Director: Atanu Ghosh
Cast: Paoli Dam, Jissu Sengupta, Rajatava Dutta, Indrani Halder
“My grandpa said that I would either be a singer or would run away from home”, commented the protagonist Tamodeep (played by Jissu Sengupta) several times during the movie. But proving his grandpa wrong Tamodeep, a consistent topper, ended up being a medical doctor. It turns out that his grandpa died when Tamodeep was an infant. Grandpa’s poor eyesight could barely see Tamodeep’s face while predicting his fate. I would say this is the theme of the movie – wrong perception that people have about others because of poor eyesight (observation).
The director Atanu Ghosh cleverly tricks the audience to deal with their own wrong perceptions about human character, even before the word go. From the title “Takhon Teish” (at twenty three) one can easily think of another saucy story of a young man’s fantasy. Wrong perception! The movie is a brilliant portrayal of three women and a man’s relationship at different levels. Here we see a platonic love between Meghna (Indrani Halder) a 28 year old teacher and her 17 year old student Tamodeep. The relationship has a strong foundation of Meghna’s responsibility towards Tamodeep and his caring about her. Tamodeep’s mother, with her own wrong perception, failed to notice it and hence asked Meghna to cut off the relationship.
Tamodeep is a shy, intelligent, passionate and dedicated person. After school, he studies medicine and becomes a doctor. During his college days Tamodeep gets attracted towards a south Indian pornster, Mohini (Paoli Dam). He never misses any of her movies. But interestingly he tries to look passed her flesh into her mind. He listens to her dialogs intently in order to understand her, even though he doesn’t understand a south Indian language.
Then there was a chance encounter between Tamodeep and Mohini, when injured and unconscious from a road accident Mohini was brought to a hospital where Tamodeep was working. He readily recognizes her, but during police investigation it was revealed that she was actually a Bengali, not a south Indian as Tamodeep assumed. Gradually he opens his heart before her which she initially perceives as his lust.
Camera then pans on Sriparna (Aparajita Ghosh Das), a net-savvy young girl who is addicted to social networking and has been exploring relationships through that channel. It takes her only a few days of interaction over internet before dating a total stranger. One day she dates introvert well mannered Tamodeep and another day she goes out with a sexual predator lurking behind the disguise of a corporate lawyer and philanthropist (played by Rajatava Dutta).
Then there was Mohini, a passionate girl who loved poetry, singing and acting. Mohini was an orphan, got shelter at an orphanage run by Rajatava (apologies, I forgot the name of the character played by Rajatava Dutta), became victim of his lust and psychological game, and ended up being a pornster in south Indian adult movie industry, after running away from the orphanage.
The director has established the characters with such an amazing completeness that you’ll rarely find such instance in Bengali movies of recent years. The screen play, written by the director himself, has also been very well balanced. It tells the story in a smart and crisp way where you don’t have any room for confusion in understanding each character. It’s very well paced and has a feel of a thriller, though I would rather categorize it as a romantic drama.
Atanu has also been very smart in injecting some present day issues in the movie. For example, with the help of a two-minute scene, he highlighted the issue of female patients getting abused in hospitals.
In the end, all the characters become crystal clear and so does the mutual feelings between Mohini and Tamodeep. The last scene was almost divine with yellow flowers sprinkled over a red car, and Mohini in a pristine white dress. The mood is further elevated with the rain drops falling on the grass and soothing sound of rain in the background. This is the best ever ending of a Bengali movie that I’ve seen in a long time.
To summarize it, the strength of the movie has been a deep analysis of human characters and relationship. All the actors did justice to their roles. Jissu has been good, Rajatava has been brilliant and Paoli has been outstanding in their respective roles. Paoli played her character effortlessly with great confidence and made it very convincing.
In my opinion, this is the most complete Bengali movie that has been released from Kolkata in the last six months. This is definitely the silver lining for Bengali movie arena. Kudos to Atanu and Paoli. We can have a hope on them in the coming days.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Movie review: No One Killed Jessica (Hindi, 2011)
Director: Raj Kumar Gupta
Casts: Rani Mukherjee, Vidya Banal, Myra Karn
The movie is on a very important social issue of powerful people (politicians) abusing law of the country. Based on the true story of Jessica Lal, a Delhi-based model, being shot and killed by Manu, son of a politician, on a summer evening in 1999 at a New Delhi restaurant where Jessica was working as a celebrity barmaid that evening. Vikram, actor and model, was also working as bartender along with Jessica there at that evening. Jessica was shot at because she refused to serve drink to Manu and his two friends as the bar was closed. The incident happened in presence of about one hundred Delhi elites, but there were hardly 8-10 people who agreed to be witness before the police and court. Jessica’s family and particularly her sister Sabrina fought a legal battle which continued for a few years and saw key-witnesses getting hostile, supposedly under the influence from powerful friends and family of the accused.
The court acquitted Manu and other accused on February 2006, due to the lack of sufficient evidence. This triggered a public outrage which were well supported by electronic media and consequently led the way to further investigation by a fast-track court. Ultimately Manu got a life imprisonment on December 2006.
Movie has been directed by Rajkumar Gupta. Myra Karn played Jessica, Viday Balan played Sabrina (Jessica’s sister) and Rani Mukherjee played Meera, a TV journalist. Vidya and Rani had performed their part brilliantly. So did Myra with the limited scope that she had.
The screenplay has been good. However the camera took a strong feminist angle which was not necessary. Here we see Sabrina fighting a lone battle, moving from pillar to post (police station to court), which is lost initially due to the lack of witnesses or the key witnesses getting hostile of the key evidences getting fabricated. After Sabrina (Vidya) has lost the legal battle on February 2006, Meera (Rani) comes to the picture as an investigative TV journalist with the mission to fight the cause of Jessica and build a public consensus. Also the movie shows women population to build up a support movement by networking through mobile texts (SMSs), while men were shown to be some what inactive, insensitive or disinterested about the cause.
Possibly it has been done to attract the female audience. But we need to understand that change that had happened to our society in the last decade under the influence of satellite TV channels and other communication technologies like internet and cell phone. This is the age of INFOTAINMENT. People are now hungry about all sorts of information. People get entertained with the news of corruption, violence, war, exploitation and everything else under the sun. Even a previously dry subject like election result analysis gets a lot of viewer ship in TV. Media is a bid entertainment industry now and is a very competitive one. Hence media has to run around for scoops and sensational news, carryout sting operations to satisfy their viewer. Also the public want to exercise their power of expressing there opinion through internet blogs, forums and SMSes.
Hence, in 2006, when the Jessica Lall case suffered initial defeat at the court, the stage was already set for the media to use latest technologies like Spy camera to run sting operation and build up scoop for their viewers. The great thing is that it happened for all the good causes, and most importantly this was the demand of the time. So, this was the empowered common people of that time who wanted this movement for justice against the abuse of power by high and mighty of the society. And this was definitely not yet another feminist movement, which the movie tried to portray.
Another observation is that the movie has followed a documentary style. The emotional scenes didn’t touch the right chord and seemed rather loud at times (e.g. Sabrina and Juessica’s mother’s reaction at the hospital). Meera (Rani) had been too abusive; I’m not sure if that was very important for the movie.
The editing has been very good. Emphasis was given on the details like model of cellphones and cars on the road in 1999. The photography has been good. Rani looks great as Meera. She is getting day by day after her comeback.
In summary, the subject of the movie is great. The director deserves a special appreciation for that. Rani and Vidya had given a very powerful performance. It’s overall a good viewing experience. However it has rather been a documentary film type, and fails to build appropriate emotional connection with the viewers. So, I don’t expect it to be very successful at the box office.
Casts: Rani Mukherjee, Vidya Banal, Myra Karn
The movie is on a very important social issue of powerful people (politicians) abusing law of the country. Based on the true story of Jessica Lal, a Delhi-based model, being shot and killed by Manu, son of a politician, on a summer evening in 1999 at a New Delhi restaurant where Jessica was working as a celebrity barmaid that evening. Vikram, actor and model, was also working as bartender along with Jessica there at that evening. Jessica was shot at because she refused to serve drink to Manu and his two friends as the bar was closed. The incident happened in presence of about one hundred Delhi elites, but there were hardly 8-10 people who agreed to be witness before the police and court. Jessica’s family and particularly her sister Sabrina fought a legal battle which continued for a few years and saw key-witnesses getting hostile, supposedly under the influence from powerful friends and family of the accused.
The court acquitted Manu and other accused on February 2006, due to the lack of sufficient evidence. This triggered a public outrage which were well supported by electronic media and consequently led the way to further investigation by a fast-track court. Ultimately Manu got a life imprisonment on December 2006.
Movie has been directed by Rajkumar Gupta. Myra Karn played Jessica, Viday Balan played Sabrina (Jessica’s sister) and Rani Mukherjee played Meera, a TV journalist. Vidya and Rani had performed their part brilliantly. So did Myra with the limited scope that she had.
The screenplay has been good. However the camera took a strong feminist angle which was not necessary. Here we see Sabrina fighting a lone battle, moving from pillar to post (police station to court), which is lost initially due to the lack of witnesses or the key witnesses getting hostile of the key evidences getting fabricated. After Sabrina (Vidya) has lost the legal battle on February 2006, Meera (Rani) comes to the picture as an investigative TV journalist with the mission to fight the cause of Jessica and build a public consensus. Also the movie shows women population to build up a support movement by networking through mobile texts (SMSs), while men were shown to be some what inactive, insensitive or disinterested about the cause.
Possibly it has been done to attract the female audience. But we need to understand that change that had happened to our society in the last decade under the influence of satellite TV channels and other communication technologies like internet and cell phone. This is the age of INFOTAINMENT. People are now hungry about all sorts of information. People get entertained with the news of corruption, violence, war, exploitation and everything else under the sun. Even a previously dry subject like election result analysis gets a lot of viewer ship in TV. Media is a bid entertainment industry now and is a very competitive one. Hence media has to run around for scoops and sensational news, carryout sting operations to satisfy their viewer. Also the public want to exercise their power of expressing there opinion through internet blogs, forums and SMSes.
Hence, in 2006, when the Jessica Lall case suffered initial defeat at the court, the stage was already set for the media to use latest technologies like Spy camera to run sting operation and build up scoop for their viewers. The great thing is that it happened for all the good causes, and most importantly this was the demand of the time. So, this was the empowered common people of that time who wanted this movement for justice against the abuse of power by high and mighty of the society. And this was definitely not yet another feminist movement, which the movie tried to portray.
Another observation is that the movie has followed a documentary style. The emotional scenes didn’t touch the right chord and seemed rather loud at times (e.g. Sabrina and Juessica’s mother’s reaction at the hospital). Meera (Rani) had been too abusive; I’m not sure if that was very important for the movie.
The editing has been very good. Emphasis was given on the details like model of cellphones and cars on the road in 1999. The photography has been good. Rani looks great as Meera. She is getting day by day after her comeback.
In summary, the subject of the movie is great. The director deserves a special appreciation for that. Rani and Vidya had given a very powerful performance. It’s overall a good viewing experience. However it has rather been a documentary film type, and fails to build appropriate emotional connection with the viewers. So, I don’t expect it to be very successful at the box office.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Movie Review: Moner Manush (Bengali, 2010)
“Maner Manush” is a biopic about Lalan Fakir, a noted spiritual leader and folk singer cum song-write of Bengal of nineteenth century. He and his disciples had built up a habitat in a forest which belonged to the Thakurs’, the famous landlord of Bengal (the family which produced the great legend, Asia’s first Noble laurite philosopher/writer Rabindranath Thakur). Directed by Gautam Ghosh, this Bengali movie has been targeted towards multiplex-going urban audiences. Mr Ghosh should get applause for choosing the subject as it showcases a historic personality of rural to the present-day audience.
Prosenjit has acted brilliantly in this movie, playing the lead, Lalan Fakir. Before I proceed any further, I must state that I didn’t do any research on Lalan Fakir and will discuss the character in the light of my understanding of the way it has been portrayed by Ghosh in the movie. The movie shows early days of Lalan as a young hindu living in a village with his loving wife and widowed mother. Lalan had a bent towards spirituality and approached Shiraz Fakir, a spiritual leader and singer, wanting to be his disciple. However the fate joined them together after a while when Lalan went down with chicken pox, lost his consciousness and his memory, were floated on the river by his village people assuming he was dead, and eventually had been rescued and given shelter by a Muslim lady.
Lalan received training on spirituality from Shiraz and started wandering across the places. Once he went back to his village and to his wife. But his mother didn’t let him in to the home as he had been staying with a Muslim family. This shows the sharp division between the Hindus and Muslims in the society at that time. Lalan was particularly against this division between people in the society. He preached oneness of all people across religions. In his words, there are only two kinds of human being, male and female; and all other divisions have been created out of ill thoughts of humankind.
Lalan eventually formed a group with the people who were fence-sitters in the rural society sharply divided based on religion (Hinduism, Islam). He promoted a concept of spirituality in the light of a male-female relationship and vice versa. His explanation of complex spiritual ideas using simple analogies taken from human body (and it’s function) and common people’s life, won him accolades from the educated and aristocrat people of the society. However his outlook towards sexuality and his support for open relationship evoked animosity of rural power centers (both Hindu and Muslims).
But like a smart politician Lalan preached his ideologies and protected his clan by winning support from aristocrats (the Thakurs and other landlords) and educated mass; and by building military power to thwart village hardliners.
Prosenjit has been brilliant. Paoli Dam has been good too, in the role of the key female disciple of Lalan. However the actor who played the role of young Lalan was carrying too much urban accent for his rural character. Some other rural characters also couldn’t get rid off their urban accents. I don’t know why it is so difficult to find actors who can portray rural characters with proper accent. Jyotirindranath was OK. The male playback singer lending voice to Lalan was good, but I can’t say the same for the female playback singer lending voice to Paoli (the voice was not suitable for the age of Paoli’s character and singing style was also stiff).
The cinematography is fantastic. Gautam Ghosh has done justice to his name in this department. It has nicely enhanced the overall beauty of the movie as the most of the castes were wearing white or light colored clothes. The greenery of the forests and villages have been captured brilliantly. However, the scene where Lalan and Jyotirindranath were walking through a mastered field, was too close to a scene from Hindi movie Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Application of nature and water has been excellent.
In summary, this movie is about a philosopher cum smart political leader who was excellent at leading his tribe, spreading his message to his targeted mass, forming alliance with bigger powers, building up their own military power and most importantly keep his key members motivated through various ways. It has been praiseworthy effort from Gautam Ghosh.
Prosenjit has acted brilliantly in this movie, playing the lead, Lalan Fakir. Before I proceed any further, I must state that I didn’t do any research on Lalan Fakir and will discuss the character in the light of my understanding of the way it has been portrayed by Ghosh in the movie. The movie shows early days of Lalan as a young hindu living in a village with his loving wife and widowed mother. Lalan had a bent towards spirituality and approached Shiraz Fakir, a spiritual leader and singer, wanting to be his disciple. However the fate joined them together after a while when Lalan went down with chicken pox, lost his consciousness and his memory, were floated on the river by his village people assuming he was dead, and eventually had been rescued and given shelter by a Muslim lady.
Lalan received training on spirituality from Shiraz and started wandering across the places. Once he went back to his village and to his wife. But his mother didn’t let him in to the home as he had been staying with a Muslim family. This shows the sharp division between the Hindus and Muslims in the society at that time. Lalan was particularly against this division between people in the society. He preached oneness of all people across religions. In his words, there are only two kinds of human being, male and female; and all other divisions have been created out of ill thoughts of humankind.
Lalan eventually formed a group with the people who were fence-sitters in the rural society sharply divided based on religion (Hinduism, Islam). He promoted a concept of spirituality in the light of a male-female relationship and vice versa. His explanation of complex spiritual ideas using simple analogies taken from human body (and it’s function) and common people’s life, won him accolades from the educated and aristocrat people of the society. However his outlook towards sexuality and his support for open relationship evoked animosity of rural power centers (both Hindu and Muslims).
But like a smart politician Lalan preached his ideologies and protected his clan by winning support from aristocrats (the Thakurs and other landlords) and educated mass; and by building military power to thwart village hardliners.
Prosenjit has been brilliant. Paoli Dam has been good too, in the role of the key female disciple of Lalan. However the actor who played the role of young Lalan was carrying too much urban accent for his rural character. Some other rural characters also couldn’t get rid off their urban accents. I don’t know why it is so difficult to find actors who can portray rural characters with proper accent. Jyotirindranath was OK. The male playback singer lending voice to Lalan was good, but I can’t say the same for the female playback singer lending voice to Paoli (the voice was not suitable for the age of Paoli’s character and singing style was also stiff).
The cinematography is fantastic. Gautam Ghosh has done justice to his name in this department. It has nicely enhanced the overall beauty of the movie as the most of the castes were wearing white or light colored clothes. The greenery of the forests and villages have been captured brilliantly. However, the scene where Lalan and Jyotirindranath were walking through a mastered field, was too close to a scene from Hindi movie Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Application of nature and water has been excellent.
In summary, this movie is about a philosopher cum smart political leader who was excellent at leading his tribe, spreading his message to his targeted mass, forming alliance with bigger powers, building up their own military power and most importantly keep his key members motivated through various ways. It has been praiseworthy effort from Gautam Ghosh.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Movie Review: Arekti Premer Golpo (Another Love Story)
This is a Bengali/English movie on homosexuality. The plot moves around a gay filmmaker Abhiroop, shooting a documentary film on a homosexual actor Chapal Bhaduri, a theater artist of sixties who used to play female roles on stage.
The movie generates a special interest among regular movie-goers, for having Rituparno Ghose, a noted Bengali filmmaker, playing the role of Abhiroop, a gay filmmaker in the movie. Rituparno himself is believed to be a homosexual person. He has brilliantly portrayed the character to the perfection with his natural acting. He has also contributed to the script and direction which has been quite prominent in the film. Though the movie has been credited to Kaushik Ganguly as it's director, but it bears the typical Rituparno signature all over it.
The screen play is brilliant. It has rightly captured the sensitivity of the topics. It nicely describes the emotions involved in a relationship between Abhiroop (Rituparno) and Basu (assistant to Abhiroop), a bisexual with a wife who turned out be pregnant, at the later part of the film.
In the movie, we see Abhiroop shooting Chapal Bhaduri's life story. Initially Chapal was uncomfortable for a tell-all about his private life and the men in his life, though Abhiroop was particularly interested in that. There is another movie within the movie where the characters (Abhiroop, Basu and others) enact the relationship between Chapal and his lover.
The movie highlights the similarities and differences between the relationship of Chapal and that of Abhiroop at two different times (60s and present). There is a deep understanding between Abiroop and Chapal as they share similar situation in their own lives. The movie shows the outlook of the society towards a gay relationship.
The highlight of the movie is undoubtedly the brilliant acting by Rituparno Ghosh. Art direction and makeup has been good. Cinematography could have been better had there been some use of long shots. The screenplay has been good.
Almost all the dialogs of the movie are in English (though they claim it as a Bengali movie) which clearly targets urban and non-Bengali (international?) audiences. Still the flavor is very much of a regional film. A good overall experience.
The movie generates a special interest among regular movie-goers, for having Rituparno Ghose, a noted Bengali filmmaker, playing the role of Abhiroop, a gay filmmaker in the movie. Rituparno himself is believed to be a homosexual person. He has brilliantly portrayed the character to the perfection with his natural acting. He has also contributed to the script and direction which has been quite prominent in the film. Though the movie has been credited to Kaushik Ganguly as it's director, but it bears the typical Rituparno signature all over it.
The screen play is brilliant. It has rightly captured the sensitivity of the topics. It nicely describes the emotions involved in a relationship between Abhiroop (Rituparno) and Basu (assistant to Abhiroop), a bisexual with a wife who turned out be pregnant, at the later part of the film.
In the movie, we see Abhiroop shooting Chapal Bhaduri's life story. Initially Chapal was uncomfortable for a tell-all about his private life and the men in his life, though Abhiroop was particularly interested in that. There is another movie within the movie where the characters (Abhiroop, Basu and others) enact the relationship between Chapal and his lover.
The movie highlights the similarities and differences between the relationship of Chapal and that of Abhiroop at two different times (60s and present). There is a deep understanding between Abiroop and Chapal as they share similar situation in their own lives. The movie shows the outlook of the society towards a gay relationship.
The highlight of the movie is undoubtedly the brilliant acting by Rituparno Ghosh. Art direction and makeup has been good. Cinematography could have been better had there been some use of long shots. The screenplay has been good.
Almost all the dialogs of the movie are in English (though they claim it as a Bengali movie) which clearly targets urban and non-Bengali (international?) audiences. Still the flavor is very much of a regional film. A good overall experience.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Dark Side of the Truth
By hosting the mega event, World Cup Soccer 2010, South Africa is getting worlds attention now. The “South Africa vs Mexico” opening match of the soccer world cup 2010 had been witnessed by people across the globe, over their television sets. For the millions of people it has been the first experience to witness South African soccer, the festivity and enthusiasm of sports lovers of that country around the event; and of course, the first experience of hearing the deafening buzz of thousands of “Vuvuzela” horns blowing incessantly inside the stadium.
As they say, the first impression is a lasting one. So, people are going to look into it from every possible angle, and will try to discover South Africa through this experience, on their own way.
As I enjoy knowing about people and culture, so I took this as an opportunity to know about South African people. One thing drew my attention about the playing eleven who represented South African soccer team on the opening match of the World cup soccer 2010. There I didn’t notice any Caucasian person (who represents about 11% of the population of South Africa) in the side. This surprises me, as the European countries, with their superb display of excellence in this game over the decades, have been a major contributor to popularize this game all over the world. Is the Caucasian section of the South African population not interested in soccer at all? Why there is not a single one of them who are talented enough to get a spot in the final eleven of the opening match, while their country itself hosting the game. Because I believe that “talent” should be the ONLY criteria for any selection, in any field, in any place in the world.
As they say, the first impression is a lasting one. So, people are going to look into it from every possible angle, and will try to discover South Africa through this experience, on their own way.
As I enjoy knowing about people and culture, so I took this as an opportunity to know about South African people. One thing drew my attention about the playing eleven who represented South African soccer team on the opening match of the World cup soccer 2010. There I didn’t notice any Caucasian person (who represents about 11% of the population of South Africa) in the side. This surprises me, as the European countries, with their superb display of excellence in this game over the decades, have been a major contributor to popularize this game all over the world. Is the Caucasian section of the South African population not interested in soccer at all? Why there is not a single one of them who are talented enough to get a spot in the final eleven of the opening match, while their country itself hosting the game. Because I believe that “talent” should be the ONLY criteria for any selection, in any field, in any place in the world.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Sadistic Joy
I started my day with an ugly surprise, thanks to the Bengali news paper "Ananda Bazar" that I had been subscribing for years. On the front page of their today's edition, they've printed a picture of a victim who was traveling on a train that came under terrorist attack last night.
The picture was showing the upper half of a dead human body entangled in debris. Another picture was showing a severed human hand with rings on the fingers. As India has been suffering from terrorism for so many years, this type of incidents are no more new. But the ugliness of the way it has been portrayed on a newspaper is unprecedented.
In our families a newspaper has a wide range of readers including young kids who would invariably grab it first thing in the morning, to mimic the older members of the house. Such a gruesome picture on the front page is bad enough to traumatize those young minds.
When I compare this with another newspaper that I subscribe to (Times Of India, English daily), I see broken rail cars showing enormity of the accident; but no ravaged human body. This is an appropriate representation of the fact, without challenging people's taste.
The newspapers editors should show appropriate maturity and responsibility for their profession, which was absent today in the case of Ananda Bazar.
As a responsible citizen and a regular reader, I feel strong urge to register my objection towards this kind of tastelessness.
I'll stop reading that newspaper if they don't stop showing insensitivity towards people and society.
NB: “Ananda Bazar” is a Bengali phrase; it means “Market of joy”
The picture was showing the upper half of a dead human body entangled in debris. Another picture was showing a severed human hand with rings on the fingers. As India has been suffering from terrorism for so many years, this type of incidents are no more new. But the ugliness of the way it has been portrayed on a newspaper is unprecedented.
In our families a newspaper has a wide range of readers including young kids who would invariably grab it first thing in the morning, to mimic the older members of the house. Such a gruesome picture on the front page is bad enough to traumatize those young minds.
When I compare this with another newspaper that I subscribe to (Times Of India, English daily), I see broken rail cars showing enormity of the accident; but no ravaged human body. This is an appropriate representation of the fact, without challenging people's taste.
The newspapers editors should show appropriate maturity and responsibility for their profession, which was absent today in the case of Ananda Bazar.
As a responsible citizen and a regular reader, I feel strong urge to register my objection towards this kind of tastelessness.
I'll stop reading that newspaper if they don't stop showing insensitivity towards people and society.
NB: “Ananda Bazar” is a Bengali phrase; it means “Market of joy”
Friday, April 30, 2010
Freeing up Burqa and Naqab from public places - Belgium shows the way towards safer and more confident world
I would like to welcome the decision taken up by the Belgian parliament to keep public places free from Burqa and Naqab (worn by some Muslim women that covers a person's face fully or partially). This is a very important step taken up by any country on the matter of public safety, in these days of global terrorism. Belgium rightly deserves the credit to be pioneer in this front.
Wearing Burqa or Naqab in public places puts extra challenge on the people or authority who work on maintaining public safety. You can't see a face and hence don't know if some unauthorized person has entered into a building or moving around a public place. The images captured by CCTV cameras installed for public safety in various places will be of little use if a face can't be detected for later investigation. A couple of years ago, a jewellery shop in Mumbai (India) decided not the allow wearing burqa inside their shop, to prevent theft of marchandise. In the examination hall or at a job interview, it will be difficult to detect if someone has impersonated the actual candidate. There are numerous such examples that you can cite from your personal experiences.
Besides security issues, there are other matters of inconvenience if a person dealing with public (e.g. a teacher or public servant or sales person etc.) wears a Burqa while at work. Because it becomes a barrier for communication, and doesn't help in building up trust and confidence quickly. Hence it hinders learning process (in schools/colleges), building up trust and clarity of communication (in govt. or other public offices) and building up customer relationship (in commercial establishments).
As the matter is related to a religious practice, my opinion is to become aware and sensitive towards the need of the changing time and to apply our own judgment accordingly. Wearing a turban by a Shikh, a skull-cap by a Muslim, putting a vermilion or sandal powder dot on forehead by a Hindu or a carrying a small cross as locket by a Christian or some similar practice by people from other religions will not pose a security threat to the common public. But the same can't be said about wearing a Burqa. I believe people are free to practice their religious rights and custom, but should not cause inconveniences or discomfort to others. If so, then it should rather be considered as insensitivity towards other people and humanity in general.
On a lighter note, it definitely gives a good opportunity to the tasteful Muslim ladies to invest on some nice clothing and jeweleries. We should hear a lot of cheers from their side. However, a word of caution for the Muslim parents and husbands - get ready to accommodate a hole in your wallets!
Wearing Burqa or Naqab in public places puts extra challenge on the people or authority who work on maintaining public safety. You can't see a face and hence don't know if some unauthorized person has entered into a building or moving around a public place. The images captured by CCTV cameras installed for public safety in various places will be of little use if a face can't be detected for later investigation. A couple of years ago, a jewellery shop in Mumbai (India) decided not the allow wearing burqa inside their shop, to prevent theft of marchandise. In the examination hall or at a job interview, it will be difficult to detect if someone has impersonated the actual candidate. There are numerous such examples that you can cite from your personal experiences.
Besides security issues, there are other matters of inconvenience if a person dealing with public (e.g. a teacher or public servant or sales person etc.) wears a Burqa while at work. Because it becomes a barrier for communication, and doesn't help in building up trust and confidence quickly. Hence it hinders learning process (in schools/colleges), building up trust and clarity of communication (in govt. or other public offices) and building up customer relationship (in commercial establishments).
As the matter is related to a religious practice, my opinion is to become aware and sensitive towards the need of the changing time and to apply our own judgment accordingly. Wearing a turban by a Shikh, a skull-cap by a Muslim, putting a vermilion or sandal powder dot on forehead by a Hindu or a carrying a small cross as locket by a Christian or some similar practice by people from other religions will not pose a security threat to the common public. But the same can't be said about wearing a Burqa. I believe people are free to practice their religious rights and custom, but should not cause inconveniences or discomfort to others. If so, then it should rather be considered as insensitivity towards other people and humanity in general.
On a lighter note, it definitely gives a good opportunity to the tasteful Muslim ladies to invest on some nice clothing and jeweleries. We should hear a lot of cheers from their side. However, a word of caution for the Muslim parents and husbands - get ready to accommodate a hole in your wallets!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)