30 quotes found
"Muslim audiences were angry at Mani Ratnam's film, not just for showing a Muslim girl falling in love with a Hindu (the Muslim philosophy about this, firmly established in the Sharia, is that 'our girls are ours, yours are up for grabs'), but also for not confirming them in the victim role which they had appropriated in connection with the Bombay riots. Mani Ratnam had a miraculous escape when a bomb was hurled at his residence in Madras."... Local authorities banned the film under Islamicist pressure or threats."
"Are there no limits to what Muslims can demand, and get away with, in the imagined cause of their religion? ... There is no reason why our political leaders should have to start kowtowing and running scared everytime a bunch of semi-literate mullahs gets up and starts making a noise. ... We have just seen Shiv-Sena government in Maharashtra buckle under Muslim pressure and suspend the release of Mani Rattnam’s Bombay. It is a film about inter-religious marriage and the triumph of peace over communal hatred. ... After seeing the film they came up with a list of objections so absurd that they should have been considered ludicrous in our secular land but they have been taken seriously. They object, we are told, to the last shot. The Muslim girl while eloping with her Hindu husband carried the Koran in her hand. This was bad, they said, because it seemed to imply that her marriage had Islamic sanction. ... Nor did they approve of the film’s first scene which shows a woman lifting her burqa off her face.... Offence was taken, we are told, because a Hindu family was shown being burned alive. A Muslim family is also shown being similarly murdered, because this also happened in the terrible riots of 1992, but our Muslim objectors are selective in their disapproval."
"The Muslim leaders argued that the film "insults the culture and religion of Muslims", and that they would settle for nothing less than a ban. Says Tai: "We didn't like the film from start to finish. We believe a Hindu-Muslim marriage is illegitimate." Muslim leaders also objected to the "biased" depiction of the riots. Asks Ahmed: "Why haven't they shown what the police did?" Maulana Abdul Ludus Kashmiri of the Ulema Council who, incidentally, hasn't seen the film, doesn't mince his words: "This film was made to insult Muslims and set fire between the communities.""
"Don’t worry. Burn them all (the witnesses)."
"But they are Rajput and we are Yadav"
"You need a strong stomach to absorb this one… A gut-wrenching story of two terrorists/suicide bombers from across the border, it focuses on their dilemmas and inner conflicts."
"Labeling the decision as being regressive, Ashoke Pandit, the movie's co-producer, said: "We are extremely hurt and disturbed because of the CBFC's unfair decision of rejecting the trailer without any reason. This action raises a big concern about creativity, freedom and realistic filmmaking. We will not take this lightly and will knock on the doors of the high court, if needed.""
"The depiction of the Quran in this movie is wrong. Quran does not teach to take anyone’s life. If the director or producer of 72 Hoorain had read the Quran, then, they would not have used such dialogues... After The Kerala Story became a hit, people started to encash this trend. Hatred is being spread either through politics or films. What do you want to achieve by showcasing such hateful films to the new generation? Where does Quran say to kill people? Can you show it to me? A wrong message is being sent (to the society). This is part of the agenda to spread hate... I am a Muslim. But will you call me and my family members, a terrorist? The Kerala Files (sic) showed that girls are being forcibly converted to Islam. In the South, people are being converted to Christianity. But none wants to talk about it. You are making an anti-Muslim film. Given the current situation, 72 Hoorain is likely to do well. But who will compensate for the hate that you will spread in this process?"
"We started work on ’72 Hoorain’ long ago, much before 2014. But, it took us time. Our struggle continued unabated, lasting more than a decade. After 2014, there has been a slight difference, which benefited ‘The Kashmir Files’ or ‘The Kerala Story’. It also made a difference that people showed enthusiasm, people started going to see such a film. Conventional production houses or studios do not back such films by calling them non-commercial, nor do they want to make films on these issues. However, people said that if you show the truth, we will come to see your film. This has given us distributors and they also have confidence that people will come to see this film."
"As soon as it came to be released, the threats started. My wife didn’t know much about the film in detail. Now when threats are coming, it is natural to have trouble, there is always concern."
"But, what kind of a different law have you made that it cannot be talked about? It is repeated time and again that terrorism has no religion, and then suddenly they start talking about targeting religion. We are clear from the beginning that we are only talking about terrorism, you watch the film and react to it. ... This film is about the country’s interests. There is a national problem, it has been talked about."
"That afternoon, the censor board sent us a letter saying we will pass it on to you, but you have to cut off these scenes (like a scene with a corpse’s foot and the Quranic words)."
"I won't let Hyderabad turn into another Kashmir."
"Tej Sapru as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel"
"Bobby Simha"
"Anasuya Bharadwaj"
"Thalaivasal Vijay"
"John Vijay"
"Mahesh Achanta"
"Sindooram Bhaskar"
"Vinay Bidappa"
"Chandhunadh"
"Cheluvaraj"
"The roar of Maratha"
"Aurangzeb; the Swaraj you want to finish, is not any Sultanate; it is the Vision of Freedom of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, you can never destroy it!"
"The petition to stop the film was filed just three or four days ago, and it’s already being heard. But the petition I filed nearly three years ago, seeking justice for my father’s murder, remains unresolved. There were over 150 witnesses in the case, and 15–16 have not even appeared in court. No fast-track court was set up. Despite ample evidence, not one of the accused has been punished. When someone tries to show the truth through a film, the entire system seems to rise against it. Organisations like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and leaders like Maulana Madani demand a ban, and in just three days, the film gets stayed. How efficient that is! But the same urgency is not shown in punishing murderers. This makes us question the system. My father was brutally murdered, and justice has yet to be delivered. When a film is made to awaken the nation about communalism and jihadist ideology, it is being suppressed. Why? What kind of mindset is this? The truth of how terrorists conspired to murder my father is out in the open, yet some organisations seem to side with these anti-national elements. What sympathy do they have for terrorists?"
"The NIA filed a chargesheet within six months against Kanhaiya Lal’s murderers. But tragically, these enemies of humanity haven’t been given the death sentence even after three years. On the other hand, a stay order on the film The Udaipur Files was issued in just three hours-without even watching the film-and the copy of that order wasn’t made available to the concerned parties for 21 hours. What does that tell you? What’s wrong with the film? Did the murder not happen? Will Kanhaiya Lal’s son ever get justice? Will he be able to grow his hair back or walk with dignity on his bare feet? Will the murderers ever be hanged? Will Kanhaiya Lal’s ashes ever be immersed with the peace they deserve?"
"One mission, one desire. One obsession. Freedom."
"Those who don't follow our religion must be killed."
"My father is a traitor. A slave to the Indians. I hate my father."