Comments on: Teesta vs. Tavleen http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/12/04/teesta-vs-tavleen/ Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:29:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: Ullu Pehelwan http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/12/04/teesta-vs-tavleen/#comment-2563 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/12/04/teesta-vs-tavleen/#comment-2563 My impression of Teesta and Anand has always been skeptical. A few months ago, I did a google search on Anand and decided to read what he has to say. I came upon an article on the film Bombay. http://www.sacw.net/i_aii/bombay.html In the beginning, I read his objections to threats to Ratnam and I actually changed my mind - I said to myself I was wrong - he does speak out against Islamic fundamentalism. But then I read on, and I realized that he uses his opening sentences as a shield to really train his guns on Ratnam. What is Ratnam's sin? It isn't clear to me. Some garbled sentences suggest that Anand is indignant that the film is fictional. My impression of Teesta and Anand has always been skeptical. A few months ago, I did a google search on Anand and decided to read what he has to say. I came upon an article on the film Bombay.

http://www.sacw.net/i_aii/bombay.html

In the beginning, I read his objections to threats to Ratnam and I actually changed my mind - I said to myself I was wrong - he does speak out against Islamic fundamentalism. But then I read on, and I realized that he uses his opening sentences as a shield to really train his guns on Ratnam. What is Ratnam’s sin? It isn’t clear to me. Some garbled sentences suggest that Anand is indignant that the film is fictional.

]]> by: Ullu Pehelwan http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/12/04/teesta-vs-tavleen/#comment-2564 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/12/04/teesta-vs-tavleen/#comment-2564 I also draw your attention to the language used - "It is no one's argument that some groups of hot-heads among Muslims are also not guilty of having targeted innocent Hindus in Muslim majority areas of the city both in December 1992 and January 1993." 'Hot-heads'? For people who 'target' (murder?) innocent Hindus? Their crime is one merely a shortness of temper? I have seen the exact same language by Hindu fundamentalists covering up for Hindu 'hot-heads'. I'm damned if I can see a difference between Anand and Hindu fundamentalists. "Same difference" as the Americans say. Will the self-appointed custodians of secularism respond to my comment? I also draw your attention to the language used -

“It is no one’s argument that some groups of hot-heads among Muslims are also not guilty of having targeted innocent Hindus in Muslim majority areas of the city both in December 1992 and January 1993.”

‘Hot-heads’? For people who ‘target’ (murder?) innocent Hindus? Their crime is one merely a shortness of temper?

I have seen the exact same language by Hindu fundamentalists covering up for Hindu ‘hot-heads’. I’m damned if I can see a difference between Anand and Hindu fundamentalists. “Same difference” as the Americans say.

Will the self-appointed custodians of secularism respond to my comment?

]]>