The Insane Hindu Protests Against a Bollywood Movie

India is becoming one, big offense industry


India has to be the most surreal country on the planet right now. Many liberal democracies are dealing with

Deepika Padukone
Hindustan Times/Sipa USA/Newscom

majoritarian peeves. But only in India are Hindu extremists hell-bent on regarding even glorification as an insult.

For a case in point, consider their reaction to Padmaavat, a feel-good movie that valorizes the tough spirit and the integrity of Rajputs, a Hindu clan known for its martial prowess—while, at the same time, peddling every, vile anti-Muslim stereotype that Hindus hold. Therefore, one would think, that it would be India's Muslims who would be taking to the streets in protest. But, no, it is Hindu nationalist mobs that are up in arms. They, not Muslim mullahs, are calling bounties on the heads of the lead actors and director.

They have become part of an offense industry that takes offense for offense's sake, I note in my column at The Week. And they are destroying India's beautiful traditions of pluralism and toleration.

Go here to read the piece.

NEXT: Amazon Transformed Retail. Can It Transform Health Care Too?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “They have become part of an offense industry that takes offense for offense’s sake”


    1. In a word – a delicious word.

    2. Hindus should be offended at the Islamic invasion of India, called the greatest genocide in history:

      “India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.”

      1. 600 million is probably more than the global population at the time, so…

  2. And they are destroying India’s beautiful traditions of pluralism and toleration.

    I think there’s a presumed mutual understanding going on that doesn’t necessarily hold water. I mean, it’s a historical depiction of a conflict that actually happened, right? I can understand wanting to put the past behind you and bring the grievance machine to a halt, but I wouldn’t go so far as to declare a Civil War movie as depicting or personifying America’s beautiful traditions of pluralism and toleration.

    1. I’d wonder where the caste system falls under India’s “beautiful tradition of pluralism and toleration”.

      1. And all the Muslim-Hindu conflict of the past most of a century.

        I mean, India certainly has some traditions of pluralism and toleration, within limits, simply because otherwise it wouldn’t have all the minor religions and surviving minority groups it has.

        But it shouldn’t be overstated into a Country Of Eternal Kumbaya…

      2. A Muslim of your class is tolerated while a Hindu of a lower class is not.

        it’s why Indira Ghandi was respected as a leader despite the extreme sexism at the time. Her gender took a back seat to her class. Mostly the same reason why England could have female monarchs early on, but America still didn’t get female suffrage until the 20th century. Because America doesn’t have a hereditary class system.

        1. “America doesn’t have a hereditary class system.”

          Tony does not agree.

        2. England did not have female monarchs until a few hundred years after the Conquest. Mostly because they had run out of other likely candidates (not in small part because the Tudors had killed the most of the other branches of the ruling family).

          1. England did not have female monarchs until a few hundred years after the Conquest.

            Matilda disagrees.

            not in small part because the Tudors had killed the most of the other branches of the ruling family

            No – the Tudors were the last branch standing after the Yorkists killed off all the legitimate Lancastrian heirs and then each other.

            /British History pedant

    2. It is apparently semi-legendary or a historical fiction from the source material (the female Hindu character the conflict is over might not have been a real person). The question is, does it accurately reflect the source, given that the original author was Muslim?

      I suppose it is interesting, but India in its history was rarely politically united and is not as culturally unified as people outside may think. The political culture Dalmia laments may have been more fragile and artficial than she would like.

      On the other hand, most of us do not have a dog in this fight.

      1. I’m curious what she means as well. They do have a long history of many different groups living there, but that also consisted of a huge variety of nation states and municipalities that were not strictly United under a single nation.

        Though, I’m not going to pretend I give a shit about large super states existing or not. It’s probably one of the USAs biggest difficulties.

      2. On the other hand, most of us do not have a dog in this fight.

        I just wasn’t clear on whether Shikha was a lying racist/nationalist shitbag or if, in this specific instance, I was missing some nuance and she was just being a regular racist/nationalist shitbag.

  3. Obvious solution is for Hindu majority India to throw open its borders to Muslim neighbors…for an influx to counter-balance the religious extremists if you will.

    1. Anything less is racist.

    2. I wonder how that would go. There are already more Muslims in India than Pakistan. Wonder if it would change much.

  4. India is becoming one, big offense industry.

    And they’ve exported one of their finest.

    1. And they’ve exported one of their finest.

      I refuse to believe Shikha is the finest that that shithole has to offer.

  5. So they are becoming total pussies like americans. I’ll bet they sound funnier when they whine and complain.

  6. What India needs to do is open its borders and allow as many ISIS fighters in as they can.

  7. This is the same country where women in pink saris beat male sexual assaulters with sticks. And every time I do I cheer. The cops don’t care about rape so the women take the law into their own hands. They are the ones who will change India.

  8. Tradition of pluralism and toleration?

    What about the tradition of partition and religious violence?

    How does the 95% Muslim majority in the Kashmir Valley feel about India’s tradition of pluralism?

    P.S. India built an 8′ high, double sided, barbed wire fence between itself and Bangladesh ten years ago–to keep out refugees. God only knows what Dalmia might say if an American president tried to do something similar here in the United States, but I doubt she would call him “pluralist” or “tolerant”.

  9. “But, no, it is Hindu nationalist mobs that are up in arms. They, not Muslim mullahs, are calling bounties on the heads of the lead actors and director.”

    As someone of libertarian bent residing in the US, I’m sure there is a reason this is of interest to me. But try as I might, it seems nothing more than one more case of bleever-As being pissed at bleever-Bs.
    Hint, folks: It’s all superstition. Grow up.

    1. And yet that “superstition” is part of life.

      I was discussing your posts on the subject of religion with Vladimir, Putin, Steve Bannon, and the Pope the other day, and they all agreed that you’ve being a little hard on both religious believers and Michael Hihn.

  10. It’s no one in the US’s business. If you really care, why not move to India and use your limited writing ability to combat it there?

  11. No surprise there. The fundies in this country were driving vans into theaters to protest “The Last Temptation of Christ”. Moronic fundies are all the same, no matter which religion they’re trying to stuff down everyone else’s throats.


  12. The Indian media habitually releases movies that are disdainful of the majority Hindu culture. The final cut, I understand, lacked any obviously anti-Hindu themes, but prior to its release the film-makers and its actors were defending its artistic liberties in the context of rumors of ahistorical romantic love scenes between Khilji and Padmaavati when the reality had more to do with abduction and rape, which is what women were subjected to in India for 800 years during Islamic invasions.

    The real irony is that, for a movie that was anticipated to be anti-Hindu, it ended up angering Muslims and now the movie is banned in Indonesia because, you know, Muslims got offended.

    I recently saw an apologist for Khilji claiming that he wasn’t such a bad guy. He just wanted to conquer Chattigarh because of its commercial and strategic value. Yeah. Because invading someone else’s home isn’t really bad or anything….

  13. I also don’t understand why people don’t take movies for just as an entertainment, why they make their issues and protest against it.

    Filmy Magazines

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.