em>' was released. I think that's a personal opinion. And a political party will use any means to promote their point of view and whatever benefits them. This is a well-established fact that Mrs Gandhi did go to the President to become the Prime Minister as far as the research I have done is concerned. And then Subramanian Swamy told President Kalam that technically it cannot happen. So she had to choose from senior leaders like Pranab da, and she chose a person who was non-controversial, whose honesty was unquestionable and whom she could tell that this is what you have to do. All this is in public domain. And you don't have to wait for a film - things go viral even from television. Recently, the footage of Congress leaders telling Rahul Gandhi what to speak during an address went viral. Now if a filmmaker uses reproduces that in his/her film, how can there be objection on that? The opposition to this film is coming from a certain section of people, and it's unfortunate. But I've heard that some senior leaders in the Congress are saying that the film should not be opposed. It's a great thing and I'm thankful for that reaction.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> You would have known from Day 1 that if you do this film, Congress will be upset. Then what was the reason? Did you find the role challenging as an actor?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> It was a lifetime opportunity for me to get a role as brilliant as that of Dr Manmohan Singh. It is the highlight of my career. And I have portrayed it as an actor. If I have to put across my political view, I don't need to make a film, I can record a video on mobile and post it on social media and millions can see it. Everyone has political leanings, but whenever I've spoken, I've spoken for my country. People think I am a political person; if I want to be a politician, I will join a political party and let you know that I've taken the political plunge.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> You often seem to back the BJP ideology and your wife is a BJP MP. It is being alleged that you did this film to please the BJP and that you want a ticket to Rajya Sabha from the BJP. What do you have to say about this?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> No, no. I am an Indian actor trying to make India proud abroad. I don't want to come into politics, or a Rajya Sabha seat. My wife Kirron Kher has won Lok Sabha election, the seat was not offered to her on a platter. She fought the election and won it. I am an admirer of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, people are free to interpret. I have spent enough time in this industry to understand 's<em>uno sabki, karo apni</em> (listen to everyone, but do your own thing).'</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> You say this is the best role of your life. But people are saying you are simply mimicking Dr Manmohan Singh, so is this acting or mimicry?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> People who don't know acting are making such comments and I don't have time to react to these things.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> Had you thought while signing the film that it will run you into a controversy? And that this argument will reach this stage?</p>

<p><strong>Anupam Kher:</strong> We've followed a process, the film was cleared by the Censor Board. The audience is mature enough, we can't fool them. If my audience likes my role, that's enough for me. I am not performing to please certain people, and that is what's important.</p>


'The Accidental Prime Minister' ran into controversy since the time its trailer was released. The Congress has said that the film, which is based on former prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh's tenure as PM, distorts facts and has demanded its screening before the film is released.

'The Accidental Prime Minister' ran into controversy since the time its trailer was released. The Congress has said that the film, which is based on former prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh's tenure as PM, distorts facts and has demanded its screening before the film is released. The film's lead actor Anupam Kher, who has portrayed Dr Singh on the screen, speaks to WION Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary about the film, the challenging role and the controversy around it. Here's the full transcript of the interview: WION: Dr Manmohan Singh was called a 'Silent PM'. He never spoke. So how challenging it was to give voice to the 'Silent PM'? Anupam Kher: It took me 7-8 months to get into the skin of his character and portray it on screen. It was very difficult because he expresses a lot of emotions with his blank face - whether it's joy, sorrow, or he is hurt - and you still had to convey how he is feeling. I have done more than 500 films in my 35-year-long career, but I have never played a more difficult character on screen than this one. Dr Singh was not the leader of a foregone era, he is very much alive in the consciousness of current generation. People have seen him, they know how he behaves, so it became a big challenge for me to portray Dr Mamohan Singh on screen, especially his voice. I went back to my training days in National School of Drama (NSD) - how we used to do the voice training. I also watched his hours-long footage on YouTube and different channels. But he was not always a 'Silent PM'. I think he was hurt during his second stint - from 2009 - and that's why he became quiet. But he used to speak a lot earlier - he gave interviews to many people, spoke at various forums. I think he was hurt during the 2009-2014 stint, he was upset, so he became a 'Silent PM'. It was a lot like what happens in our homes - sometimes the elders like our grandparents stop talking to us because they get upset. He had a great sense of humour, which comes across in the film. You will see his resilient character, a certain degree of stubbornness. WION: At a personal level, are you a fan of Dr Manmohan Singh? Anupam Kher: I became his fan after doing the film. I think he is a very charming man. There is a lot of charisma about him in a very different manner. He is not an extrovert, but I like his poetry and other interesting things that I learned about him during my research. When people will watch the film, they will see a very differnt character of Dr Manmohan Singh. When you will see a film of two hours, you will come across small nuances - his loneliness, his dejection, his joy and how hurt he was, his triumph and the way he used to think. He is very human, and that is what the film's character has portrayed him. He was also weak in some ways, to let other people dictate him. The reason for this is because he was not a politician, he was a bureaucrat. WION: But did you feel he was helpless? Anupam Kher: There was no need to do a film to show this. This was felt across the country by its citizens. We did feel that what's stopping him from taking certain decisions? Nobody questioned his honesty, his integrity, but sometimes we used to feel frustrated 'ki yaar ye kuchh bolte kyun nahi? Ye kuchh karte kyun nahi? (Why doesn't he speak? Why doesn't he do something?)'. From whatever I've read, his wife also used to feel the same. He will be proud of my portrayal of his character. WION: Do you believe he will be happy after watching the film? Anupam Kher: I have a feeling that if he does not feel hesitant after watching the film, he will definitely hug me and might even ask me to have a cup of tea with him. And I am saying this with sincerity. WION: And what about Sonia and Rahul Gandhi? What will they think about you after watching the film? Anupam Kher: Well, I can't give a reaction on that. They will perhaps say 'Don't have tea with him'. WION: This film was controversial, now it has turned political after the BJP tweeted the trailer from its official handle. So there is an impression that the BJP is promoting this film and wants to gain political mileage out of it just before elections. What do you have to say? Anupam Kher: I personally feel that a film can't decide voting pattern. Indian voter is very smart, otherwise there wouldn't have been surprises in election results. A political parties always use some things for their advantage - it has happened in the past too, with Congress. I remember reading tweets from politicians when 'Udta Punjab' was released. I think that's a personal opinion. And a political party will use any means to promote their point of view and whatever benefits them. This is a well-established fact that Mrs Gandhi did go to the President to become the Prime Minister as far as the research I have done is concerned. And then Subramanian Swamy told President Kalam that technically it cannot happen. So she had to choose from senior leaders like Pranab da, and she chose a person who was non-controversial, whose honesty was unquestionable and whom she could tell that this is what you have to do. All this is in public domain. And you don't have to wait for a film - things go viral even from television. Recently, the footage of Congress leaders telling Rahul Gandhi what to speak during an address went viral. Now if a filmmaker uses reproduces that in his/her film, how can there be objection on that? The opposition to this film is coming from a certain section of people, and it's unfortunate. But I've heard that some senior leaders in the Congress are saying that the film should not be opposed. It's a great thing and I'm thankful for that reaction. WION: You would have known from Day 1 that if you do this film, Congress will be upset. Then what was the reason? Did you find the role challenging as an actor? Anupam Kher: It was a lifetime opportunity for me to get a role as brilliant as that of Dr Manmohan Singh. It is the highlight of my career. And I have portrayed it as an actor. If I have to put across my political view, I don't need to make a film, I can record a video on mobile and post it on social media and millions can see it. Everyone has political leanings, but whenever I've spoken, I've spoken for my country. People think I am a political person; if I want to be a politician, I will join a political party and let you know that I've taken the political plunge. WION: You often seem to back the BJP ideology and your wife is a BJP MP. It is being alleged that you did this film to please the BJP and that you want a ticket to Rajya Sabha from the BJP. What do you have to say about this? Anupam Kher: No, no. I am an Indian actor trying to make India proud abroad. I don't want to come into politics, or a Rajya Sabha seat. My wife Kirron Kher has won Lok Sabha election, the seat was not offered to her on a platter. She fought the election and won it. I am an admirer of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, people are free to interpret. I have spent enough time in this industry to understand 'suno sabki, karo apni (listen to everyone, but do your own thing).' WION: You say this is the best role of your life. But people are saying you are simply mimicking Dr Manmohan Singh, so is this acting or mimicry? Anupam Kher: People who don't know acting are making such comments and I don't have time to react to these things. WION: Had you thought while signing the film that it will run you into a controversy? And that this argument will reach this stage? Anupam Kher: We've followed a process, the film was cleared by the Censor Board. The audience is mature enough, we can't fool them. If my audience likes my role, that's enough for me. I am not performing to please certain people, and that is what's important.

Don't think people's vote depends on a film: Anupam Kher to WION on controversy around 'The Accidental Prime Minister'

<p>BJP president Amit Shah in an exclusive interview with <strong>WION Editor-in-chief Sudhir Chaudhary</strong> defended the Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik and said there is no reason to doubt the intentions of the honourable governor. Accusing the Opposition of lying over the Rafale deal, Shah challenged the Congress president Rahul Gandhi to specify his source of information on the issue.</p>

<p>Shah also discussed CBI row, 2019 elections and other issues. Edited excerpts.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WION</strong>: Amid the campaign for the assembly elections, a new issue has emerged. What do you have to say about it? Do you think that dissolving the J&amp;K assembly was the only option?</p>

<p><strong>Amit Shah</strong>: I don't think it's a problem. It's a solution. We do not have any reason to doubt the intentions of the honourable governor. Those crying foul also wanted the same. He has taken a political stand and cannot take it back.</p>

<p><strong>WION</strong>: You have given an opportunity to the opposition parties in the state to come together. It's never been seen before that the three opposition parties come together to stake claim to form a govt.</p>

<p><strong>Amit Shah</strong>: These three parties made claims of horse trading in the last week. These parties can tell you more about the same. I am only picking up from reports in the media. The administration and governor will know the details. From what I am gathering, preparations were on for the last three days. Based on that if someone stakes a claim which is not backed by any official letter either from the Congress or the NC- which to are presented before the media and not before the governor- I don't think that the people of the nation can be fooled by such things.</p>

<p><strong>WION</strong>: On the issue of the Rafale deal, the entire opposition, including Rahul Gandhi, has made a huge deal out of it. Some say that it will prove to be what BOFORS became for Rajiv Gandhi. So is this issue being created only for the media, or does it have some truth?</p>

<p><strong>Amit Shah</strong>: The Opposition does not have a solid issue hence they have created a fake issue out of this. They are lying. Not an extra penny has been spent and we have put our case in front of the Supreme Court. If the Congress has so much information what's stopping them from going to Supreme Court. Can the Congress President specify his source of information on Rafale? Are political parties the source of this information? Is this how one leads public life? He probably doesn't know that the papers given to him aren't accurate.</p>

<p><strong>WION</strong>: What was the govt wary of when it came to the CBI that Alok Verma was asked to leave in the middle of the night?</p>

<p><strong>Amit Shah</strong>: Two senior CBI officials accused each other of corruption. Who will investigate this now? Naturally a neutral agency. The CVC is probing the matter and till then officials in question have been sent on leave.</p>

<p><strong>WION</strong>: What do you have to say to Rahul Gandhi's allegation that Alok Verma could have filed an FIR in the Rafale case and that is why the govt panicked?</p>

<p><strong>Amit Shah</strong>: I don't know who scripts these allegations that Rahul Gandhi makes. If they tell me I would train that person. When Alok Verma was sent on a leave, two PILs were already filed in the top court. It had issued a notice after which a plea could not be registered. Somebody must tell this to Rahul Gandhi.</p>

<p><strong>WION</strong>: There is a strong feeling that BJP may do something to create a wave in its favour. It could be the issue of Ram Temple or a war with Pakistan or any other issue which might evoke strong sentiments in favour of BJP. How true is that?</p>

<p><strong>Amit Shah</strong>: See, we don't need a war to win an election. There is already a wave in our favour. We have given gas connections to over 5.5 crore poor households, 8 crore toilets have been built for the poor, 2 crore poor families have been given houses, 2 crore houses have been electrified. We are providing subsidised crops to farmers. The centre and state together are providing medical facilities worth Rs 5 lakh to every household. Can you believe the amount of work that this govt has done? A household had to bear smoke while cooking, that has been replaced with gas cylinders. A sixteen-year-old girl who had to relieve herself in the open now has a toilet. Can you imagine the boost in her confidence? A pregnant lady is vaccinated to protect her child and herself from diseases. There were 19000 villages where electricity poles hadn't reached even after 70 years of independence and now those villages are lit with power. We have made education, health and employment accessible. We plan to electrify all homes by 2022. All homes have a bank account. Our borders are more secure. We brought in one rank one pension. The growth rate has increased. Our economy has improved. Inflation has come down, so has the deficit. Foreign reserves are at a peak. The atmosphere of fear and insecurity is no longer there. No concrete allegations have been made against our govt. Do you think that the people of the nation do not know this? We ruled 6 states, now we rule 19. This is because of the faith of the people in our govt. &nbsp;Under the leadership of Modiji, we have worked to boost India's image globally.</p>

<p><strong>WION</strong>: What if you come to power in 2019? People think that if you come to power again, there will be bolder decisions. There could be new leaders. Have you thought of an overhaul?</p>

<p><strong>Amit Shah</strong>: We have only thought of coming back to power with more seats than we currently have. Our manifesto for the general elections will have all the details of our plans. There is a lot of discussions pending on the issue without which we must not make any claims.</p>


BJP president Amit Shah in an exclusive interview with WION Editor-in-chief Sudhir Chaudhary defended the Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik and said there is no reason to doubt the intentions of the honourable governor.

BJP president Amit Shah in an exclusive interview with WION Editor-in-chief Sudhir Chaudhary defended the Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik and said there is no reason to doubt the intentions of the honourable governor. Accusing the Opposition of lying over the Rafale deal, Shah challenged the Congress president Rahul Gandhi to specify his source of information on the issue. Shah also discussed CBI row, 2019 elections and other issues. Edited excerpts. WION: Amid the campaign for the assembly elections, a new issue has emerged. What do you have to say about it? Do you think that dissolving the J&K assembly was the only option? Amit Shah: I don't think it's a problem. It's a solution. We do not have any reason to doubt the intentions of the honourable governor. Those crying foul also wanted the same. He has taken a political stand and cannot take it back. WION: You have given an opportunity to the opposition parties in the state to come together. It's never been seen before that the three opposition parties come together to stake claim to form a govt. Amit Shah: These three parties made claims of horse trading in the last week. These parties can tell you more about the same. I am only picking up from reports in the media. The administration and governor will know the details. From what I am gathering, preparations were on for the last three days. Based on that if someone stakes a claim which is not backed by any official letter either from the Congress or the NC- which to are presented before the media and not before the governor- I don't think that the people of the nation can be fooled by such things. WION: On the issue of the Rafale deal, the entire opposition, including Rahul Gandhi, has made a huge deal out of it. Some say that it will prove to be what BOFORS became for Rajiv Gandhi. So is this issue being created only for the media, or does it have some truth? Amit Shah: The Opposition does not have a solid issue hence they have created a fake issue out of this. They are lying. Not an extra penny has been spent and we have put our case in front of the Supreme Court. If the Congress has so much information what's stopping them from going to Supreme Court. Can the Congress President specify his source of information on Rafale? Are political parties the source of this information? Is this how one leads public life? He probably doesn't know that the papers given to him aren't accurate. WION: What was the govt wary of when it came to the CBI that Alok Verma was asked to leave in the middle of the night? Amit Shah: Two senior CBI officials accused each other of corruption. Who will investigate this now? Naturally a neutral agency. The CVC is probing the matter and till then officials in question have been sent on leave. WION: What do you have to say to Rahul Gandhi's allegation that Alok Verma could have filed an FIR in the Rafale case and that is why the govt panicked? Amit Shah: I don't know who scripts these allegations that Rahul Gandhi makes. If they tell me I would train that person. When Alok Verma was sent on a leave, two PILs were already filed in the top court. It had issued a notice after which a plea could not be registered. Somebody must tell this to Rahul Gandhi. WION: There is a strong feeling that BJP may do something to create a wave in its favour. It could be the issue of Ram Temple or a war with Pakistan or any other issue which might evoke strong sentiments in favour of BJP. How true is that? Amit Shah: See, we don't need a war to win an election. There is already a wave in our favour. We have given gas connections to over 5.5 crore poor households, 8 crore toilets have been built for the poor, 2 crore poor families have been given houses, 2 crore houses have been electrified. We are providing subsidised crops to farmers. The centre and state together are providing medical facilities worth Rs 5 lakh to every household. Can you believe the amount of work that this govt has done? A household had to bear smoke while cooking, that has been replaced with gas cylinders. A sixteen-year-old girl who had to relieve herself in the open now has a toilet. Can you imagine the boost in her confidence? A pregnant lady is vaccinated to protect her child and herself from diseases. There were 19000 villages where electricity poles hadn't reached even after 70 years of independence and now those villages are lit with power. We have made education, health and employment accessible. We plan to electrify all homes by 2022. All homes have a bank account. Our borders are more secure. We brought in one rank one pension. The growth rate has increased. Our economy has improved. Inflation has come down, so has the deficit. Foreign reserves are at a peak. The atmosphere of fear and insecurity is no longer there. No concrete allegations have been made against our govt. Do you think that the people of the nation do not know this? We ruled 6 states, now we rule 19. This is because of the faith of the people in our govt. Under the leadership of Modiji, we have worked to boost India's image globally. WION: What if you come to power in 2019? People think that if you come to power again, there will be bolder decisions. There could be new leaders. Have you thought of an overhaul? Amit Shah: We have only thought of coming back to power with more seats than we currently have. Our manifesto for the general elections will have all the details of our plans. There is a lot of discussions pending on the issue without which we must not make any claims.

Opposition has created a 'fake issue' out of Rafale deal: BJP president Amit Shah to WION

<p>The situation&nbsp;in Jammu and Kashmir remains tense. The state is being targetted by cross-border terrorism for a long time now. Two months ago, Governor Satya Pal Malik had taken charge of the state. WION's Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary spoke exclusively to the&nbsp;J&amp;K governor on&nbsp;the current situation in the state.</p>

<p><b>WION</b>:&nbsp;Terrorists make headlines in news, but a Kashmiri being selected in the Indian Premier League or in IAS does not make it to headlines.&nbsp;How will you change the narrative?</p>

<p><strong>Governor Satya Pal Malik</strong>:&nbsp;The tragedy is that the country's media demonises Kashmir. The whole of the Valley is projected as&nbsp;being against the country. When a Kashmiri got selected to the IPL, at least 20,000 people went (to his house) to congratulate him. I have promised that the state will have its international stadium&nbsp;and its own IPL team. The youth will take up guns if they are not given any other alternative.</p>

<p>The youth have nothing productive to do after 6 pm. There are no cinema halls. But now we are working on it.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WION</strong>: Will cinemas reopen in Srinagar?</p>

<p><strong>Governor Satya Pal Malik</strong>:&nbsp; Not only cinema halls, but coffee houses will be opened. All such places where the young&nbsp;generation can sit and discuss something positive.</p>


The situation in Jammu and Kashmir remains tense. The state is being targetted by cross-border terrorism for a long time now. Two months ago, Governor Satya Pal Malik had taken charge of the state.

The situation in Jammu and Kashmir remains tense. The state is being targetted by cross-border terrorism for a long time now. Two months ago, Governor Satya Pal Malik had taken charge of the state. WION's Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary spoke exclusively to the J&K governor on the current situation in the state. WION: Terrorists make headlines in news, but a Kashmiri being selected in the Indian Premier League or in IAS does not make it to headlines. How will you change the narrative? Governor Satya Pal Malik: The tragedy is that the country's media demonises Kashmir. The whole of the Valley is projected as being against the country. When a Kashmiri got selected to the IPL, at least 20,000 people went (to his house) to congratulate him. I have promised that the state will have its international stadium and its own IPL team. The youth will take up guns if they are not given any other alternative. The youth have nothing productive to do after 6 pm. There are no cinema halls. But now we are working on it. WION: Will cinemas reopen in Srinagar? Governor Satya Pal Malik: Not only cinema halls, but coffee houses will be opened. All such places where the young generation can sit and discuss something positive.

Youth will take up guns if they are not given any other alternative: J&K Governor to WION

<p>On January 30th, 1948, Gandhiji was killed. This year marks his 70th death anniversary. Twice every year, on Gandhi&#39;s birthday on 2nd October and his death anniversary on 30 January, the country remembers the &#39;Father of the Nation&#39;. Both these dates are celebrated amidst much fanfare; there are seminars and conferences across the country. Long lectures abound. Intellectuals and politicians prepare notes of their speeches based on Gandhi&#39;s ideas.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But, sadly, soon with the end of these occasions, Gandhi&#39;s ideas are put into the freezer.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>India respects Gandhi but ignores his message</strong></p>

<p>Gandhiji&#39;s unifying role in bringing together a country as diverse as India is beyond question. However, his contribution has been largely forgotten by the state and the society. This collective amnesia is best proven in instances where government employees, unhesitatingly, take bribes in front of the framed pictures of Mahatma Gandhi which adorns almost all government offices of India.</p>

<p>The blood of the common men of India fills up the pocket of these corrupt officials. They lie, prepare incorrect reports and fool the citizens of the nation.</p>

<p>Possibly, all the major crossings of the country have a statue of Gandhiji. But that does not deter anyone from committing some of the heinous crimes on the roads and streets of India.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Gandhi said, see no evil, speak no evil and don&#39;t listen to evil. However, we have learned not to pay heed to the most basic tenets of Gandhi&#39;s teachings. We continue, unhindered, to witness, speak and listen to evil.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The civil society stands in full support whenever it feels the freedom of expression is threatened but no one is willing to take responsibility for expressing the ideas concerned.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Gandhi&#39;s global influence</strong></p>

<p>In the history of human civilisation, Gandhi is unique for devising an unprecedented strategy of protest. He proved that one can oppose a powerful and oppressive regime without shedding a drop of blood. Without hurting anyone physically, through the most peaceful of means, one can bring about a change.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Gandhi&#39;s ideas of non-violence and non-cooperation were an inspiration to the rest of the world. The human rights activist Martin Luther King who fought civil rights of the African-Americans took his political and ideological lessons from Gandhi.</p>

<p>Similarly, South Africa&#39;s Nelson Mandela infused his politics with Gandhi&#39;s ideas and action plans.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It is undeniable, how 70 years after his death, Gandhi continues to be relevant to the rest of the world.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Barack Obama, the former US president, acknowledged Gandhi&#39;s influence on him. We will hardly find a political leader in India who ends his speech without mentioning or quoting Gandhi.&nbsp; Not to mention, one political family in India who retained power through decades using their &#39;Gandhi&#39; surname.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding the profound influence that Gandhi had across space and time, he did not receive the Nobel prize. Perhaps, Gandhi was bigger than the prize. But another question crops up whether there was a secret agenda that denied Gandhi of the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, the politics surrounding the Nobel Prize is pretty well known to anyone who cares to explore.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Why did Gandhi not get the Nobel Peace Prize?</strong></p>

<p>Now, the committee responsible for awarding the Nobel prize regrets that they did not give Gandhi the award when he was alive and fighting for India&#39;s freedom against a mighty opponent. What people, generally, think is that Norway&#39;s Nobel Prize Committee did not want to upset the Britishers who were India&#39;s colonial master.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But in reality, appeasement was not the only reason.</p>

<p>Gandhi was nominated 5 times for the Nobel prize: in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and in 1948.</p>

<p>In the first instance, a member of Norway&#39;s Parliament proposed Gandhi&#39;s name but it was overlooked by the committee.</p>

<p>Our research revealed a letter written by Prof. Jacob Worm-Muller who served as a consultant advisor to the committee. Reading the letter makes it very clear that Worm-Muller praised Gandhi but he also mentioned that he can not trust the latter&#39;s personality.</p>

<p>&quot;He is undoubtedly a good, noble and ascetic person &mdash; a prominent man who is deservedly honored and loved by the masses of India. But there are sharp turns in his policies, which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers. He is a freedom fighter and a dictator, an idealist and a nationalist. He is frequently a Christ, but then, suddenly, an ordinary politician&quot;</p>

<p>Jacob Muller presented his thought in the year 1937 in front of the Committee. There were a lot of people at that time who were unable to understand Gandhi&#39;s ideology. Because, on the one hand, he was living a life of a saint, on the other hand, he was a lawyer. Gandhi while speaking about truth, non-violence and morality, was also fully aware of the working of the colonial machinery. This knowledge of the colonial system enabled Mahatma to counter the colonial rule like a seasoned politician. This is what the Nobel Committee, perhaps, found confusing. Is Gandhi a saint or a politician.</p>

<p>Prof. Muller also wrote that Gandhi was not completely non-violent. Muller said that Gandhi&#39;s nationalism is limited to the Indians. Even in South Africa, Gandhi&#39;s action was limited to the Indian communities living there.&nbsp;</p>

<p>What Prof. Muller mentioned about Gandhiji was unfortunate as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King got the Nobel prize. And they were themselves a follower of Gandhi. It is very surprising that those who were inspired by Gandhi got the Nobel prize, but Gandhi did not.</p>

<p>Though Gandhi never expected any prize as an acknowledgment for his work.</p>

<p>After 1937, Gandhi was nominated in 1938 and 1939, but his name was not even shortlisted.</p>

<p>In 1947, it was expected that Gandhi will receive the Nobel but again the committee did not consider him.</p>

<p>It was happening because there were many powerful forces that were influencing the decisions of the Nobel Committee and there were some international media houses too behind this who acted against Gandhi&#39;s nomination.</p>

<p>Jens Arup Seip, the advisor of Nobel Prize Committee, supported Gandhi&#39;s case in 1947 but even then he did not receive the prize.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Seip&#39;s report gives a detailed account of the events that happened during 1937 to 1947. In 1947, Gandhiji was one among other 6 listed candidates but over Gandhi&#39;s name, there was a huge conflict among the jury members.</p>

<p>During that time, Gandhiji said in a rally that, &quot;If such practice would continue that India might declare war against Pakistan&quot;</p>

<p>This report was published in Britain&#39;s newspaper &quot;The Times&quot; which went against Gandhi. Consequently, 3 of 5 jury members voted against him and Gandhi did not receive the Nobel Prize.</p>

<p>While the Nobel Committee kept itself busy trying to find violence in the non-violent politics of Mahatma, it did not hesitate to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, a US president, had been a career soldier. He had participated in several wars but Nobel Committee chose to forget all that and focused only on Roosevelt&#39;s effort to stop the war between Russia and Japan in 1905.</p>

<p>In the year 1948, Gandhiji had a huge chance of winning the Nobel prize but 2 days before the announcement, Gandhi was assassinated. There had been no tradition of posthumous awarding of Nobel prize. Even then there was a buzz that Gandhi might be the first one to receive it after death but in absence of a trust or organisation which could have taken the prize in Gandhi&#39;s absence, the idea was aborted.&nbsp;</p>

<p>That year the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to no one. On Gandhi&#39;s 70th death anniversary, the Nobel Committee paid its tribute to Gandhi, stating &quot;That year, the Nobel Committee decided to make no award on the grounds that &quot;there was no suitable living candidate&quot;. This definitely implies that Gandhi was the chosen candidate in 1948 and death robbed him of that honour.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In 1989, while awarding Dalai Lama of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Committee openly admitted that it was a mistake not to award Gandhiji.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Gandhiji, history has proven, does not need the Nobel Prize to exercise his influence across the world. But the Nobel Committee needs Gandhiji to enhance its stature. If the Nobel Committee wants, it can rectify its past mistake easily. Even new laws can be brought about to honour a great man like Gandhiji. Perhaps, it is about time that the Nobel Committee considers Mahatma Gandhi as the first posthumous awardee of the Nobel Prize.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Colonial politics of the time, particularly the prejudice of the Nobel Committee and its lack of understanding of the many contradiction of Gandhi's political career robbed Mahatma Gandhi of Nobel Peace Prize.

On January 30th, 1948, Gandhiji was killed. This year marks his 70th death anniversary. Twice every year, on Gandhi's birthday on 2nd October and his death anniversary on 30 January, the country remembers the 'Father of the Nation'. Both these dates are celebrated amidst much fanfare; there are seminars and conferences across the country. Long lectures abound. Intellectuals and politicians prepare notes of their speeches based on Gandhi's ideas. But, sadly, soon with the end of these occasions, Gandhi's ideas are put into the freezer. India respects Gandhi but ignores his message Gandhiji's unifying role in bringing together a country as diverse as India is beyond question. However, his contribution has been largely forgotten by the state and the society. This collective amnesia is best proven in instances where government employees, unhesitatingly, take bribes in front of the framed pictures of Mahatma Gandhi which adorns almost all government offices of India. The blood of the common men of India fills up the pocket of these corrupt officials. They lie, prepare incorrect reports and fool the citizens of the nation. Possibly, all the major crossings of the country have a statue of Gandhiji. But that does not deter anyone from committing some of the heinous crimes on the roads and streets of India. Gandhi said, see no evil, speak no evil and don't listen to evil. However, we have learned not to pay heed to the most basic tenets of Gandhi's teachings. We continue, unhindered, to witness, speak and listen to evil. The civil society stands in full support whenever it feels the freedom of expression is threatened but no one is willing to take responsibility for expressing the ideas concerned. Gandhi's global influence In the history of human civilisation, Gandhi is unique for devising an unprecedented strategy of protest. He proved that one can oppose a powerful and oppressive regime without shedding a drop of blood. Without hurting anyone physically, through the most peaceful of means, one can bring about a change. Gandhi's ideas of non-violence and non-cooperation were an inspiration to the rest of the world. The human rights activist Martin Luther King who fought civil rights of the African-Americans took his political and ideological lessons from Gandhi. Similarly, South Africa's Nelson Mandela infused his politics with Gandhi's ideas and action plans. It is undeniable, how 70 years after his death, Gandhi continues to be relevant to the rest of the world. Barack Obama, the former US president, acknowledged Gandhi's influence on him. We will hardly find a political leader in India who ends his speech without mentioning or quoting Gandhi. Not to mention, one political family in India who retained power through decades using their 'Gandhi' surname. Notwithstanding the profound influence that Gandhi had across space and time, he did not receive the Nobel prize. Perhaps, Gandhi was bigger than the prize. But another question crops up whether there was a secret agenda that denied Gandhi of the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, the politics surrounding the Nobel Prize is pretty well known to anyone who cares to explore. Why did Gandhi not get the Nobel Peace Prize? Now, the committee responsible for awarding the Nobel prize regrets that they did not give Gandhi the award when he was alive and fighting for India's freedom against a mighty opponent. What people, generally, think is that Norway's Nobel Prize Committee did not want to upset the Britishers who were India's colonial master. But in reality, appeasement was not the only reason. Gandhi was nominated 5 times for the Nobel prize: in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and in 1948. In the first instance, a member of Norway's Parliament proposed Gandhi's name but it was overlooked by the committee. Our research revealed a letter written by Prof. Jacob Worm-Muller who served as a consultant advisor to the committee. Reading the letter makes it very clear that Worm-Muller praised Gandhi but he also mentioned that he can not trust the latter's personality. "He is undoubtedly a good, noble and ascetic person — a prominent man who is deservedly honored and loved by the masses of India. But there are sharp turns in his policies, which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers. He is a freedom fighter and a dictator, an idealist and a nationalist. He is frequently a Christ, but then, suddenly, an ordinary politician" Jacob Muller presented his thought in the year 1937 in front of the Committee. There were a lot of people at that time who were unable to understand Gandhi's ideology. Because, on the one hand, he was living a life of a saint, on the other hand, he was a lawyer. Gandhi while speaking about truth, non-violence and morality, was also fully aware of the working of the colonial machinery. This knowledge of the colonial system enabled Mahatma to counter the colonial rule like a seasoned politician. This is what the Nobel Committee, perhaps, found confusing. Is Gandhi a saint or a politician. Prof. Muller also wrote that Gandhi was not completely non-violent. Muller said that Gandhi's nationalism is limited to the Indians. Even in South Africa, Gandhi's action was limited to the Indian communities living there. What Prof. Muller mentioned about Gandhiji was unfortunate as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King got the Nobel prize. And they were themselves a follower of Gandhi. It is very surprising that those who were inspired by Gandhi got the Nobel prize, but Gandhi did not. Though Gandhi never expected any prize as an acknowledgment for his work. After 1937, Gandhi was nominated in 1938 and 1939, but his name was not even shortlisted. In 1947, it was expected that Gandhi will receive the Nobel but again the committee did not consider him. It was happening because there were many powerful forces that were influencing the decisions of the Nobel Committee and there were some international media houses too behind this who acted against Gandhi's nomination. Jens Arup Seip, the advisor of Nobel Prize Committee, supported Gandhi's case in 1947 but even then he did not receive the prize. Seip's report gives a detailed account of the events that happened during 1937 to 1947. In 1947, Gandhiji was one among other 6 listed candidates but over Gandhi's name, there was a huge conflict among the jury members. During that time, Gandhiji said in a rally that, "If such practice would continue that India might declare war against Pakistan" This report was published in Britain's newspaper "The Times" which went against Gandhi. Consequently, 3 of 5 jury members voted against him and Gandhi did not receive the Nobel Prize. While the Nobel Committee kept itself busy trying to find violence in the non-violent politics of Mahatma, it did not hesitate to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, a US president, had been a career soldier. He had participated in several wars but Nobel Committee chose to forget all that and focused only on Roosevelt's effort to stop the war between Russia and Japan in 1905. In the year 1948, Gandhiji had a huge chance of winning the Nobel prize but 2 days before the announcement, Gandhi was assassinated. There had been no tradition of posthumous awarding of Nobel prize. Even then there was a buzz that Gandhi might be the first one to receive it after death but in absence of a trust or organisation which could have taken the prize in Gandhi's absence, the idea was aborted. That year the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to no one. On Gandhi's 70th death anniversary, the Nobel Committee paid its tribute to Gandhi, stating "That year, the Nobel Committee decided to make no award on the grounds that "there was no suitable living candidate". This definitely implies that Gandhi was the chosen candidate in 1948 and death robbed him of that honour. In 1989, while awarding Dalai Lama of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Committee openly admitted that it was a mistake not to award Gandhiji. Gandhiji, history has proven, does not need the Nobel Prize to exercise his influence across the world. But the Nobel Committee needs Gandhiji to enhance its stature. If the Nobel Committee wants, it can rectify its past mistake easily. Even new laws can be brought about to honour a great man like Gandhiji. Perhaps, it is about time that the Nobel Committee considers Mahatma Gandhi as the first posthumous awardee of the Nobel Prize. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why Gandhiji did not get the Nobel Prize

<p>For a democracy to function, elections are crucial. The Indian state of Gujarat is going to the polls&nbsp;tomorrow. This will be a bitterly contested run to state power as it is the home ground of India&#39;s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. After their UP debacle, the Congress is pumped up too with carefully chosen electoral partners. They have tied up with disgruntled Patidar community leader Hardik Patel as well as have strong support from the Dalit and the Muslim community.</p>

<p>While the whole country debates the shifting dynamics of Gujarati politics, keeping itself engrossed with nitty-gritty details over seats, leaders, areas of influence, we are neglecting to sift through the political discourse that is developing around this state election.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>What the leaders say in the election campaigns and what the voters want to listen may be very different from the election manifesto that the political parties release amidst much fanfare.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=What the leaders say in the election campaigns and what the voters want to listen may be very different from the election manifesto that the political parties release amidst much fanfare." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Beyond seats and leaders, voters and voting pattern an election can give us foray into the mind of the nation. What the leaders say in the election campaigns and what the voters want to listen may be very different from the election manifesto that the political parties release amidst much fanfare. While the manifestoes may register all the politically correct and so-called progressive ideas and plans directed at nation-building, what the leaders go out to say in political rallies is completely different.</p>

<p>This year&#39;s Gujarat state election best illustrates the point. Months before the Gujarat election dates were announced, the political leaders, as well as, the media houses were referring to Gujarat development model as if it will be the most important criterion in deciding the fate of this election. The newsrooms were abuzz with words such as infrastructure, foreign direct investment, employment generation and other economic jargons. We were splitting hair as to between Kerala and Gujarat&#39;s development path what we should choose and what we let go.</p>

<p>GST figured too. Just like demonetisation, the GST kept Indians busy. We discussed Moody ratings, ease of doing business, doing away with double taxation. All discussions did not revolve around positives though, we were somewhat clueless too about rates of GST and what differences it made to past and current prices.</p>

<p>But such non-religious debates centering around policy measures couldn&#39;t keep either our leaders or voters enticed for long. Their wish was fulfilled when Rahul Gandhi referred to GST as &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39;. I am sure Rahul was referring to what he thought the arbitrary and coercive nature of GST, but the public debate immediately shifted towards name calling. With each passing round, the political leaders of opposing parties tried to prove their&nbsp;better sense of humour over the other. All this tamasha happened at the expense of serious political debate of course.</p>

<p>One would expect, particularly learning from better days of Indian democracy and that of the US, that political leaders would enter into a verbal duel with each other over health, education, municipal administration, infrastructure building and the hazards of pollution. Matters that affect our lives, our children&#39;s lives. But no, we prefer, rather rejoice, to go hoarse over Ram Mandir, Babur, Aurangzeb, Gujarati asmita, calling each other &#39;<em>neech</em>&#39;, demand for reservation and use it to rouse populist sentiment.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Instead of such rabble-rousing, why can&#39;t we enter into a constructive political discourse where we really try to figure out how we can build a neat and clean city like Surat or Rajkot.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Instead of such rabble-rousing, why can't we enter into a constructive political discourse where we really try to figure out how we can build a neat and clean city like Surat or Rajkot." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Instead of such rabble-rousing, why can&#39;t we enter into a constructive political discourse where we really try to figure out how we can build a neat and clean city like Surat or Rajkot. Such cities were in a deplorable mess not that many years ago. But with proper drainage and sewage system, the cities have completely undergone a makeover. Why can&#39;t we make all Indian cities like that? I am sure that there would be the question of resource constraint. Then, let&#39;s talk about resources and how we can mobilise it and put it to proper use.</p>

<p>I am equally surprised how pollution never figures in our electoral campaign but Ram Mandir does? The famous London smog almost killed Prime Minister Churchill&#39;s career but our leaders are pretty well surviving as we bicker over Babri Masjid and Ram Mandir. Pray, tell me what is more crucial to our survival: clean air or a place to pray?</p>

<p>A country gets a political system it deserves. Until and unless we evolve ourselves into a conscious democracy, we don&#39;t start asking tough questions and demand better living conditions for our children, we are a doomed nation.</p>

<p>India aspires to be a modern superpower but our political culture and rhetoric smack of primitive feudal ideas.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


India aspires to be a modern superpower but our political culture and rhetoric smack of primitive feudal ideas

For a democracy to function, elections are crucial. The Indian state of Gujarat is going to the polls tomorrow. This will be a bitterly contested run to state power as it is the home ground of India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi. After their UP debacle, the Congress is pumped up too with carefully chosen electoral partners. They have tied up with disgruntled Patidar community leader Hardik Patel as well as have strong support from the Dalit and the Muslim community. While the whole country debates the shifting dynamics of Gujarati politics, keeping itself engrossed with nitty-gritty details over seats, leaders, areas of influence, we are neglecting to sift through the political discourse that is developing around this state election. What the leaders say in the election campaigns and what the voters want to listen may be very different from the election manifesto that the political parties release amidst much fanfare. × Beyond seats and leaders, voters and voting pattern an election can give us foray into the mind of the nation. What the leaders say in the election campaigns and what the voters want to listen may be very different from the election manifesto that the political parties release amidst much fanfare. While the manifestoes may register all the politically correct and so-called progressive ideas and plans directed at nation-building, what the leaders go out to say in political rallies is completely different. This year's Gujarat state election best illustrates the point. Months before the Gujarat election dates were announced, the political leaders, as well as, the media houses were referring to Gujarat development model as if it will be the most important criterion in deciding the fate of this election. The newsrooms were abuzz with words such as infrastructure, foreign direct investment, employment generation and other economic jargons. We were splitting hair as to between Kerala and Gujarat's development path what we should choose and what we let go. GST figured too. Just like demonetisation, the GST kept Indians busy. We discussed Moody ratings, ease of doing business, doing away with double taxation. All discussions did not revolve around positives though, we were somewhat clueless too about rates of GST and what differences it made to past and current prices. But such non-religious debates centering around policy measures couldn't keep either our leaders or voters enticed for long. Their wish was fulfilled when Rahul Gandhi referred to GST as 'Gabbar Singh Tax'. I am sure Rahul was referring to what he thought the arbitrary and coercive nature of GST, but the public debate immediately shifted towards name calling. With each passing round, the political leaders of opposing parties tried to prove their better sense of humour over the other. All this tamasha happened at the expense of serious political debate of course. One would expect, particularly learning from better days of Indian democracy and that of the US, that political leaders would enter into a verbal duel with each other over health, education, municipal administration, infrastructure building and the hazards of pollution. Matters that affect our lives, our children's lives. But no, we prefer, rather rejoice, to go hoarse over Ram Mandir, Babur, Aurangzeb, Gujarati asmita, calling each other 'neech', demand for reservation and use it to rouse populist sentiment. Instead of such rabble-rousing, why can't we enter into a constructive political discourse where we really try to figure out how we can build a neat and clean city like Surat or Rajkot. × Instead of such rabble-rousing, why can't we enter into a constructive political discourse where we really try to figure out how we can build a neat and clean city like Surat or Rajkot. Such cities were in a deplorable mess not that many years ago. But with proper drainage and sewage system, the cities have completely undergone a makeover. Why can't we make all Indian cities like that? I am sure that there would be the question of resource constraint. Then, let's talk about resources and how we can mobilise it and put it to proper use. I am equally surprised how pollution never figures in our electoral campaign but Ram Mandir does? The famous London smog almost killed Prime Minister Churchill's career but our leaders are pretty well surviving as we bicker over Babri Masjid and Ram Mandir. Pray, tell me what is more crucial to our survival: clean air or a place to pray? A country gets a political system it deserves. Until and unless we evolve ourselves into a conscious democracy, we don't start asking tough questions and demand better living conditions for our children, we are a doomed nation. India aspires to be a modern superpower but our political culture and rhetoric smack of primitive feudal ideas. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Why don't we speak of progressive ideas in election campaigns

<p>Yesterday it was declared that Rahul Gandhi will be the president of Congress party. Rahul Gandhi has submitted his application for the president&#39;s post. Top leaders and senior persons are blessing him. Congress supporters all over India are celebrating too. Rahul Gandhi himself went to Pranab Mukherjee&#39;s house to seek blessings. Senior members like Sushil Shinde and former chief minister of New Delhi, Sheila Dixit congratulated him. Former Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh also came to greet him.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>This shows that Rahul Gandhi is all set to be the president of the Congress party. You will be surprised to know that there is a committee also which has been set up for choosing the party president.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>On 5th December, the committee will check the enrolled names. Then it will be clear whether any other person is in the race or not. Then on the 16th, the voting will happen and on 19th the results will be out.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>But sources claim that the coronation ceremony will take place on 11th December itself as there is no scope for any other contender.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Party workers are very happy as they are considering Rahul Gandhi as the new hope and beginning of a new era. But amidst all of this, Manishankar Ayyar of Congress gave a controversial statement and mentioned about Jehangir,&nbsp; Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. After that Prime minister Narendra Modi compared Rahul Gandhi with Aurangzeb.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Again history has become very important for people. People are talking about Mughals and especially about Aurangzeb. Today&#39;s generation thinks whatever is written in the books is true.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>You must have heard the glorious sagas of the Mughal emperors from many intellectuals. Many people are talking about Mughal emperors and some of these intellectuals claim Akbar as the champion of secularism. They also say that during the reign of the Mughals, India became the &quot;golden bird&quot;. The economy was racing ahead, and Aurangzeb brought many changes for the betterment of the economy.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>While researching, we read M A Khan&#39;s book &quot;Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery&quot;. He has written a lot about the Mughal empire. We also read a book by Fran&ccedil;ois Gautier &quot;Rewriting Indian History&quot;.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The most pertinent question is, was secularism introduced by Mughal emperor Akbar?</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>M A Khan has mentioned in his book that Akbar invaded Chittor in 1568 and killed almost 8000 Rajput soldiers. He forced all the widows to become the slaves but they refused and did Jauhar (Self-immolation) to save their honour. M A Khan has written a lot about Mughal cruelty.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>M A Khan has mentioned one book named &quot;Al-Tareekh&quot; by a historian Ibn Aksari. He cited that Aurangzeb used to give higher posts to the Hindu by changing their religion. If a Hindu prisoner showed readiness to change their religion then he used to release him.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the year 1658, Aurangzeb said he would give Rs 4&nbsp; to men and Rs 2&nbsp; to women if they change their religion.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>There were tax exemptions also for those who used to change their religion.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>On page 39, Fran&ccedil;ois Gautier has written in his book &quot;Rewriting Indian history&quot; that the temples were demolished and mosques were built in that place. The document written at the time of Aurangzeb has details that 63 temples were demolished. Abu Tarab was appointed for it and he used to look after the demolition.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the book &quot;The world Economy&quot; it is mentioned that in the Gupta empire, India&#39;s GDP was 30 per cent of world&#39;s GDP. During Aurangzeb&#39;s rule,&nbsp; India&#39;s GDP was 22.5 per cent.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Gupta empire is 1300 years older than Mughal empire. That means India was quite a prosperous nation far before the Mughals came.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>It is unfortunate that when European countries are moving towards industrialisation, Indian politicians, in very similar ways to that of Aurangzeb, are making new policies to paint the country with communal colours.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


It is unfortunate that when European countries are moving towards industrialisation, Indian politicians, in very similar ways to that of Aurangzeb, are making new policies to paint the country with communal colours.

Yesterday it was declared that Rahul Gandhi will be the president of Congress party. Rahul Gandhi has submitted his application for the president's post. Top leaders and senior persons are blessing him. Congress supporters all over India are celebrating too. Rahul Gandhi himself went to Pranab Mukherjee's house to seek blessings. Senior members like Sushil Shinde and former chief minister of New Delhi, Sheila Dixit congratulated him. Former Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh also came to greet him. This shows that Rahul Gandhi is all set to be the president of the Congress party. You will be surprised to know that there is a committee also which has been set up for choosing the party president. On 5th December, the committee will check the enrolled names. Then it will be clear whether any other person is in the race or not. Then on the 16th, the voting will happen and on 19th the results will be out. But sources claim that the coronation ceremony will take place on 11th December itself as there is no scope for any other contender. Party workers are very happy as they are considering Rahul Gandhi as the new hope and beginning of a new era. But amidst all of this, Manishankar Ayyar of Congress gave a controversial statement and mentioned about Jehangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. After that Prime minister Narendra Modi compared Rahul Gandhi with Aurangzeb. Again history has become very important for people. People are talking about Mughals and especially about Aurangzeb. Today's generation thinks whatever is written in the books is true. You must have heard the glorious sagas of the Mughal emperors from many intellectuals. Many people are talking about Mughal emperors and some of these intellectuals claim Akbar as the champion of secularism. They also say that during the reign of the Mughals, India became the "golden bird". The economy was racing ahead, and Aurangzeb brought many changes for the betterment of the economy. While researching, we read M A Khan's book "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery". He has written a lot about the Mughal empire. We also read a book by François Gautier "Rewriting Indian History". The most pertinent question is, was secularism introduced by Mughal emperor Akbar? M A Khan has mentioned in his book that Akbar invaded Chittor in 1568 and killed almost 8000 Rajput soldiers. He forced all the widows to become the slaves but they refused and did Jauhar (Self-immolation) to save their honour. M A Khan has written a lot about Mughal cruelty. M A Khan has mentioned one book named "Al-Tareekh" by a historian Ibn Aksari. He cited that Aurangzeb used to give higher posts to the Hindu by changing their religion. If a Hindu prisoner showed readiness to change their religion then he used to release him. In the year 1658, Aurangzeb said he would give Rs 4 to men and Rs 2 to women if they change their religion. There were tax exemptions also for those who used to change their religion. On page 39, François Gautier has written in his book "Rewriting Indian history" that the temples were demolished and mosques were built in that place. The document written at the time of Aurangzeb has details that 63 temples were demolished. Abu Tarab was appointed for it and he used to look after the demolition. In the book "The world Economy" it is mentioned that in the Gupta empire, India's GDP was 30 per cent of world's GDP. During Aurangzeb's rule, India's GDP was 22.5 per cent. Gupta empire is 1300 years older than Mughal empire. That means India was quite a prosperous nation far before the Mughals came. It is unfortunate that when European countries are moving towards industrialisation, Indian politicians, in very similar ways to that of Aurangzeb, are making new policies to paint the country with communal colours. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Rahul's coronation and not so glorious reign of Aurangzeb

<p>Controversy doggedly follows the film S Durga wherever it goes. I am writing today to tell you that it is not accidental. In fact, given the antics of the director Sanal Kumar Sasidharan, it seems that the name of the film, as well as the content of the movie, has been disingenuously crafted to court controversy.</p>

<p>From the beginning to the very end, the movie is fraught with political as well as religious manipulations.</p>

<p>I can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India. Along with three celebrated directors Satish Kaushik, Vivek Agnihotri and Rahul Rawail (who was also the chairman of the jury), I voted that the film should not be screened at the festival. Seven other members of the jury voted in favour of the screening.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>I can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=I can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Currently, a one-sided narrative is dominating the discourse over the film. A small clique of intellectuals would like us to believe that the screening of this movie is irrevocably interlinked with the freedom of expression and creative liberty. They argue that preventing the movie from being screened is an attack on our democracy and that scuttling the screening of the movie is only a prelude to suppressing the voice of the people.</p>

<p>I am writing today to dispel these mistaken beliefs.</p>

<p>I am writing today to remind them that freedom of expression is not their preserve alone. It also lies with the viewer. Filmmakers can exercise their right to creative expression as long as the exercise of it does not encroach upon our beliefs or offend our sentiments. The filmmaker&rsquo;s freedom of expression is not absolute and is not entirely vested in him. It partly rests with the viewer as well, and the viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema.

" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Our freedom to reject these so-called creative works is a countervailing force against their freedom of expression, and we will not be reluctant in exercising it.</p>

<p>Before we proceed, let me delve briefly into the plot of the film. The movie has been shot in the backdrop of Kerala and there are two parallel themes running throughout the movie. The movie makers have juxtaposed a procession of Durga &mdash; and largely the worship of Durga in India &mdash; with the female lead of the movie who is, incidentally, also named Durga. Now, Durga is shown as eloping with her boyfriend; desperately looking to reach the railway station in the dead of the night. While both of them are stranded on a deserted road, two men arrive in a van and cajole them into taking a ride with them to the railway station. The boyfriend, surprisingly, is keen on taking a ride with them while the girl is naturally reluctant. The movie, essentially, is the journey that these two undertake in the van and the sexual harassment that the girl faces in the course of the night.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga. Clearly, this was an attempt by Sasidharan to be too clever by half. Even if it doesn&rsquo;t say so, the meaning of the three dots is not lost on anybody. Even after taking out the &ldquo;E-X-Y&rdquo;, the title still carries the same connotation.</p>

<p>As someone who has seen the movie first-hand, I cannot emphasise enough that there is no correlation between the film and the title. The director has deliberately and maliciously misused, even milked the title of the movie to present a pretentious facade in the name of creative cinema. It would have been acceptable had the director chosen to title the movie as Durga but there is no explanation, whatsoever, to mischievously changing the name of the film to S###&nbsp; Durga.</p>

<p>At this point, there is something that needs to be said about the mind of the director. The director knew from day one that the movie is going to be controversial. He knew very well, perhaps, even while writing the screenplay that he is inviting controversy. And despite knowing that, he pushed full steam ahead for want of fame. All throughout the movie, there are subtle hints that the director himself is a small-time, novice politician hoping to make it big. He is honing his political instinct in the name of creativity.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In the film, the boyfriend is named Kabir. This is not as innocent as it might seem on the face of it. Mind you, the religion of the characters is not relevant to the plot. But the director deliberately chose the name, Kabir &mdash; predominantly a Muslim name &mdash; to give a Hindu-Muslim spin to the story. In the name of creative cinema, the director thinks it is wise to retain the boyfriend as Muslim and the girl as a Hindu. What&rsquo;s more, the name of the girl has to be that of a Hindu goddess. Had the name of the characters not been Kabir and Durga but Aslam and Ayesha or Ramesh and Sonam, then, the film, per se, wouldn&rsquo;t have been controversial.</p>

<p>I would like to ask the director: Why is that the girl had to be named Durga and not Fatima or Mary? Why not make a movie on the same plot with a Hindu boy and a Muslim or a Christian girl? Why not call it &ldquo;Sexy Fatima&rdquo; or &ldquo;Sexy &ldquo;Mary&rdquo;? Why is that the girl had to be called Durga?</p>

<p>The director may argue here that he has created a parallel with the Durga procession, but there wasn&rsquo;t anything stopping him from finding a parallel in an Islamic or Christian festival or monument? India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion.</p>

<p>The film suffers from another serious moral dereliction. The portrayal of trauma in the film is flawed because it has segregated trauma into religious silos. Irrespective of whether a girl is named Durga or Fatima or Deborah, the trauma of a girl facing sexual harassment will be the trauma of a girl fearing for her life and her safety. Unpardonably, the director has given a religious angle to this ordeal. Another faux pax of the film is that it errs in sexualising a victim of rape or sexual harassment. How can a victim of such a crime be referred to as sexy? The director is effectively belittling the victims of sexual crime.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the film and Sasidharan have come to occupy a disproportionate share in contemporary news coverage. The director is mining the row to the hilt and is playing up the issue as if it is one of national importance.</p>

<p>Lastly, there is a grave and monumental danger afoot if this film is given all clearances, and eventually screened. What is there to stop anyone from making a film titled &ldquo;Sexy Lakshmi&rdquo; or &ldquo;Sexy Saraswati&rdquo;? What defence will the people have against such a film given that film directors will keep raising the bogey of freedom of expression? This could possibly start an ominous trend where directors &mdash; from both the communities &mdash; will start crafting their movies to serve a sectarian agenda.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


S. Durga will possibly start an ominous trend where directors ? from both the communities ? will start crafting their movies to serve a sectarian agenda.

Controversy doggedly follows the film S Durga wherever it goes. I am writing today to tell you that it is not accidental. In fact, given the antics of the director Sanal Kumar Sasidharan, it seems that the name of the film, as well as the content of the movie, has been disingenuously crafted to court controversy. From the beginning to the very end, the movie is fraught with political as well as religious manipulations. I can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India. Along with three celebrated directors Satish Kaushik, Vivek Agnihotri and Rahul Rawail (who was also the chairman of the jury), I voted that the film should not be screened at the festival. Seven other members of the jury voted in favour of the screening. I can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India. × Currently, a one-sided narrative is dominating the discourse over the film. A small clique of intellectuals would like us to believe that the screening of this movie is irrevocably interlinked with the freedom of expression and creative liberty. They argue that preventing the movie from being screened is an attack on our democracy and that scuttling the screening of the movie is only a prelude to suppressing the voice of the people. I am writing today to dispel these mistaken beliefs. I am writing today to remind them that freedom of expression is not their preserve alone. It also lies with the viewer. Filmmakers can exercise their right to creative expression as long as the exercise of it does not encroach upon our beliefs or offend our sentiments. The filmmaker’s freedom of expression is not absolute and is not entirely vested in him. It partly rests with the viewer as well, and the viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema. The viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema. × Our freedom to reject these so-called creative works is a countervailing force against their freedom of expression, and we will not be reluctant in exercising it. Before we proceed, let me delve briefly into the plot of the film. The movie has been shot in the backdrop of Kerala and there are two parallel themes running throughout the movie. The movie makers have juxtaposed a procession of Durga — and largely the worship of Durga in India — with the female lead of the movie who is, incidentally, also named Durga. Now, Durga is shown as eloping with her boyfriend; desperately looking to reach the railway station in the dead of the night. While both of them are stranded on a deserted road, two men arrive in a van and cajole them into taking a ride with them to the railway station. The boyfriend, surprisingly, is keen on taking a ride with them while the girl is naturally reluctant. The movie, essentially, is the journey that these two undertake in the van and the sexual harassment that the girl faces in the course of the night. When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga. × When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga. Clearly, this was an attempt by Sasidharan to be too clever by half. Even if it doesn’t say so, the meaning of the three dots is not lost on anybody. Even after taking out the “E-X-Y”, the title still carries the same connotation. As someone who has seen the movie first-hand, I cannot emphasise enough that there is no correlation between the film and the title. The director has deliberately and maliciously misused, even milked the title of the movie to present a pretentious facade in the name of creative cinema. It would have been acceptable had the director chosen to title the movie as Durga but there is no explanation, whatsoever, to mischievously changing the name of the film to S### Durga. At this point, there is something that needs to be said about the mind of the director. The director knew from day one that the movie is going to be controversial. He knew very well, perhaps, even while writing the screenplay that he is inviting controversy. And despite knowing that, he pushed full steam ahead for want of fame. All throughout the movie, there are subtle hints that the director himself is a small-time, novice politician hoping to make it big. He is honing his political instinct in the name of creativity. India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion. × In the film, the boyfriend is named Kabir. This is not as innocent as it might seem on the face of it. Mind you, the religion of the characters is not relevant to the plot. But the director deliberately chose the name, Kabir — predominantly a Muslim name — to give a Hindu-Muslim spin to the story. In the name of creative cinema, the director thinks it is wise to retain the boyfriend as Muslim and the girl as a Hindu. What’s more, the name of the girl has to be that of a Hindu goddess. Had the name of the characters not been Kabir and Durga but Aslam and Ayesha or Ramesh and Sonam, then, the film, per se, wouldn’t have been controversial. I would like to ask the director: Why is that the girl had to be named Durga and not Fatima or Mary? Why not make a movie on the same plot with a Hindu boy and a Muslim or a Christian girl? Why not call it “Sexy Fatima” or “Sexy “Mary”? Why is that the girl had to be called Durga? The director may argue here that he has created a parallel with the Durga procession, but there wasn’t anything stopping him from finding a parallel in an Islamic or Christian festival or monument? India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion. The film suffers from another serious moral dereliction. The portrayal of trauma in the film is flawed because it has segregated trauma into religious silos. Irrespective of whether a girl is named Durga or Fatima or Deborah, the trauma of a girl facing sexual harassment will be the trauma of a girl fearing for her life and her safety. Unpardonably, the director has given a religious angle to this ordeal. Another faux pax of the film is that it errs in sexualising a victim of rape or sexual harassment. How can a victim of such a crime be referred to as sexy? The director is effectively belittling the victims of sexual crime. Unfortunately, the film and Sasidharan have come to occupy a disproportionate share in contemporary news coverage. The director is mining the row to the hilt and is playing up the issue as if it is one of national importance. Lastly, there is a grave and monumental danger afoot if this film is given all clearances, and eventually screened. What is there to stop anyone from making a film titled “Sexy Lakshmi” or “Sexy Saraswati”? What defence will the people have against such a film given that film directors will keep raising the bogey of freedom of expression? This could possibly start an ominous trend where directors — from both the communities — will start crafting their movies to serve a sectarian agenda. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: I voted against S Durga's screening at IFFI. Here's why

<p>The film Padmavati has raised much rubble in India. While everyone is talking about Rani Padmavati&#39;s pride and honour, no one is telling that Allaudin was a brutal emperor. For the sake of better historical perspective, it is crucial to discuss what was the condition of India during the time of Khilji rule and why Padmavati did Jauhar. Without reading about Khilji and Padmavati&#39;s history, it is difficult to know about the controversy.</p>

<p>My argument is, Allaudin Khilji was not a glamorous king. Instead, he was a brutal one. I am sure that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has not done any homework to establish this.</p>

<p>Without knowing the history, it is difficult to understand the present situation.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Recently, Mr Bhansali showed his movie to a few media persons and it has become an issue now. &nbsp;How can he, in a special screening, show the movie to a group of people of his preference without getting the certificate? Even the Rajput communities who are protesting against the movie wanted such special screening but Mr Bhansali never had time for that.</p>

<p>This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. So many people have entered the controversy now. Even those who were not even popular have become popular now. Such people are doing things like threatening Deepika and announcing a bounty of 10cr on Mr Bhansali. These people, particularly, Lokendra Singh Kalvi is looking only for cheap publicity.</p>

<p>Actually, this has become the easiest way to appear on TV. As soon as the people have given the statement, then immediately he will become the hero on media and he will start appearing on news debates. Using such foul language makes them celebrity overnight and even media helps them.</p>

<p>How Mr Bhansali has portrayed Khilji will become clear only after watching the movie. To understand his personality, we have to read about him in various popular books on him written by famous historians.</p>

<p>There is this book, &#39;Khilji Kalin Bharat&#39; written by world-renowned historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, which has the documented the history from 1290 to 1320.</p>

<p>This book incorporates translation of Ziauddin Barni, Amir Khusrow, Emasi (or Imasi), Yahya, Ibn Battuta, Farishta and Abdullah.</p>

<p>Historians are unanimous about the fact that Khilji was a cruel ruler. He has killed many to acquire and invade. For Allaudin, beheading and torturing someone was a game. There was a huge section of society which was suffering during his rule. After reading the book it is very clear that Khilji is even more dangerous than ISIS leader Baghdadi and Taliban terrorists.</p>

<p>700 years ago Rani Padmavati did Jauhar. The release has been postponed but still, Karni Sena wants the special screening for themselves. Rajput communities are not trusting Mr Bhansali on the content of the movie.</p>

<p>This row is not going to end anytime sooner. History has a portrayal of Padmavati&#39;s Jauhar and Khilji&#39;s brutality.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi&#39;s Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In medieval history, killing innocents was very common to win the throne.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi&#39;s Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. He killed both of Jalaluddin&#39;s sons, its written on page 46 of Rizvi&#39;s book. Khilji also killed one of his cousin Akat Khan by beheading him.</p>

<p>Allaudin never respected any religion, something which Rizvi mentions again on page 47 of his book.</p>

<p>Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi also mentioned about Allaudin&#39;s brutality and said that he did all notorious things to save his power.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/image-1-20171124014537.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>&#39;Khalji Kaleen Bharat&#39;, a book written by Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi. (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>On page 29, there is a mention that there was a Hindu deity made of brass metal; it was kept in a temple in Madhya Pradesh that was destroyed and the metal was converted into various things and was sent to Delhi.</p>

<p>Also on page 68, its mentioned that during the rule of Khilji, he made various policies to suppress Hindus.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If Mr Bhansali has taken all the points from history and uses Padmavati&#39;s name, then he has to take care of many other things written in history books, and after knowing all the things only he must glamourise the character of Khilji.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There are many people who are supporting their argument by saying that it is freedom of expression and speech. Article 19(1) gives freedom of speech but same way article 19(2) says Indian security and integrity must be kept in mind while talking about freedom of speech and expression.</p>

<p>It means freedom of expression is good but one must know his responsibilities and should act with maturity.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)</em></p>


History must not be distorted in the name of 'Freedom of Expression', characters who have dark history, such as Alauddin Khilji must not be glamourised.

The film Padmavati has raised much rubble in India. While everyone is talking about Rani Padmavati's pride and honour, no one is telling that Allaudin was a brutal emperor. For the sake of better historical perspective, it is crucial to discuss what was the condition of India during the time of Khilji rule and why Padmavati did Jauhar. Without reading about Khilji and Padmavati's history, it is difficult to know about the controversy. My argument is, Allaudin Khilji was not a glamorous king. Instead, he was a brutal one. I am sure that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has not done any homework to establish this. Without knowing the history, it is difficult to understand the present situation. This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. × Recently, Mr Bhansali showed his movie to a few media persons and it has become an issue now. How can he, in a special screening, show the movie to a group of people of his preference without getting the certificate? Even the Rajput communities who are protesting against the movie wanted such special screening but Mr Bhansali never had time for that. This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. So many people have entered the controversy now. Even those who were not even popular have become popular now. Such people are doing things like threatening Deepika and announcing a bounty of 10cr on Mr Bhansali. These people, particularly, Lokendra Singh Kalvi is looking only for cheap publicity. Actually, this has become the easiest way to appear on TV. As soon as the people have given the statement, then immediately he will become the hero on media and he will start appearing on news debates. Using such foul language makes them celebrity overnight and even media helps them. How Mr Bhansali has portrayed Khilji will become clear only after watching the movie. To understand his personality, we have to read about him in various popular books on him written by famous historians. There is this book, 'Khilji Kalin Bharat' written by world-renowned historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, which has the documented the history from 1290 to 1320. This book incorporates translation of Ziauddin Barni, Amir Khusrow, Emasi (or Imasi), Yahya, Ibn Battuta, Farishta and Abdullah. Historians are unanimous about the fact that Khilji was a cruel ruler. He has killed many to acquire and invade. For Allaudin, beheading and torturing someone was a game. There was a huge section of society which was suffering during his rule. After reading the book it is very clear that Khilji is even more dangerous than ISIS leader Baghdadi and Taliban terrorists. 700 years ago Rani Padmavati did Jauhar. The release has been postponed but still, Karni Sena wants the special screening for themselves. Rajput communities are not trusting Mr Bhansali on the content of the movie. This row is not going to end anytime sooner. History has a portrayal of Padmavati's Jauhar and Khilji's brutality. Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. × In medieval history, killing innocents was very common to win the throne. Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. He killed both of Jalaluddin's sons, its written on page 46 of Rizvi's book. Khilji also killed one of his cousin Akat Khan by beheading him. Allaudin never respected any religion, something which Rizvi mentions again on page 47 of his book. Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi also mentioned about Allaudin's brutality and said that he did all notorious things to save his power. 'Khalji Kaleen Bharat', a book written by Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi. (Others) × On page 29, there is a mention that there was a Hindu deity made of brass metal; it was kept in a temple in Madhya Pradesh that was destroyed and the metal was converted into various things and was sent to Delhi. Also on page 68, its mentioned that during the rule of Khilji, he made various policies to suppress Hindus. If Mr Bhansali has taken all the points from history and uses Padmavati's name, then he has to take care of many other things written in history books, and after knowing all the things only he must glamourise the character of Khilji. There are many people who are supporting their argument by saying that it is freedom of expression and speech. Article 19(1) gives freedom of speech but same way article 19(2) says Indian security and integrity must be kept in mind while talking about freedom of speech and expression. It means freedom of expression is good but one must know his responsibilities and should act with maturity. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)

Opinion: Alauddin Khilji was brutal; Bhansali should not glamourise him

<p>Today many citizens either don&rsquo;t understand the value of independence or are not inclined to value the national symbols. In these times of apathy, it is important to remember the struggle of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
To understand his contribution to the nation we need to have a deep understanding of our own history. For the most part of the last millennia, India was subjected to foreign rule. The main reason attributed to this state of affairs was our lack of unity. The land was divided into many kingdoms and invaders were quick to exploit this political fragmentation.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Invasions left a trail of destruction and death. MA Khan in his book, I<em>slamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery</em>, writes, &ldquo;... in 1398 the Mongol warlord Tamerlane declared jihad against India. When he reached Delhi he had hundred thousand prisoners. Before attacking Delhi he killed all of them (page 281)&rdquo;.<br />
<br />
He wasn&rsquo;t alone. In 1761, 60,000 to 70,000 Maratha soldiers died fighting the Afghan invader Ahmed Shah Abdali in the third battle of Panipat.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The reason we(India) were subjugated by the foreign powers was our lack of political unity that could provide a cohesive resistance to any foreign invasion.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The reason we(India) were subjugated by the foreign powers was our lack of political unity that could provide a cohesive resistance to any foreign invasion." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Similarly, in 1739 Iranian invader Nadir Shah resorted to the massacre in Delhi that left close to 30,000 dead.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Death, destitution and starvation due to misrule by the British colonial rulers is today well documented.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The reason we were subjugated by the foreign powers was our lack of political unity that could provide a cohesive resistance to any foreign invasion.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Small kings ruled their principalities without any consideration to the larger needs of the nation and the threats our motherland faced.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
But today things have changed. A resident of Kerala joins the Indian army and readily lays down his life in Jammu &amp; Kashmir to safeguard the interests of the country. Men and women from every corner of India lay down their lives in varied theatres of action to save the integrity and unity of our nation.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Patriotism and belief in the integrity and unity of a nation are the most important glue that holds the modern nation-state together and for this, we have only Sardar Patel to thank for.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
In 1947 when India became independent Sardar Patel was given the charge of the home ministry. At that time India had 565 princely states. The British wanted that they should remain independent so that India remained weak and fragmented.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
But Sardar Patel saw through their game and thwarted any attempts to rupture India&rsquo;s unity. Among the princely states, he had two greatest challenges - Hyderabad and Jammu &amp; Kashmir. He used his political genius to convince the Nizam of Hyderabad to join the Indian Union.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>If you want to understand how grave the situation was at the time of Independence then you must watch what is happening in Spain&rsquo;s Catalonia province today.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=If you want to understand how grave the situation was at the time of Independence then you must watch what is happening in Spain?s Catalonia province today." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Kashmir, however, was a different ball game. Even though he was the home minister he was kept away from dealing with Kashmir which was an issue close to the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
It is because of Sardar&rsquo;s exclusion from the affairs of the state of Jammu and Kashmir that the issue is still posing a serious problem for the country.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
If you want to understand how grave the situation was at the time of Independence then you must watch what is happening in Spain&rsquo;s Catalonia province today.</p>

<p>The province has declared itself independent and the Spanish government is at its wit&rsquo;s end figuring out how to tackle this crisis perpetuated by the secessionists.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
It was the same situation in India but with 565 Catalonias demanding independence, ready to secede any moment. In such a dangerous atmosphere maintaining the unity of a new nation would really have been a great challenge for the &ldquo;iron man&rdquo;.</p>


Sardar Patel's political strategies were the reasons behind India's unification after independence from colonial rule

Today many citizens either don’t understand the value of independence or are not inclined to value the national symbols. In these times of apathy, it is important to remember the struggle of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. To understand his contribution to the nation we need to have a deep understanding of our own history. For the most part of the last millennia, India was subjected to foreign rule. The main reason attributed to this state of affairs was our lack of unity. The land was divided into many kingdoms and invaders were quick to exploit this political fragmentation. Invasions left a trail of destruction and death. MA Khan in his book, Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery, writes, “... in 1398 the Mongol warlord Tamerlane declared jihad against India. When he reached Delhi he had hundred thousand prisoners. Before attacking Delhi he killed all of them (page 281)”. He wasn’t alone. In 1761, 60,000 to 70,000 Maratha soldiers died fighting the Afghan invader Ahmed Shah Abdali in the third battle of Panipat. The reason we(India) were subjugated by the foreign powers was our lack of political unity that could provide a cohesive resistance to any foreign invasion. × Similarly, in 1739 Iranian invader Nadir Shah resorted to the massacre in Delhi that left close to 30,000 dead. Death, destitution and starvation due to misrule by the British colonial rulers is today well documented. The reason we were subjugated by the foreign powers was our lack of political unity that could provide a cohesive resistance to any foreign invasion. Small kings ruled their principalities without any consideration to the larger needs of the nation and the threats our motherland faced. But today things have changed. A resident of Kerala joins the Indian army and readily lays down his life in Jammu & Kashmir to safeguard the interests of the country. Men and women from every corner of India lay down their lives in varied theatres of action to save the integrity and unity of our nation. Patriotism and belief in the integrity and unity of a nation are the most important glue that holds the modern nation-state together and for this, we have only Sardar Patel to thank for. In 1947 when India became independent Sardar Patel was given the charge of the home ministry. At that time India had 565 princely states. The British wanted that they should remain independent so that India remained weak and fragmented. But Sardar Patel saw through their game and thwarted any attempts to rupture India’s unity. Among the princely states, he had two greatest challenges - Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir. He used his political genius to convince the Nizam of Hyderabad to join the Indian Union. If you want to understand how grave the situation was at the time of Independence then you must watch what is happening in Spain’s Catalonia province today. × Kashmir, however, was a different ball game. Even though he was the home minister he was kept away from dealing with Kashmir which was an issue close to the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. It is because of Sardar’s exclusion from the affairs of the state of Jammu and Kashmir that the issue is still posing a serious problem for the country. If you want to understand how grave the situation was at the time of Independence then you must watch what is happening in Spain’s Catalonia province today. The province has declared itself independent and the Spanish government is at its wit’s end figuring out how to tackle this crisis perpetuated by the secessionists. It was the same situation in India but with 565 Catalonias demanding independence, ready to secede any moment. In such a dangerous atmosphere maintaining the unity of a new nation would really have been a great challenge for the “iron man”.

Spain needs a leader like Sardar Patel to tackle Catalan crisis

<p>India has a problem with pollution. Facts prove it. Our everyday life experience tells the same story. This is a problem not limited to one festival or one time of the year.&nbsp;</p>

<p>India&#39;s pollution is a long-drawn pervasive affair that stems from a number of reasons, which include a high amount of traffic on Indian roads, particularly, vehicles using diesel. The dust on the roads is ubiquitous from the National Capital Region to muffasil towns.&nbsp;</p>

<p>To add to the pollution problem, on the onset of winter, farmers burn of crop residues, clouding a vast swath of land across India.&nbsp; As we witnessed in the winter of 2016, across the states of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi, deep, almost, unpenetrable smog cloaked the region.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The recent&nbsp; Supreme Court&#39;s judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The recent? Supreme Court's judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>India&#39;s teeming population and upwardly mobile middle-class has brought about another pollution peril for the people of the nation. Innumerable construction sites have opened up in and around the cities of India; the nation&#39;s suburbs are in an ever-expansive mode. But all the dust, the sand, the wreckage has worsened the air quality to an abysmal level. The living spaces that we are creating are making the air unlivable.&nbsp;</p>

<p>These amply illustrate the fact that pollution is a complicated issue in India. Thus, the recent&nbsp; Supreme Court&#39;s judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg.&nbsp; Banning pollutants, for a day or a week, will not reduce the grievous nature of the situation. It is not a long-term step and, hence, it will fail.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There are more layers to the issue which the supporters of the ban are conveniently ignoring. For instance, we are taking recourse to the Supreme Court&#39;s verdict on all issues, ranging from Triple Talaq to cracker ban. This is not a&nbsp; good practise in a democracy where such decisions need to come from concerned agencies. In this case, it should have been the National Pollution Control Board.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters?</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters?

" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Sustained by the public exchequer, these bodies have failed to live up to their public duties. Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters?</p>

<p>If we really want to have a long-term impact on the pollution level, we need to take some tougher measures, such as ban the sale of diesel, which is used by both big and small vehicles, from truck to auto rickshaws. But this, evidently, is not an easy feat to achieve. The initial ban on 2000 cc diesel vehicle was later withdrawn when the diesel car lobby got into action.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It is also imperative that we start decongesting cities and start developing public transport. More cars mean more pollution.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice. The Court has so far refused to ban animal sacrifice by all religious communities. Figures from Lucknow alone shows that in the last Bakrid, 5 lakh animals were sacrificed. 5-7 kg of waste is generated by killing a small animal, whereas, around 25 kg waste is generated after killing a big animal. The pollution these religious rituals -- Kali Puja, Durga Puja, Eid -- create involves huge wastage of precious water resources too. After all,&nbsp; water is needed to wash off the blood and the rest of the body waste is dumped in the drain or somewhere.</p>

<p>Thus, if we need a pollution free India, we have to look beyond knee-jerk reaction and go for a comprehensive solution. What the Supreme Court presently gives is no futuristic plan. The abetting pollution keeps on playing with our lives and, worst, we leave an insecure future for our kids. As a parent that is my biggest problem with the verdict.</p>


In banning firecracker, what we got from the Supreme Court of India is a knee-jerk reaction and not a comprehensive solution for the pollution plaguing India

India has a problem with pollution. Facts prove it. Our everyday life experience tells the same story. This is a problem not limited to one festival or one time of the year. India's pollution is a long-drawn pervasive affair that stems from a number of reasons, which include a high amount of traffic on Indian roads, particularly, vehicles using diesel. The dust on the roads is ubiquitous from the National Capital Region to muffasil towns. To add to the pollution problem, on the onset of winter, farmers burn of crop residues, clouding a vast swath of land across India. As we witnessed in the winter of 2016, across the states of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi, deep, almost, unpenetrable smog cloaked the region. The recent Supreme Court's judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg. × India's teeming population and upwardly mobile middle-class has brought about another pollution peril for the people of the nation. Innumerable construction sites have opened up in and around the cities of India; the nation's suburbs are in an ever-expansive mode. But all the dust, the sand, the wreckage has worsened the air quality to an abysmal level. The living spaces that we are creating are making the air unlivable. These amply illustrate the fact that pollution is a complicated issue in India. Thus, the recent Supreme Court's judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg. Banning pollutants, for a day or a week, will not reduce the grievous nature of the situation. It is not a long-term step and, hence, it will fail. There are more layers to the issue which the supporters of the ban are conveniently ignoring. For instance, we are taking recourse to the Supreme Court's verdict on all issues, ranging from Triple Talaq to cracker ban. This is not a good practise in a democracy where such decisions need to come from concerned agencies. In this case, it should have been the National Pollution Control Board. Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters? × Sustained by the public exchequer, these bodies have failed to live up to their public duties. Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters? If we really want to have a long-term impact on the pollution level, we need to take some tougher measures, such as ban the sale of diesel, which is used by both big and small vehicles, from truck to auto rickshaws. But this, evidently, is not an easy feat to achieve. The initial ban on 2000 cc diesel vehicle was later withdrawn when the diesel car lobby got into action. It is also imperative that we start decongesting cities and start developing public transport. More cars mean more pollution. While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice. × While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice. The Court has so far refused to ban animal sacrifice by all religious communities. Figures from Lucknow alone shows that in the last Bakrid, 5 lakh animals were sacrificed. 5-7 kg of waste is generated by killing a small animal, whereas, around 25 kg waste is generated after killing a big animal. The pollution these religious rituals -- Kali Puja, Durga Puja, Eid -- create involves huge wastage of precious water resources too. After all, water is needed to wash off the blood and the rest of the body waste is dumped in the drain or somewhere. Thus, if we need a pollution free India, we have to look beyond knee-jerk reaction and go for a comprehensive solution. What the Supreme Court presently gives is no futuristic plan. The abetting pollution keeps on playing with our lives and, worst, we leave an insecure future for our kids. As a parent that is my biggest problem with the verdict.

Firecracker ban: As a parent my biggest worry

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Sudhir Chaudhary

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.