Please read the article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7460522.stm
before you read my opinion on the issue.
I agree with Dr. Chopra that "the premature outcry against the film itself is religious propaganda". The best part I like about Hinduism is the tolerance it promotes towards other people's beliefs and practices.
"We all know when you show a person with a sari and a mark on their forehead that will be associated with Hinduism." If you have seen the movie "Khuda ke liye", or "In the name of God", and understood what Naseeruddin Shah meant by "Islam mein Daadi hein, magar Daadi mein Islam nahin hain", then you will see what my point of view is: "Hindus wear saris and marks on their foreheads, but saris and marks on foreheads don't make Hindus." One can keep arguing out the details: the points that support your view and the points that support my view, but arguments don't usually address the issue, they merely say "Here's an issue that worries me."
Changing the rating to disable a section of the population from seeing the film is not the way to go, I say, that is not Hinduism. If you are worried that young teenagers might get a skewed view of the religion, you must educate them about the religion and what it exactly is about. If the teenagers who see it think that's what Hinduism is about: Saffron robes, holy beads, saris and Tilakas (forehead marks), then that is what you are making them think. Tell them, that is not what that religion truly represents. Hinduism recommends you to find your own purpose of life and find your own way to achieve that goal. That requires adaptation to varying times and conditions. That means the time has come to question the adherence to dressing and bodily decorations - and it's for you to decide whether or not to keep and support that "tradition".
Religion is always an interesting issue to talk about!
No comments:
Post a Comment