This Indian film's thoughts on democracy and freedom make the Chinese feel ashamed!

Noelia 2022-10-29 23:30:33

The film "Arieger" is based on a true event.

A university professor named Silas was suspended from Aligarh University because his same-sex sexual behavior was exposed. With the media hype about the incident, he was soon in the whirlpool of public opinion that was almost condemned by the whole people. Prior to this, Silas was a respected faculty member for his outstanding professionalism and dedication, and had been with the university for many years, and was about to retire.

It's not hard to imagine how serious the consequences would be for someone with a high social status in such a conservative country as India, who did something that went against mainstream values. An angry crowd took to the streets, chanting "Down with gays." Silas", and the poor professor had to hide at home, even looking out the window, he had to be extremely cautious, even so, the public anger was not extinguished, and soon the professor's house was cut off.

Shouldn't it be time to explore clichés such as society should accept homosexuality, homosexuality is not a sin, nor a pervert, etc.? The film's other protagonist, reporter Dib, also thinks so. When the editor-in-chief wanted to characterize the matter in terms of a sex scandal, he objected and offered Ying to interview Silas, and Deb wanted to speak out for the gay community.

However, after a heart-to-heart conversation with Silas, Dib found that things were not what he thought. Professor Silas' concept of homosexuality is very vague, and he is reluctant to use this word to identify himself. He even had a relationship before. Profound history of heterosexual marriage.

Therefore, whether Silas can be classified as gay is a question mark, and the whole incident is likely to be a trap.

Silas said that despite his many years at Aligarh University, he has always been treated as an outsider because it is a city where Urdu (a type of Indian language) is spoken and he teaches a very small group Marathi (a type of Indian language), and at the same time, everyone was married, but he was still single at a young age.

Apparently, it's the minority that is Professor Heath's true identity, not homosexuality.

Deb then analyzed the ins and outs of the night of the incident and determined that it was a premeditated and planned act. The man who was probably also an accomplice.

Back at the residence, Deb said this to the tape recorder, "This matter has nothing to do with whether he is gay or not."

The real essence of this matter is a kind of violence of the majority against the minority. Homosexuality is only a tool used to reinforce its violence, taking advantage of the general disgust of the public against homosexuality, and allowing as many people as possible to participate in this exclusion against Silas. The conspiracy to bring him down eventually morphed into a larger majority-minority violence.

Such an approach also hides the original intention. After all, India also has its own set of political correctness standards. Using Urdu to exclude Marathi and married to unmarried cannot gain support in Indian society. .

Dib's speculation cannot be used as a legal basis, and the only thing that can be fought is to appeal to the court: why are these TV reporters able to break into the house and shoot without the permission of others? Why is the colleague of Silas, without his authorization, able to distribute the video in various media? This invasion of privacy is a crime!

Video of Silas being filmed

On July 2, 2009, the Delhi High Court has acquitted homosexuality. Even if Silas is homosexual, it belongs to the category of morality, and the people who set him up are definitely illegal! Why does the public only pursue the ethics of Silas but not the criminal behavior of this gang?

In the courtroom scene that followed, lawyers from both sides engaged in a splendid debate on ethics and crime. When the defendant's lawyer aggressively grasped how unethical Heath's same-sex behavior was, Heath's defense lawyer loudly pointed out that homosexuality is not guilty within the scope of the law, and that Heath has no place to be judged by the law. At the same time, morality is morality, law is law, everyone’s moral standards are different, but everyone is equal before the law, everyone has the right to live according to their own moral standards, but no one has the right to treat others according to their own moral standards commit a crime.

This debate has profoundly explained what is called democracy and freedom!

Democracy not only means governing the country with the principle of the minority obeying the majority, but also means safeguarding the basic rights of minorities, such as the right to privacy of homosexuals in a society dominated by heterosexuals. The so-called freedom is that within the framework of the law, each person can live his own way without having to accept the moral standards imposed on him by anyone.

In the end, Professor Silas won the case.

Since the acceptance of homosexuality in China is relatively high, even if it cannot be accepted, it is not as hostile to this group as the Indians, so it is easy to think that this film reflects the backwardness of India.

But in fact, it's not. In a country so deeply influenced by religious culture, in a society that generally fails to accept homosexuality, the success of the Silas case reflects India's respect for democracy and freedom, at least in terms of judiciary and system, it is not backward .

However, the democracy and freedom of a country not only need to be implemented in the system and the judiciary, but also need the whole society to cooperate with it in a spirit of contract: as long as it does not violate the law, it must tolerate those who are different from themselves, and even tolerate those who are different from themselves. Disgusting people coexist with you.

The hatred and exclusion of minorities in Indian society in the film goes against the inclusive values ​​pursued by a democratic society. From this perspective, India is indeed lagging behind.

After the victory of the lawsuit, Professor Silas once said that he wanted to go to the United States, because only there could he live. In the end, he did not go to the United States and chose to commit suicide because he could not live in India.

The film does not aim to convince the audience to accept homosexuality, but to tell you that you can reject it, but you should tolerate its existence, and even if you cannot tolerate it, you must tolerate its existence. Because this is in line with the spirit of democracy and the defense of freedom. As Mahatma Gandhi said: "Intolerance itself is a form of violence, an obstacle to the development of a true democratic spirit."

The novelty of this gay-themed work is that it does not safeguard the interests of the gay community, but the values ​​of a democratic society.

Guided by the idea of ​​democracy and freedom, India has an advanced system and judiciary, but at the social level, it is very backward. Why? Because most Indians do not understand that democracy and freedom are not only used to guide the government, but also to regulate the people. They cannot tolerate people who are classified as different, so although gender discrimination and caste have been abolished in law A series of traditions that go against the spirit of democracy and freedom, such as system, religious hostility, etc., have not really changed Indian society, because the cooperation of the people is too low.

Most people think that the black bus gang rape case is just a manifestation of the low status of Indian women. In fact, at a deeper level, it reflects that Indians are still accustomed to imposing their own moral standards on others, and even take this crime for granted. The mastermind believes that the victim's actions have violated (his) morality and that violence against her is just a legitimate means of punishing her for her moral depravity.

The mastermind of the black male gang rape case

It also explains why the public only pursues Silas for his morality, ignoring the culpability of those who violated his privacy.

In 2014, after Modi, a Hindu, became the Prime Minister of India, many of his lack of inclusive ideas and remarks further aggravated the division of Indian society. There have been many atrocities by Hindus against Muslims. A 16-year-old Muslim The boy was beaten by more than 20 Hindus for eating beef and eventually died. Because of the sacred cow culture in Hinduism, eating beef violated the morality of Hindus...

Indian Muslims protest

The theme of this film can be described as a direct attack on the status quo of Indian society, and it comes at the right time!

To tell the truth, the Chinese are not qualified to criticize India in this regard. Looking at the remarks on the Internet, they sometimes want to laugh. It seems that everyone talks about democracy and freedom in silence, but how many people really respect it? For dissidents, most netizens are not tolerant, they often abuse them, and even mobilize a group of people to engage in cyber violence. From an ideological level, most Chinese netizens are dictators, trying to use their own moral standards to Regulate all Chinese.

Let's take an example of women.

As a woman, I don't agree with the virginity complex, but if a man wants to marry a virgin, I will not attack him, after all, this is his freedom and right, but if he is because of his virginity complex, to attack everything that happened I absolutely oppose Chinese women who have sex before marriage, because that is only his personal moral standard, and he has no right to impose his own moral standard on all Chinese women.

The final video shows with subtitles that on December 12, 2013, the Indian High Court re-imposed homosexuality.

This is really surprising! Under the framework of the law, it seems easy to accommodate people with different moral standards, but the question is, what are the standards that distinguish law and morality?

Don't think that India is making a fuss about the issue of homosexuality, it's just because this issue is more accepted in China. Think about it, as the beacon of democracy, in the United States, as of the end of 2014, 21 states still regard adultery as a criminal offense. .....Every country has its own obstacles in the definition of laws and morals!

Then, think again, can you accept legalization of marijuana? Can you accept the legalization of bestiality? When the constraints of the law are repeatedly loosened in the name of democracy and freedom, you will really feel entangled!

In the end, I want to say that I am completely able to accept homosexuality and have deep respect for the film.


For more reviews of Indian movies, please subscribe to the public platform "Indianmovie".

View more about Aligarh reviews