![]() ![]() ![]() Sure, corruption in India can get overwhelming, yet the elements of due process have to remain solid to ensure a constructive opposition to the same and prevent India from becoming a political turmoil. If Mehra suggests that students should take up arms against their government, the movie is wrongly portraying the points it intends to deliver. However, something as drastic as assassinating a cabinet minister gives them overriding similarities to terrorists and makes their act a step towards anarchy. Had this been within the domain of law, it would have been laudable. The assassination shows a form of parallel government, one in which the college students are taking matters into their own hands in the name of justice. Certainly, the movie fabricates this incident without realizing the negative impact it would have on Indians’ confidence on their nation’s democracy. In fact, in doing so, it would be breaching Article 19 of the Indian Constitution (which allows citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms ). I genuinely doubt that any government in India would be willing to take the risk of doing something of such severity. Also, in light of the second right mentioned, I believe that the movie was unwarranted in its screening of police force being used against the members of the candlelight vigil at the India Gate. The British have left, the democratic ideals of the nation have solidified and the ordinary citizen (to a much larger extent) enjoys basic democratic rights such the right to speak and the right to hold a non-violent protest. However, it would be unreasonable to apply that same scenario to modern India. Also, in view of the turbulent climate back then (Jalianwala Bagh massacre, Quit India movement etc.), perhaps violence could’ve been justified to an extent. However, the movie overlooks some major points Bhagat Singh laid down his life in 1931, back when India was still reeling under British imperialism and parliamentary democracy was years away. Hence, their inclination towards patriotism at the time is also understandable. Also, on a parallel note, they had been casted in a movie documenting the lives of and sacrifices made by Bhagat Singh and his friends in the name of freedom from colonial rule. Amongst their best friend (an Indian Air Force officer) lays down his life in an aircraft crash to protect a town in Northern India, but rather than winning praises for his heroism, is subjected to humiliation and derogatory remarks from the minister. making an effort to rightfully convict the minister (Perhaps a sting operation? They could’ve sought access to the minister via Siddharth’s father), the movie would’ve made its mark much better.Īn analysis of the events transpiring before the assassination makes a rather strong case for Aamir Khan and his friends’ antipathy towards the minister. Instead, if he had shown Aamir Khan and co. Indeed, what the minister said and did in the movie was unbecoming and wrong, and undeniably, the movie gives a very strong base message (that the youth should make an effort to right the wrongs), however what Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra shows in the movie is drastic to say the least. Similarly, the Defense Minister too should’ve been tried in the correct forum rather than being gunned down by a bunch of college students. It’s against one of the most fundamental ideals of the legalism India enjoys, that of due process, under which a convict is legally tried for his crime in the court of law. Simply put, you cannot assassinate the Defense Minister of the world’s largest democratic nation. The movie, for all its comedy, drama and performances of the actors, suggests a very dangerous breed of patriotism. I do not wholly agree with the message screened in Rang De Basanti. Who are the real criminals in Rang de Basanti? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |