GHHF Condemns Mohan Babu, Director, Actors and CBFC for “Denikaina Ready” Telugu Movie

06 Nov 2012 156 Views

GHHF strongly condemns certain portions with regard to the scenes and dialogues and the portrayal of certain characters found in the Telugu movie Denikaina Ready. The portrayal of Brahmin community is demeaning, belittling, mocking and contemptuous. Further the movie ridiculed the Hindu customs and rituals, glorified the deception, elevated the dishonesty, promoted the vulgarity, encouraged fraudulency, and attacked the very fabric of Hindu morals and ethics. The film makers showed no respect for the aesthetic values, the sentiments of the community, human decency, honesty, and Hindu rituals.

GHHF demands the government, Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) (http://cbfcindia.gov.in/), and the movie producers, directors and actors to with draw the movie immediately until further re-certification. We support the efforts of various organizations demanding the withdrawal of the movie from showing and also to file criminal case against the producer Manchu Mohan Babu and directorG.Nageswara Reddy under Indian Penal Code.  We also demand the government to conduct a thorough investigation of the incident where the Brahmin priests and Brahmin community members who were demonstrating peacefully in front of Mohan Babu’s residence were beaten by sticks, live in front of police, public and TV media and bring justice by punishing the culprits who roughed up the priests.

 

DEMAND WITHDRAWAL OF MOVIE

Why GHHF demand the withdrawal of the movie? Following are some of the examples that are considered offensive and insulting in the Telugu movie “Denikaina Ready”:

 

1. Brahmin Archakas, who participated in Chandi Homa, were shown to have eaten Haleem, which contains meat of a sheep. The Director was clever enough to patch the instance at a later scene in the movie by casually mentioning that it was not Haleem, but vegetarian kheer. Was this necessary?

2.  A young Brahmin priest is often called by the Hero as Pilakaleni Pilla Pantulu or Pilakaleni Pilla Sastry (meaning a priest without his Shikha, which has a very deep spiritual meaning, obviously not known to the ignorant and arrogant producer, director and the actors of the movie), which is quite offensive and disgusting to the entire Priest community.

3. One of the young Brahmin priests who is invited to performChandiHomais projected as being behind a young Muslim neighbor girl using unnecessary romantic language which is totally unrelated to the flow of the movie and depicts CHEAP comedy.

4. Actor Brahmanandam in the movie repeatedly mentions that "You Brahmins will do what ever it takes, if you are given Sambhavana" which portrays Brahmins as beggars and dependent on people's alms.

5. One of the Brahmin priest’s wife is shown to be a very loose lady, who is always on the lookout for men visiting her home, trying to get them involved in sensual talk. This is simply demeaning for any Hindu lady leave alone a Brahmin lady.

6. Inone other scene, the Brahmin priest’s wife is shown to be accepting an inter-caste marriage for her son with the girl ofNaiducaste, not because of the love for her son, but mentioning “Money is Everything” since the girl is from a rich family. This truly pulls down the morale of all families, let aside Brahmins projecting all is acceptable if money is thrown.

7. Worse of all, a Muslim whose name is Suleiman, who is the Hero of the movie (real life name: Manchu Vishnu) acts as a Brahmin priest, will be singing a movie song instead of Holy Mantras, totally demeaning the Homa and Yagna rituals in Hinduism.

8. Inone other instance all the Brahmin Archakas who would be performing theChandiHoma, simply stop chanting the mantras twice, because they are shown to be greedy of Rs. 2000 offered by the heroine. Any veda mantra or vedic chanting is not supposed to be stopped from the beginning to the end unless prescribed so. What was the director trying to show by projecting this cheap comedy?

 

TOTAL FAILURE OF CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification, India)

Case must be filed against the Central Board of Film Certification for it’s total failure to enforce it’s own guidelines. It is astonishing to find about the laxity shown on the part of CBFC in granting Certification, ignoring it’s own guidelines and besmearing the high standards that are supposed to represent the best of the society.

GHHF demands CBFC to explain the process it followed in granting the certification for the film Denikaina Ready. Did CBFC follow any of these guidelines in granting the Certification?

 

Questions to CBFC

Following are few questions GHHF prepared for CBFC to find out if they ever followed or considered their own guidelines in granting the Certification for Denikaina Ready movie. The number in parenthesis are taken from their website: http://cbfcindia.gov.in/home.aspx

1)    Although every individual shall have “freedom of speech and expression” but it is subjected to certain “reasonable restrictions where by the movies should look at the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency, and morality. Or any incidence that promotes incitement of the offence should be avoided.  Did the CBFC follow this guideline? (2.3)

2)    CBFC also stated that it is “essential to put certain reasonable restrictions in the larger interest of the community and the country and strike a proper balance between the liberties guaranteed and the social interests specified in Article 19(2). Did the CBFC look at the larger interest of the community? (2.4)

3)    Although media is free to express their opinion and thought, CBFC believes “it is only in the larger public interest that there should be some control/restraint howsoever minuscule.” Did the CBFC look at the larger public interest of the society? (2.5)

4)    Based on the Guidelines issued on December 6, 1991, the objectives of film certification will be to ensure that – a) The medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society; b) the medium of film provides clean and healthy entertainment; and c) as far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard. (6:1)

 

 Did the CBFC follow any of the three objectives stated above?

5)    CBFC also agreed to ensure the following before Certification is issued:

"vii) Human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity;

viii) Such dual meaning words as obviously cater to baser instincts are not allowed;

ix) Scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented;

xii) Visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented;

xiii) Visuals or words which promote communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes are not presented;

xviii) Visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of individuals, or contempt
of court are not presented.”

Did the CBFC consider any of these guidelines to ensure sensibility, communal harmony, refrain from degrading women, and abstain from using words that promote anti-religious sentiments?

 

ENTERTAINMENT ARGUMENT

The main actor in the movie Vishnu stated that: “It is just a film meant for entertainment. It should not be viewed in caste and religious angles.”

               Let us take the argument that is meant for entertainment. This is a false argument for the reason that a movie cannot be solely for entertainment. CBFC clearly stated that the VISION of CBFC is “To ensure the good and healthy entertainment in accordance with the provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules1983.” The argument it is simply for entertainment is counter to the vision of CBFC. All the filmmakers and actors should be made aware of the guidelines before they make the movie.

When one says that you look at the movie as an entertainment, he may be assuming that after you see the movie nothing should be registered and ignore any insult, vulgarity, defamation, violence terror, immorality and obscenity in the movie should be ignored. This argument is absurd, ridiculous, mindless and senseless. It is impossible to shut off the brain from registering the impressions created in the mind. That is the very basic nature of a human being. Man is not a machine to turn his mind on and off without storing the impressions and retaining them as memories. A man is a product of his environment and part and parcel of his surroundings. He breathes, he absorbs, and he experiences what he sees and does, whether it is at his home, in the school, in the office, on the street, in the cinema theater, and with friends or any where.

Certification of a film is granted, provide it meets certain standards that maintain the integrity of the society. That is the reason, in 1989 the Supreme Court stated “certification becomes necessary because a film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed words. The combination of act and speech, sight and sound in semi-darkness of the theater with elimination of all distracting ideas will have a strong impact on the minds of the viewers and can affect emotions. Therefore, it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to instill or cultivate violent or good behavior. It cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Certification by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary.”

This telugu movie “Denikaina Ready” should not have been given certification by CBFC. The title itself implies that it is ready to do anything. That means it is ready to do any immoral, unethical, deceptive, and adharmic activities. CBFC should look at all the movies to make sure they maintain certain dharmic activities so that the society will be held together to bring unity and strike a balance.

 

GHHF DEMANDS

1) CBFC should withdraw the film immediately from viewing by decertifying it.
2) Case must be filed against the Film producers and Directors for inciting offence against the Brahmins and Hindu rituals.
3) Case must be filed against CBFC for it’s failure to follow it’s own guidelines.
4) All the people responsible for roughing up the Priests in front of Mohan Babu’s residence must be brought to justice by registering a case against them.
5) The Police Officers who have been watching the goondas rough up the priests must be fired from their jobs for their failure to enforce law and order to maintain peace.

 

Donations

We request your generous donation to conduct our activities.
Please DONATE. Your donations are appreciated to continue the work.
NOTE: GHHF is exempt from federal income tax under section 501 (c) 3 of the Internal Revenue code.    Our tax ID # 41-2258630

Please send your tax-deductible donations to:

Global Hindu Heritage Foundation, 14726 Harmony Lane, Frisco, Texas 75035
You can go to https://www.savetemples.org and donate via PAYPAL.
For more information, please visit our websites:
https://www.savetemples.org
http://www.globalhinduheritagefoundation.org

Listen to our web Radio: http://www.aalayavani.org/
Read our magazine: http://aalayavanimagazine.org

 

Please subscribe to Save Temples Telegram channel at https://t.me/savetemples

 

GHHF Board of Directors

Prakasarao Velagapudi PhD, (601-918-7111 cell), (601-856-4783 home); Prasad Yalamanchi(630-832-2665; 630-359-5041); D. Satya (732-939-2060); K. R. Venkatramaiah (Canada) PhD (416-925-8167); Satya Nemana (732-762-7104); Sekhar Reddy (954-895-1947); Tulasichand Tummala (408-786-8357); Raju Polavaram, MD (919-959-6141); Nandini Velagapudi, PhD (601-942-2248); Rama Kasibhatla (678-570-1151); Srinivas Murthy (212-538-8716); Shankar Adusumilli MD (919-961-9584); Sireesha Muppalla (631-421-8686); Prasad Garimella MD (770-595-8033);  Raghavendra Prasad MD (214-325-1969); Murali Alloju MD (703-953-1122) Veeraiah Choudary Perni MD (330-646-8004); Vishnu Kaladindi MD;   and  Dr. Ghazal Srinivas, Honorary Brand Ambassador.

 

GHHF Dallas Core Group

Rajesh Veerapaneni (773-704-0405); Sunil T Patel (214-293-4740); Gopal Ponangi (214-868-7538); Ram Yalamanchili (214-663-6363); Ravi Pattisam (617-304-3577); Krishna Athota (214-912-3724); Rajendra Narayanadas (214-901-3399); Sesharao Boddu (972-489-6949); P. Srinivas (832-444-6460); P. Viswanadham, PhD (972-355-7107); I V Rao (214-284-6227); Sridhar Kodela (214-907-8552); Vijay Kollapaneni (818-325-9576); Ghanashyam Kakadia (469-583-1682); R K Panditi (972-516-8325); Mahesh Rao Choppa (732-429-5217); Viswas Mudigonda (972-814-5961); Satish Reddy MD (972-724-3232); Srikanth Akula (952-334-9990); Kalyan Jarajapu (972-896-8352).

Categories:

Hinduism Posts

Related Posts