Enemies to the south, enemies to the north, enemies who speaks sense and seek truth, anti-nationals in the garb of intellectuals, scientists and artistes who want to unseat the chowkidar. Democracy is certainly going through crazy times indeed.
To borrow a few words from Shylock, they "laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies", and now managed to get a movie and a TV channel banned. Why? Because we love our notion of this beloved nation above all else. Because the biopic eulogises a promised messiah (too Christian a word, but serves the purpose for now) that this land needs to right the wrongs of everyone who ever ruled before? Because the TV channel intends to advertise the mighty deeds of a man who is humble enough to refer to himself in the third person?
Who is afraid of the Modi biopic, you ask, even as pollsters and pundits have predicted that the DeMo(n) and juking of job stats and other transgressions are forgiven and forgotten in the wave of renewed love for the Armymen, scientists and Ram. If they got it right, if the screaming and chanting of the word 'chowkidar' (of course with a little prodding from my main man Modi) is any indication of the wave to come by, those opposing the movie and are against a TV channel should realise that their resistance is of little significance. Because, I can bet a bucket of the finest dung that nothing can beat the 'Ali-Bajrang Bali' rhetoric and 'minority is majority' logic.
I am a little offended, too. The ban is an affront to artistic sensibilities, on freedom of expression, on freedom of the audience to regale in the wondrous deeds of a man just before we make our choice and wait, giving him another chance to make the country flow milk, honey and everything whimsical that the vision document promises. Where are the custodians of the freedom of expression, the liberals and the leftists who take to streets to protest when the highly cultured censor board objects to a kiss, gay sex or sex in any manner, and “lady-oriented” movies? Why would they not bat for the biopic director's freedom to sell some hyperbole? Where are they? Busy with issuing diktats not to vote fascism back?
Do you all not see that we get hurt too when our rights are denied. To take recourse to Shylock again, "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?" Are we in any way lesser than those who want to watch Udta Punjab without cuts or those who line up to watch a woman-centric movie like Lipstick Under My Burkha? Are we not more cultured than those libtards who want their movies replete with cuss words and same-sex relationships.
Liberals, intellectuals, journalists, students, leftists, centrists... the list of naysayers and anti-biopic folks is long and full of people whose love for the nation has often been questioned. But, ban a movie, take away our TV channel, say the watchmen steals (or loots or plunders, as you please), the men and women whose hearts bleed saffron will ensure that the lotus stays intact. No movie or TV channel can woo us the way misplaced pride and strikes, shoot downs and tests could. Movie or no movie, the sham always works!
(This is a work of satire. That is, if you haven't figured it out yet!)
