Mother Tyranny is Mother India: Indira Gandhi coming to a theatre near you

COMTONDAJATT

mint gumri
Messages
302
i am totally down to protest the shit out of this movie. one because it is going to misrepresent events, two because aandhi was an awesome movie with awesome songs and this movie wont be able to hold a candle to that shit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aPtjImR5RA&feature=related
 

Tuckerrrr

Member
Messages
321
beant singh and satwant singh were awesome. this movie will make them look so bad. what a shame.

the article writes that indira gandhi was "martyred." LOLL she was not a martyr. she was a tyrant. she martyred others
 

zagreus

Active Member
Messages
1,473
this is just terrible news. Indira Gandhi was actually seen as a terrible PM (beyond what occurred to Sikhs)
 

justAguy

^chilllan w/ AMY GOODMAN in my pic wooo im famous^
Messages
284
This is fuckin nuts ...

"The story is of how Indira is a mother in every aspect of her life, and how she used her instincts, compassion and tough love to hold the nation together – ultimately ending with her violent death and martyrdom to the cause of national unity."
 

zagreus

Active Member
Messages
1,473
justAguy said:
This is fuckin nuts ...

"The story is of how Indira is a mother in every aspect of her life, and how she used her instincts, compassion and tough love to hold the nation together – ultimately ending with her violent death and martyrdom to the cause of national unity."
makes me pretty mad to read the article especially. it's so poorly written. It's like they took things the producers of the movie gave the person, and the person didn't really bother fact checking anything. I'm also looking beyond Sikhs though...she poorly ran India into the ground. The constant protectionism run by India and fueled by repeated lack of secularization (india is far from being secular) hurt india so much, it wasn't until the Gandhi's were out of power that the economy finally opened up and was aided by real ideas. She wanted absolute rule, not democratic rule.

And when it comes to the martyrdom stuff, total BS.
 

Varun

Member
Messages
268
Ugh, I hate films without social responsibility. But shit, every U.S. President after FDR can be legally indicted for crimes against humanity and executed for war crimes. A ruthless leader being glorified, I see nothing new.

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm


Jasmeet said:
she poorly ran India into the ground. The constant protectionism run by India and fueled by repeated lack of secularization (india is far from being secular) hurt india so much, it wasn't until the Gandhi's were out of power that the economy finally opened up and was aided by real ideas. She wanted absolute rule, not democratic rule.
I hate to be devil's advocate but does it not make sense that a former colony that was exploited by "trade" for 200 years by the "free world" would choose to be socialist and protectionist? In an age before Friedman, G20, and outsourcing, it seems that a country with a HUGE population living below the povery line would support state-run subsidies and government support. In retrospect, we see it as a bad decision but during the second half of the 1900s, the USSR was a shining example of socialism and cominten, which is why not only India but many new-states and former colonies embraced communism, socialism, and protectionism.

faizan said:
national emergency, remember that? shitty leader.
Nothing compared to that 62 year old emergency that Pakistan has been battling with.
 

faizan

Just shut up and dance
Messages
1,736
your attempted slight at pakistan doesn't change the fact that she still was a shitty leader...it's clear you love her, cool. and your pakistan bias, good for you buddy.
 

Varun

Member
Messages
268
faizan said:
your attempted slight at pakistan doesn't change the fact that she still was a shitty leader...it's clear you love her, cool. and your pakistan bias, good for you buddy.
Was it a slight at pakistan? i mean, i did the exact same thing you did: criticize the government of a South Asian country. And calling someone a "ruthless leader" doesn't really translate into love now does it?

You, my friend, need to realize that there is not a white-black way to look at the world. When you are nationalistic, that is the only time you can love or hate governments and leaders. If you understand things in a historically methodological way, however, then you see that there are no simple dichotomies : GOOD and EVIL. I apply the same critique to Gandhi that I apply to Zia as I apply to Ronald Reagan as I do to Obama. I note their wrong policies and their practical ones.


Living in over-simplified world will just make you ignorant, man. Look how easily you oversimplfied my own statement into a judgement on my political beliefs and bias, and that you took it as an attack. Please man, no need for such mud slinging amongst intellectually inclined adults.

And back to my original statement: Pakistan as a government and a state is in a crisis and has been since its creation (from national unity issues, undermining minority ethincity, coups, dubious "plane crashes" of leaders, rampant economic corruption, suspension of judiciary, and most recently, harboring terrorist cells). If you do not believe this or disagree, we can talk over PM. I wrote research on Pak and Bangladesh for my South Asian studies class and would like to share it with you.
 

faizan

Just shut up and dance
Messages
1,736
Varun, you seem to be under the impression that we are having a debate about whether pakistan has had good leadership, or if it has a rocky history, i don't know from where such an "intellectually inclined adult" would draw an inference like that. I don't need to read some paper you wrote for your college class. Please don't attempt to educate me on South-Asia. Thanks.

Was it a slight at pakistan? i mean, i did the exact same thing you did: criticize the government of a South Asian country. And calling someone a "ruthless leader" doesn't really translate into love now does it?
Yes, it was a slight against Pakistan. I did not criticize the government of a south asian country. I did not call her a "ruthless leader," I called her a shitty leader, INDIRA GANDHI was a shitty leader, i did not say anything as to her government as you have fabricated. Bush was a shitty leader, that is not a comment on his government, do you see the simple difference? So you are wrong in that point.

You, my friend, need to realize that there is not a white-black way to look at the world. When you are nationalistic, that is the only time you can love or hate governments and leaders. If you understand things in a historically methodological way, however, then you see that there are no simple dichotomies : GOOD and EVIL. I apply the same critique to Gandhi that I apply to Zia as I apply to Ronald Reagan as I do to Obama. I note their wrong policies and their practical ones.

I understand that there is a gray area in everything, and more people who have attended college do as well, it is not some kind of magical concept you gain by writing a research paper in college. I did not ever mention good and evil, i don't know where you got that one either. I said she was a shitty leader, did she have her positives? probably. Go look up what a leader is, and then come back to me and tell me if a woman charged with voting malpractice, arresting most of the opposition during the emergency, granting police draconian powers to arrest anyone, granting yourself dictator-like powers, implementing a forced sterilization program, and oh yea, i don't even have to mention her custodial role over the slaughter of Sikhs...if you think that is a good leader, cool...but to me, and probably most other, what was the term, ah yea, "intellectually inclined adults," that is a shitty leader. Just because she had some quotables, does not make her gandhi, and it does not make her a good leader...(also, we're not friends, i don't even know you kiddo)

Living in over-simplified world will just make you ignorant, man. Look how easily you oversimplfied my own statement into a judgement on my political beliefs and bias, and that you took it as an attack. Please man, no need for such mud slinging amongst intellectually inclined adults.

i don't live in an over-simplified world, far from it. Due to your negligent reading skills (i only wrote 6 words), i think it's you who looks simple.

And back to my original statement: Pakistan as a government and a state is in a crisis and has been since its creation (from national unity issues, undermining minority ethincity, coups, dubious "plane crashes" of leaders, rampant economic corruption, suspension of judiciary, and most recently, harboring terrorist cells). If you do not believe this or disagree, we can talk over PM. I wrote research on Pak and Bangladesh for my South Asian studies class and would like to share it with you.
You assumed that I did not agree with your statement about Pakistan, I do. So there goes that argument. Thanks for the historical refresher.

Varun, learn to read, stop making assumptions, and learn to understand who you are speaking with.

Please, continue this fantasy argument with me in your own head where your aggressiveness doesn't make you seem like such a rash fool.
 

Varun

Member
Messages
268
I don't love Indira Gandhi, man. When I said "ruthless leader", I was referring to my own opinion of her. Alternatively, I had defended some of her policies. But I guess anyone who tries to get a full, impartial understanding of things beyond good and evil, is always going to be disparaged by others.

Khushwant Singh on the Emergency, necessary evils, and justice for 1984. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED WATCH for anyone interested in the matter.
http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=1088323
 

faizan

Just shut up and dance
Messages
1,736
But I guess anyone who tries to get a full, impartial understanding of things beyond good and evil, is always going to be disparaged by others.
Yes, that is why i am disparaging you, because you want an impartial understanding of things beyond good and evil. Of course.
 
Top