Because Indians love to overreact! New victim – Coldplay

It’s not racist when you show a brown person as a brown person, it’s racist, when the brown person wants to be portrayed as a white person.


Let me explain how fake patriots and how big hypocrites people are in this country. They hate everything which they think doesn’t paint the typical Western image of the country, but unfortunately for them, it’s not west and it’s not exotic. Why would a foreign band or a movie director come to India and show Starbucks if that’s what they have in abundance on their streets? If their everyday life is a luxury in India then wouldn’t showing that be more insulting?
I mean, do the people who are reacting turn a blind eye to every beggar they see on street just because it paints a poor image? Isn’t that the reality? Most of the people who are reacting haven’t moved an inch to make this place any better. Most of us contribute towards the hazardous pollution we face and if someone foreign to us talks about it, we cry foul. If a documentary has been made on a heinous rape which resulted in an uprising movement and by some western media and people appreciate the movement as inspiring you cry foul because the rapist’s sexist mentality is revealed even though a lot of people in the country share the same sexist ideology. Isn’t it true? How does proving someone else a hypocrite cover your flaws? And how does BBC, a media house, define the whole Western Europe and US making a collective effort in conspiring against India’s growth out of insecurity?
On the other hand, we make movies where every foreigner is shown as a fool and those scenes are accompanied with whistles and celebrated heavily in forms of jokes and Whatsapp forwards. Similarly, when in the movie 2012, they say that an Indian scientist built it or in Rang De Basanti a British movie director takes inspiration from some Delhi guys we celebrate it with pride. There’s so much wrong with our nationalism. You would take pride in fictional characters, in NRIs of Indian-origins who had nothing to do with India based on achievements but discard every negativity following the suit of individualism and “please don’t stereotype!”
Basically you want your country to be portrayed as UK even though it is way behind and nowhere near in terms of quality of life and you still expect a British band to feel exotic? How is that warranted?
Coming to the important part, Coldplay showed positive feeling, they showed colors and joy in suburbs of Bombay, read it as most of the Bombay. They showed the much celebrated (sarcasm) Indian culture (which is only used to prohibit every fundamental right from being practised). They showed content and satiation and the song had a similar feel. It was a feeling of independence, of joy, of celebration, of colors, of festivity and yet you somehow dragged negativity out of it. India, whose 75% population is rural wants to be portrayed watching movies in multiplexes with popcorns. Let me tell you this, your demand is exotic for most of the Indian population, not the Western Europeans or Americans.

On a lighter note, people are asking why that Sadhu Baba stereotyping footage was used and why Sonam Kapoor’s footage was cut short? Well, in this country, people can’t say a word against Sadhu Babas without landing into trouble and mock Sonam Kapoor everyday. So, stop being a hypocrite. This article puts a lot into perspective –

Incredible India, because I can’t disagree with that!

Since, the last few months there has been an ongoing debate on the growing intolerance in India. Intolerance, as defined by Oxford Dictionary means – Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own. I don’t know what all things have come out of it but I understand that the word has become a joke. People have debated, stats have been thrown, counters slapped back, awards have been returned, comparisons, whichever convenient have been used to prove some point, and people have tried to establish the hypocrisy of people asking questions as the weakest form of defence. Well, as per definition, if there are two sects of people who are fighting over it, then that too is intolerance. There is a difference between agreeing and accepting. If someone says, there is rising intolerance, then your tolerant response can be, “It’s okay if you think so, I just am not in collusion with you, but maybe let’s agree to disagree” and if you want the intolerant responses then just check any social media comments section. There are fringe elements everywhere and I believe in individualism, so I don’t want to comment on the country, a community based on these comments. But the thing is that the debate has continuously, either callously or meticulously been modified from ‘growing intolerance’ to intolerant or tolerant India. Although, there’s a world of difference between these two, but I want to comment on the latter. The former is most probably an attack on the current system and government, whereas the latter is an attack on the Indian society.

Well, people have talked about unity in diversity prevalent in India, cultural variations etc. There are fringe elements who show their intolerance towards that too, there are so many religions, sects castes etc, some people just can’t accept it, let alone agree with it and the govt.’s inaction against them and the statistically rising cases of these are troubling a few or more people but let’s forget about them and talk about majority. We keep on comparing India with Islamic extremist countries to prove a point about tolerance. As far as acceptance of beliefs is concerned, India does not even legally accept LGBT. It’s beyond preposterous, that people can be prosecuted for practicing something they didn’t choose. Isn’t this a clear case of not accepting a belief different from normality? Isn’t that one of the most blatant cases of intolerance? Most of the people in India still can’t marry people of their choice, forget different religion or caste, once again, something which people don’t choose, but is enforced upon them, but even choice in the same caste or religion isn’t a privilege in a lot of cases. Religious laws, be it any religion always oppose women and lower castes and are yet followed as a norm by the society. We, maybe not just as Indians, but a group of humans in majority have always been intolerant towards abnormality or difference. Most of the men, can’t tolerate a woman doing better than them because woman are different from them and men have taken over the world in general by curbing all women rights. You see a commotion on road and you say, ‘there must be a woman driving.’ We have our fake rules of patriotism and respect like Indian flag can’t appear below a person’s waist. ABP News made Mandira Bedi change her saree  as a result of their repeated criticism of Indian flag appearing near her foot and were proud of it. You really want to compare the tolerance level or acceptance level of USA or Europe, then compare these. People in USA, openly deride the churches, the President of the USA, make a TV series deriding the Senate and its elements, stand ups deride Jesus and Evangelists, churches and every other VIP, the people in general and the people mocked tolerate it. India made a movie deriding religion and although the movie earned money, there was enough criticism, theaters were vandalized, and there was a call for the lead actor’s head because he didn’t belong to the religion of the majority in India which was covered mostly in the movie because the movie was based on INDIA. Government decides that a person is good enough to vote and choose who will govern the country, and 3 years later, a person can legally marry but it takes 4 more years to decide if the person wants to drink. And don’t get me started on atheists, I don’t think I will ever see a day when they will be taken seriously, when people, especially their near and dear ones will stop enforcing their faith on them based on the labelled religion by birth. Indian censorship decides, what views or artistic requirements of the artist is good enough for the audience to see, comprehend, accept and appreciate. If there’s always an Indian culture argument to every different, flowing, unconventional thought to prohibit it, then how come Indian culture be accepting of different views. It’s purely ironic. The views of the celebrities, if it matches with your own, idolize them, else put them to a censure where they would be afraid of speaking their minds in public. There is unity in diversity, because a lot of individuals who actually want only their sets of belief to dominate don’t want to get their hands dirty in doing what’s not fair and what they want to. I, being born in India have always appreciated the diversity here, but please don’t tell me that India as a country is the most tolerant and accepting country. Certainly better than a lot of them, but surely worse then a bunch too.

And finally, if speaking against something wrong in a certain country is discouraged for the sake of maintaining a false image of the country, then it’s the highest form of intolerance which the country faces. It’s the most disturbing form of nationalism, the one which leads to wars, both internally and externally. Ravish Kumar covers it brilliantly in his prime time intro –

Scared not proud of things I didn’t choose.

I recently came across a descriptive article about a symposium organised in National Auditorium in Delhi. A symposium organised by right wing conservatives to rewrite the Indian history solely to glorify the leaders who are considered Hindutva propagandists and who in their opinion have been ignored in the history taught in Secular India. I just had one expression after reading the article, the expression of horror. I wasn’t terrified by the denouement as much as the sequence of events which would lead to it.

This brings us back to the first basic question, when do we feel pride and what should be glorified? People feel pride when they accomplish something which is seemingly enigmatic to many others but can you feel proud of a random sequence of events which somehow goes in your favour? It’s a rhetorical question with a simple negation as it’s answer. So, you can be proud of getting an award for your accomplishment but would you be proud of your face? The answer might be yes, but then you can’t be considered sane at the same time. It goes with a simple explanation that you didn’t choose your face, you didn’t have a say and you can’t do anything about it. Similarly, when we think of things we didn’t choose and things we are proud of, we surprisingly find a long list which defies this basic theory. I didn’t choose Hinduism, I didn’t choose my caste, my region, my gender, my sexual preferences and I didn’t choose to be born in India. A set of accidents have ended up giving me these tags. I can feel happy about these tags but can I be proud of them? I guess not.

I keep on asking myself this question, why do so many people take so much pride in the tags they didn’t choose. The main point has to be the baggage carried by people since the inception of their lives. Acceptance of the fact that “something you have patronised all your life because you have been taught that by people you have patronised all your life is wrong” is difficult to say the very least. But this is hardly the beginning of craziness. The religious fanaticism and the jingoism comes with other implied tags of disrespect. An Indian implicitly hates Pakistan and similar feelings are reciprocated from the other side of the border. The same goes for some religions. Countries are just politically defined international borders because it’s not plausible for one governing body to serve the needs of the entire planet with so many diversities and magnanimous wealth variations. It’s the sense of insecurity among people belonging to various communities about their labels which cause them to look for aggressive expansion and spreading canards about other tags. Some are considered worse than others, I just see them as more insecure than others and the symposium in Delhi was an example of such insecurity. Words like, “Muslims should learn to behave, or we know other ways” were used. I am not a Muslim, I was born in a Hindu family, I am an atheist, I have denounced all my labels. Ideally, should I be afraid? No. Am I afraid? Yes. Because, when you give up the tags because you see them as evil, you feel empathy for the evil in minority who are being dominated by the evil in majority with a feeling of self righteousness. Because, everybody takes pride in their tags and according to them their communities are fine while other ones are evil. I don’t endorse Islam, I think it’s evil but I will never utter a word against it because I am afraid. I am afraid that others with misplaced sense of self righteousness will get an opportunity to misuse my words, continue the censure and in the process glorify their labels, thus spreading their propaganda. The same goes for Pakistan and every other insecure tag. Similarly, if I were to find a female or a lower caste individual or a homosexual doing something irrational, I would keep it to myself and filter it out so that males or upper castes or heterosexuals respectively don’t get an excuse to further establish their stereotypes. Moreover, I would want to glorify their achievements to break these stereotypes. The other aspect is that, if I don’t agree to the criticism of these tags, I will be called a minority appeaser, an armchair critic of all tags or in the worst case I would end up receiving that label.

Not taking pride in things I didn’t choose seemed to me like the only logical thing to do but now I have been shunned from giving an opinion about a world I will never fully understand. A world where atrocities on Kashmiris are justified by atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits and millions of other such examples are used everyday which only establishes the fact that individuals will never be viewed as individuals. You may denounce your labels but you can’t get independence from them and they will continue to define you from your birth to your death and beyond. It’s hysterical that nations celebrate Independence Day.