On the all-too-noticeable point that most romantic movie couples are hindu - I think the same logic can be used in this case as is used to explain why most romantic movie couples in Hollywood are white - The Majority can relate to them.
As far as I know, Muslim couples, even if they are dating, have different guidelines all together from their parents, religion and religious scholars.. a prescribed path and things to look for. Christians are considered the more liberal of the Indian masses, therefore less conflict possibilities for a movie. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are pretty much treated as if they were Hindu any way and we know that every second romantic movie is about Punjabis so I guess that's where they factor in.(Sample - Jab We Met)

In India, as far as I have observed, it is the Hindus that least follow their holy scriptures or take a leaf out of The Vedas or Gita when it comes to love and relationships. Thus, they are the most clueless. Just like white people in America who as a group,least follow their holy scriptures or look for guidelines to use when it comes to love and relationships. Clueless in nearly similar ways.

I'm sorry if this sounds too presumptuous but it's just what I feel from what I have observed.
I'm hindu and looking at my Muslim or Christian friends, I can see that we have the least discussions about how to build a relationship, a marriage, or love because all that is considered taboo to discuss with a holy person.
I for one, definitely feel much more clueless because of this.

And if 70 % of the Indian population is Hindu, I'm sure the majority of Indian youth would share my complete lack of knowledge on this subject.

To exploit this very emotion, the movie makers make their romantic leads Hindu to bank on the majority's lack of guides.

Abhi, this conference sounds like it's set-up for some great discussions. While I can't make it there, could those people that are going let me/us/mutinous hoard know how it went? Thanks.

1 · PK said

In India, as far as I have observed, it is the Hindus that least follow their holy scriptures or take a leaf out of The Vedas or Gita when it comes to love and relationships. Thus, they are the most clueless. Just like white people in America who as a group,least follow their holy scriptures or look for guidelines to use when it comes to love and relationships. Clueless in nearly similar ways.

The Vedas and Gitas are not analogous to the Koran or Bible. Hinduism is not a scripture based religion in the sense as Christianity or Islam.

Hindus do have some guidelines in dating and marriage (caste, religion, etc). From what I see on the Indian dating websites, even diaspora Hindus follow some guidelines. Most Hindus prefer only to date other Hindus and vegetarian Hindus prefer fellow vegetarians.

I think Bollywood focuses on Hindu couples simply because the vast majority of Indians are Hindus.

ok, so...

Dialogue on gender rarely focuses on men’s issues. Why are Muslim men always seen as sexist? In film, why are most of the romantic leads Hindu? Where do Sikhs fall into the picture? By processing all of these questions, we will be able to see how identity, gender, and stereotypes collide in creating images of South Asian masculinity, as well as their tangible effects on individual lives."

their going to deconstruct images of "South Asian" masculinity by only focusing on Indian films? This is the thing about all these "South Asia" discussions-they're almost entirely focused on India's social problems. No one looks at the neighbors...God forbid Sri Lanka or Nepal ever get mentioned...

Check out the SAAN Speaker Angana Chatterji ......She is kinda Hot!

In film, why are most of the romantic leads Hindu?

Most Indians are Hindus so it makes sense. Can any Bollywood fans enlighten us on whether the Muslim/Sikh represenation as romantic leads is in proportion to their population in the country?

Most Indians are Hindus so it makes sense. Can any Bollywood fans enlighten us on whether the Muslim/Sikh represenation as romantic leads is in proportion to their population in the country?

Actually, the right question should be who is portrayed as a "hero". Hindu is a very generic term. The vast majority of the population are Dalits + lower caste hindus. But generally the movies make sure that there is no explicit reference to the caste of the hero and if at all there is, it is mostly 'upper caste' Hindus. The term "South Asian movies" is misleading. Does that mean Pakistani movies have Hindus as heroes?. looks like another "progressive South Asian" conference. :-)

Does that mean Pakistani movies have Hindus as heroes?. looks like another "progressive South Asian" conference. :-)

Yup, these "progressives" seem to forget that South Asia includes other countries besides India, especially when they are offering social critiques. The only worthwhile talk from my perspective is by Kiva. The funny thing is that groups like Kiva are usually founded by big bad MBA types, not "activists". I am almost broken hearted that Biju Mathew is not listed among the speakers :-(

I don't know, it's pretty hard to rival SASA for hookup opportunities. Isn't that all these SA"X" conferences amount to anyway? :)

Yup, these "progressives" seem to forget that South Asia includes other countries besides India, especially when they are offering social critiques

Yeah, isn't that a "pet peeve" of "South Asian progressives" that other countries are ignored when people talk about "South Asia". Now aren't they committing the same mistake while talking about "South Asian masculinity" and just pointing out that the "majority of romantic leads are Hindu". I never knew majority of Bangladeshi/Pakistani movies portray "Hindu romantic leads"

Added Bangladesh to my earlier comment lest I'll be called a "Hindu fascist/nationalist/chauvinist" (by the "South Asian progressives") who is only thinking of India as South Asia. :-)

Added Bangladesh to my earlier comment lest I'll be called a "Hindu fascist/nationalist/chauvinist"

Don't worry, you've already earned the rep of being Hindu Fundie #1 on this site. There isn't a close second since we've banned most of them over the years.

Can any Bollywood fans enlighten us on whether the Muslim/Sikh represenation as romantic leads is in proportion to their population in the country?

I'm not a Bollywood fan, but as PK said, it might be difficult to have a Muslim lead in a romantic role...the Muslim community itself could get upset to have one of their young men portrayed in that manner. But wasn't there indeed a movie a while back (Bombay?) in which the female romantic lead was a Muslim, portrayed by Manisha Koirala? With a Hindu boyfriend? I never actually saw the movie but the songs were nice. That was a very risky move and in fact I do think there were a lot of protests.

As for turbanned Sikh men in a romantic role, there are probably Sikh religious leaders who would protest that too. In any case it's not going to happen...even Punjabi movies never depict that. I guess it goes against popular notions of what romatic lead is all about.

I do think the depiction of Sikhs in Bollywood and Indian television is problematic and certainly worthy of discussion. The one exception I've noticed is advertising and commercials, in which Sikh boys with patkas are used very often and usually in a nice way.

I do agree with Jiyo and Ponniyin that it's a bit of a stretch to analyse INDIAN movies and then make statements about SOUTH ASIAN masculinity...sorry Abhi.

I do agree with Jiyo and Ponniyin that it's a bit of a stretch to analyse INDIAN movies and then make statements about SOUTH ASIAN masculinity...sorry Abhi

My comment had nothing to do with their point. I just like giving Selvan his due.

Don't worry, you've already earned the rep of being Hindu Fundie #1 on this site. There isn't a close second since we've banned most of them over the years.

Worry.. No. I think it's a honor to be termed Hindu Fundie #1 by the "progressives". I also know that "progressives" like to ban anything contrary to their opinion. :-)

8 · louiecypher said

Yup, these "progressives" seem to forget that South Asia includes other countries besides India, especially when they are offering social critiques.

Yup. I think India standing in for South Asia would make a damn good workshop topic.

Also, in addition to the points already made about the problems with the film workshop - what man's character of any depth ISN'T sexist in Hindi film (I assume the discussion will revolve around Hindi film)?

Don't worry, you've already earned the rep of being Hindu Fundie #1 on this site. There isn't a close second since we've banned most of them over the years.

I forgot to add this to my earlier comment. It would be interesting to know the reasons why I'm called the Hindu fundie #1 in this site. Is that because I call the "bluff" of the "progressives" ?. Is there anything factually wrong in my comments?. I'd be willing to accept my errors if I made erroneous statements.

As far as I know I don't remember claiming Hinduism is the greatest or Hindu fundamentals are the strongest and have often times ridiculed Hinduism like I do for other religions/Gods. I consider myself as an atheist/agnostic who was born into a low caste Hindu family. That's the identity I have and can you let us know why I'm called a "Hindu fundie". I'd like to know the mindset of the "progressives".

Ponniyin Selvan,

I don't know if you'd pigeon-holed me as one of your "progressives," but if I were to pigeon-hole you, it would probably be as an Indian Nationalist. Your comments generally run pretty contrary to anyone's whom I'd be likely to call a Hindu Nationalist.

ptr_vivek:

I don't know if you'd pigeon-holed me as one of your "progressives," but if I were to pigeon-hole you, it would probably be as an Indian Nationalist. Your comments generally run pretty contrary to anyone's whom I'd be likely to call a Hindu Nationalist.

I don't know whether Ponniyin Selvan is a Hindu Fundie or not, because I'm not familiar enough with the volume or general trajectory of his comments to make that judgment. However, I do think that the people who object to Ponniyin Selvan being labeled a Hindu fundie are making the same mistake by using the label "progressive" pejoratively. These labels promote only ad-hominem arguments and make it impossible to 'play nice' and engage with someone's opinions. How about we stop dismissing people's assertions based on their politics, but rather on the truth/logical/descriptive content?

"Who's the Man? Dialogue on gender rarely focuses on men's issues. Why are Muslim men always seen as sexist? In film, why are most of the romantic leads Hindu? Where do Sikhs fall into the picture? By processing all of these questions, we will be able to see how identity, gender, and stereotypes collide in creating images of South Asian masculinity, as well as their tangible effects on individual lives."

My question was directed towards the general "progressives"

Then I can't answer you. If anything I support autocracy on SM which isn't very progressive.

Now folks, can we get off the name-calling and back to the post which has to do with the SAAN conference.

This Bangladeshi Muslim American will be speaking on a couple of panels about South Asian youth voting at SAAN! I'm stoked and hope to see some of you mutineers there! If you go, please stop by and say hello!

Taz

The vast majority of the population are Dalits + lower caste hindus

Not really -- that this was an incorrect fallacy and was pointed out in several places following the Supreme Court Rulings after the AIIMS stir

But generally the movies make sure that there is no explicit reference to the caste of the hero and if at all there is, it is mostly 'upper caste' Hindus.

Again, most of the Caste based heroes in Tamil movies today belong to the so called OBC castes -- the Brahmin lead role is present in only a few movies. (please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the same is true of Telugu movies as well )

I am not sure what caste modern Hindi movie lead roles are based on --(I am guessing it is because of the amnesia from the trauma caused by the 'acting' / 'story' / 'direction' :-) )

Yup, these "progressives" seem to forget that South Asia includes other countries besides India, especially when they are offering social critiques.

Yup. I think India standing in for South Asia would make a damn good workshop topic.

I think there should be a space to discuss things like conflict in the subcontinent in a sane manner, South Asian groups can play a useful part here. But what I find is that the dialogue is always dead end because the Indian participants are most always at the fringes, e.g. Gandhians or Marxists. I'm not using these identifiers as a pejorative, just stating that they are not numerically significant and can't speak for the mainstream that needs to be compelled to realize change. It's kind of like having interfaith dialogue between Quakers/UUs & Buddhists, it's not a serious attempt at bringing Christians and Buddhists together but rather a giant group hug among people who are in violent agreement :-). I think a progressive is a respectable thing to be, it's when I doubt the equanimity of an organization that I refer to it as "progressive". The strange thing is that much of this conflict is completely unecessary. If you were to have a conference on human rights abuses in India, it would be absolutely appropriate given the current state of affairs that the better part of the sessions would highlight abuses against Muslims. It's when a group purports to be South Asian in scope but neglects to address the situation of minorities in Pakistan & Bangladesh that I get all upset.

Not really -- that this was an incorrect fallacy and was pointed out in several places following the Supreme Court Rulings after the AIIMS stir

Can you point out the percentages or the Supreme court rulings?. This is relevant here because the represenation of so called "Hindus as romantic leads" riled up the "South Asian progressives" (sorry portmanteau) so much that they are having a panel/discussion forum to discuss and debate how to include Muslims/Sikhs/Parsis/Christians etc.. I'd like to add Dalits/Tribals to the list. Being called a Hindu fundie #1, I could also ask if Pakistani/Bangladeshi Hindus are allowed as "romantic leads" in their respective movies and if it is up for discussion.

I'm amused by the subset of "romantic leads", I wonder why the "progressives" left out the "non romantic leads". :-)

I'm amused by the subset of "romantic leads", I wonder why the "progressives" left out the "non romantic leads".

I think the problem with using Hindi (I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that Hindi films will be used as the basis for this, prove me wrong if not so) films and applying it to 'South Asians' as a whole is that it fails to take into account regional variations, e.g. south Indian films and models of masculinity may be completely different. I have no problem with second-generation South Asian Americans taking what interests them and creating a mishmash, but I just wish they would recognize that these biases DO exist as a result of demographic realities such that our idea of what is 'South Asian' is very north Indian/upper-caste Hindu/Hindi-speaking/Gujarati/Punjabi-centric, and also generally takes a very liberal bent. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to northies and Pakistanis and even Bengalis (both West and East) that NO I don't speak Hindi (well I do, but very crudely), or how I've seen the efforts of south Indians to bring their regional culture into the SASA mold is discouraged and looked down upon.

And then there's this assumption of a Lahiri-esque 'shared experience.' True, there is the unique experience of being a child of immigrants, but it fails to take into account class factors and how that may totally change things. I mean, honestly, how many of the brown kids that go to Hunter College will have the money to fly to some conference in Michigan?

I think Ponniyin Selvan is more conservative than average here, but I don't think he's a Hindu fundie. I remember he made a statement once like, 'These people who want payback for what Muslims did in the past are hypocritical because they won't apply the same logic to caste-based atrocities,' and based on what I've seen he refrains from essentializing Islam and Muslims. I find it telling that instead of countering his points you just slander him as a Hindu fundie. Also, I think it's MUCH worse to throw the 'Hindu fundie' label around and slander someone as that than to be called "progressive," because in general it's much worse to be a 'Hindu fundie' than it is to be "progressive." portmanteau, you say Selvan is an Indian Nationalist, and I guess I'd agree with that- but aren't many of the commenters and bloggers here American Nationalists? Is nationalism wrong regardless of the country, or is it just when it become blind patriotism?

louiecypher- this is one of the workshops:

Religion Reinstated Many states have used religion as a cornerstone for their governments. This workshop will explore how states use and occasionally misuse religion in South Asian countries such as India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan.

Also, other non-desis, who know South Asia through the lens of Bollywood might presume some things about all south asian brownz (given that we all look alike) and that might also be worth investigating in such a forum.

25 · Ponniyin Selvan said

I'm amused by the subset of "romantic leads", I wonder why the "progressives" left out the "non romantic leads". :-)

27 · nala said

portmanteau, you say Selvan is an Indian Nationalist, and I guess I'd agree with that- but aren't many of the commenters and bloggers here American Nationalists?

Nala, I said no such thing :) I may be a "progressive," but unlike Bill Clinton my denials are quite credible.

Masala movies have romantic leads. Kalai movies have non-romantic leads. The conference is about the former only.

Are you talking about the Tamil "kalai" movies ?. For people who don't know "kalai" movies are "Art" movies or using the American term, "indie" movies. hmm. I would expect the "progressive" crowd to worry more about "indie" movies than the run of the mill "masala" movies.

oops! sorry portmanteau, I confused you and #18. i guess i need to stop looking at the world through these saffron-colored goggles. ;)

I think my objection to the cultural biases inherent in 'South Asian American' is different from the one that louiecypher is making, which is that 'progressive' politics don't cover all bases when it comes to criticizing South Asia. But I think it's still similar in the sense that there's a narrow definition of what 'South Asian' means in the American context, both culturally and politically, the ones who don't fit in per the former are 'whitewashed' and the ones who don't fit in per the latter are either Hindutvadis or sell-outs. :)

btw, I've seen Vijay Prashad speak a few times, and he always (in my experience) gives the same 'there are five kinds of people in the economy, we should work to overturn it'-type speech.

If Ponniyin is a Hindu Fundie - then I am Brad Pitt. P Selvan normally makes valid points - not necessarily to everyone's liking but to smear his name....... In this case Selvan was on the money.

Nala - your points about Hindi movies being taken as the standard for all Indian movies is true. I have had a few spats with mates who claim to be great fans of bollywood. Mainstream Malayalam Movies have long mixed art with masala rather successfully. Often ideas were borrowed from Oscar winning movies but many are highly localized. I have said this before - to understand communism in kerala watch 'Lal Saaalam'.

34 · melbourne desi said

If Ponniyin is a Hindu Fundie - then I am Brad Pitt.

Melbourne Desi, you may not be Brad Pitt, but if reports of your conquests are to be believed, you might be at the very least be a modern-day Genghis Khan. :)

Ponniyin is a Hindu fundie.

36 · Brad Pitt said

Ponniyin is a Hindu fundie.

Don't you have a kid to adopt or something?

Don't you have a kid to adopt or something?

That's what I keep Angie for (psst, she's a lesbian (nsfw), which is why she is into this whole adoption thing). I'm on a Nawleans kick, myself.

Melbourne Desi, you may not be Brad Pitt, but if reports of your conquests are to be believed, you might be at the very least be a modern-day Genghis Khan. :)

I am on the wrong side of 30 - Genghis Khan would be ashamed of me - at my paltry conquests :( :(

1 · PK said

Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are pretty much treated as if they were Hindu any way and we know that every second romantic movie is about Punjabis so I guess that's where they factor in.(Sample - Jab We Met)

This is an obvious point. Every Bollywood movie is about Punjabis. They even use non-Punjabi actors/actresses to depict Punjabis, and then, they "Hinduify" these characters. For example, Ashwarya Rai is a Kannadiga, and she played a Punjabi in a movie several years ago whos surname was "Grewal". Now everyone who is familiar with Sikhs know that "Grewals/Garewals" are Jatt Sikhs. In this film (I forget the name), she is praying at a Hindu Temple, which I find odd. I don't know of a single Jatt Sikh who prays at a Hindu Temple, since they tend to be the most nationalistic of all Sikhs. In other films, they have Kajor or Rani playing Punjabis. What's up with that? I have *NOTHING* against Punjabis. But I also have *NOTHING* against any communities within India. Why can't Rani Mukherjee , Kajol Mukherjee, or the Kapoors depict themselves as Bengalis?

Punjabis are only about 4-5% of the Indian population, however, they represent ~95% of the heroes/heroines of Indian films.

I think that this (glorifying all things Punjabi) is a bigger issue than Bollywood films depicting Muslim men as sexist. To tell you the truth, Muslim men are more sexist than non-Muslim groups within India or the world for that matter.

That's what I keep Angie for (psst, she's a lesbian (nsfw), which is why she is into this whole adoption thing). I'm on a Nawleans kick, myself.

So you like to watch?

I think that this (glorifying all things Punjabi) is a bigger issue than Bollywood films depicting Muslim men as sexist. To tell you the truth, Muslim men are more sexist than non-Muslim groups within India or the world for that matter.

It's really pointless to try to quantify who is more sexist. It's more useful to look at societies (regions, countries, states, local communities, etc.) and their particular problems (e.g. female foeticide in India, especially the northwestern states) than to essentialize an entire group of people.

Perhaps this attitude is why Muslim men are depicted as more sexist in Bollywood films? :)

Back in the day Muslim actors in India often changed their screen names to Hindu ones.
Then later, Hindu actors changed screen names to Muslims ones.

Now, if we are talking about romantic leads in films being portrayed as Hindu, most actors in Bollywood films play roles of Hindus because that is the majority of movie goers in India are Hindus because the majority of citizens in India at this time are Hindus. I don't think it's because Hindu men are considered more sexy or romantic or less sexist as leads. Time to time you do get a romantic Muslim hero.

Punjabis are only about 4-5% of the Indian population, however, they represent ~95% of the heroes/heroines of Indian films.

Punjabis are a large percentage of not only the actors/actresses, but also the directors and producers and people behind the scenes. Bollywood is full of Punjabis (mostly Hindus). So that comes through in the movies.

And to some extent I think Punjabis physically come closer (on average) to what the Bollywood-watching Indian public is looking for in terms of a certain 'look' or appearance. A type of complexion and features. And so that's market forces at work.

Historically, Punjabis may have entered the film industry (I'm talking in the really early days, the 1920s-1940s) more than other ethnicities did, because of a certain cultural openness to doing so...while people from more conservative cultural backgrounds found the film industry to be too disreputable to get involved with. That's just a theory, I don't have research to back that up.

But you're right, the hinduification of Sikhs is quite common in Indian media (Bollywood and television).

back to the original topic...

I am looking forward to my (final) SAAN conference as a Michigan student. The workshops are thought-provoking, mostly because of the phenomenal speakers, but also by the level of discussion reached afterwards. I missed Abhi's 2006 appearance, unfortunately, but I have not been disappointed by the speakers I've heard and workshops I've attended.

SAAN tries to ensure that every participant truly learns during the weekend. To that effect, attendees get to hear from nearly every speaker, along with keynote addresses, group activities, and networking opportunities. Saturday features 3 workshops, two keynotes, and a formal (an actual formal, not a sasa-esque affair as post #9 assumes). For a conference to focus on providing opportunities to interact with speakers as much as this is impressive and applaudable. I strongly encourage anyone able to attend to do so!!

24 · louiecypher said

but rather a giant group hug among people who are in violent agreement :-)

lately, sepia is getting so risque. Even a fuddy-duddy like Miss Marple shares the annotations on her well-thumbed Kamasutra.

I would love for the south Indian film industry to raise standards of attractiveness for its male leads. I would also love for 'spicy' 'dark' 'exotic' (a la Bipasha Basu) types to become more popular.

I would love for the south Indian film industry to raise standards of attractiveness for its male leads

Boston Mahesh,

You state the following:

Every Bollywood movie is about Punjabis. They even use non-Punjabi actors/actresses to depict Punjabis, and then, they "Hinduify" these characters. For example, Ashwarya Rai is a Kannadiga, and she played a Punjabi in a movie several years ago whos surname was "Grewal". Now everyone who is familiar with Sikhs know that "Grewals/Garewals" are Jatt Sikhs. In this film (I forget the name), she is praying at a Hindu Temple, which I find odd. I don't know of a single Jatt Sikh who prays at a Hindu Temple, since they tend to be the most nationalistic of all Sikhs. In other films, they have Kajor or Rani playing Punjabis. What's up with that? I have *NOTHING* against Punjabis. But I also have *NOTHING* against any communities within India. Why can't Rani Mukherjee , Kajol Mukherjee, or the Kapoors depict themselves as Bengalis?

Punjabis are only about 4-5% of the Indian population, however, they represent ~95% of the heroes/heroines of Indian films.

I think that this (glorifying all things Punjabi) is a bigger issue than Bollywood films depicting Muslim men as sexist. To tell you the truth, Muslim men are more sexist than non-Muslim groups within India or the world for that matter.

This seems more than a wee bit off thread, but I wanted to respond briefly. I think your statement about all Bollywood movies being about Punjabis is a matter of perception. I know plenty of Punjabis who feel that Bollywood a) doesn't depict them enough b) doesn't fairly depict them and that in fact Bollywood negatively portrays Sikhs and/or Punjabis. In general, their perception is that Punjabis are depicted as being either boorish, simple or criminal kingpins. Their perception would differ from yours. As for Jat Sikhs, you can do an informal poll of NYC cab drivers, many of whom are Jat Sikhs and I would venture to guess that 3 out of 10 have visited a hindu mandir in NY. When your a stranger to a strange land, you'll seek community and help wherever you think you can find it. Some of their neighbors from India who are now in the U.S. may go to the mandir and so they go with them, as a sign of respect and community. I've seen many Hindus at gurdwara as well. You also neglect to consider, there are some Jat Sikh families that have family members who happen to be practicing Hindus. In my own experience, I have distant relatives who have visited Haridwar and Badrinath (Hindu religious sites) and who also visit their local gurdwaras as well as Sikh temples. I ask you to consider that the generalizations you make in your quote above are a matter of your perception and not necessarily accurate.

As for Jat Sikhs and nationalism, I'll tell you what I think is their two biggest concerns: 1) finding decent opportunities for their sons and daughters in Punjab and Haryana, where they feel the quota system in India hurts them more than other groups (true or not) 2) the drug culture that has started to invade some Punjabi communities. Most Jat Sikhs in India I know do not maintain a nationalistic fervor for a separate state, it's more about the simple desire to take care of their families. That's my perception.

Why can't Rani Mukherjee , Kajol Mukherjee, or the Kapoors depict themselves as Bengalis?
Maybe they don't have the acting chops to pull it off or if your perception is correct, it may have something to do with DVD sales overseas. As repeatedly mentioned on this site, a portion of the diaspora are Punjabi. It would seem to make sense to cater to this market. But once again, I believe your perception would differ from those of the Punjabi community or at least, the Sikh community, that may not feel that it is being depicted properly in Bollywood.

Rather than derail the thread any further, if you wish to continue the discussion off site, I would be happy to speak with you about it further.

i'd be interested in how journalism is shapiing up around the new media. i was just perusing some stats on media adoption and ad spend across different age groups. points to note - over 50% of the 18-34 age group is now adopting social networking and user generated content media. for the 35 and over crowd, the premium tv content (tivo type stuff) is seeing very strong adoption. This exceeds adoption for even popular servics like rhapsody, itunes etc. subscriptions to online news channles are not near the adoption rates for the social media. my suspicion is that more people today will be getting news via their favored forums rather than directly from cnn, nyt as such. what are the implications of this - when the grand grey ladies are replaced with bare foot (but feisty) gamines of uncertain antecedents.

I've been to the SAAN conference for several years, and am very sad I'll be unable to attend this year - looks like they have a great lineup, like every year!

The whole weekend is a time to discuss and learn (on topics both serious and frivolous), and just soak up the atmosphere of a whole lotta South Asians intent upon creating an increased awareness in the community. Only complaint? Way too much stuff for a mere three days. Oh, and the fact that it takes place in that damned state up north ;)

48 · nala said

I would love for the south Indian film industry to raise standards of attractiveness for its male leads. I would also love for 'spicy' 'dark' 'exotic' (a la Bipasha Basu) types to become more popular.

Whats up with the unattractive male actors in South Indian films? Also why do South Indian love scenes always depict the men as asexual and the women as horny seductresses? Why do so many South Indian love scenes show the women practically raping the men?

Whats up with the unattractive male actors in South Indian films?

Admittedly knowing next to nothing about Indian Cinema, I can't see how with popular actors like John Abraham, Sendhil Ramamurthy, etc falling into the South Indian category, they'd be more unattractive than your standard Northie fare. Maybe Kumarimuthu is more your type?

Also why do South Indian love scenes always depict the men as asexual and the women as horny seductresses? Why do so many South Indian love scenes show the women practically raping the men?

I think I speak for all of us when I say "WTF are you watching??"

I also may speak for some of us when I say "Why doesn't my neighborhood Bharat Bazaar" carry anything like this?"

Also why do South Indian love scenes always depict the men as asexual and the women as horny seductresses? Why do so many South Indian love scenes show the women practically raping the men?

I don't know what you've been watching, but for my money, an asexual man gives an excuse for a horny woman to act more and more horny on-screen, hoping to excite more and more viewers, until ultimately she gives up on the hero, pays Jim Webb the amount she wagered, and joins the US Naval Academy.

Can any Bollywood fans enlighten us on whether the Muslim/Sikh represenation as romantic leads is in proportion to their population in the country?

I think there are a lot of depictions of Punjabis (or people with Punjabi names), but not really of Punjabi culture. [total aside: I think one of the best films for showing Punjabis in their element is Monsoon Wedding, which I know is not a Bollywood film, etc., etc.] There also just seems to be a total lack of thought/writing around the experiences of different desi cultural groups. If you are not a Hindi-speaking vaguely Hindu-esque upper-caste/class north-westerner from a city, then you are probably not represented in Bollywood.

And then there's this assumption of a Lahiri-esque 'shared experience.' True, there is the unique experience of being a child of immigrants, but it fails to take into account class factors and how that may totally change things. I mean, honestly, how many of the brown kids that go to Hunter College will have the money to fly to some conference in Michigan?

I haven't been to SAAN, so I'm not trying to knock them in my response to nala; just pointing out a frequent challenge and frustration that comes with working with organizers who are often well-intentioned but who want to norm to a unified experience/definition of "South Asian" without taking into account the many different factors that shape participation and experience.

I can't remember, off the top of my head, a single Bollywood film with a turbaned Sikh as the hero/romantic lead int he past 15 years.

Border?

That said, I also don't watch all 300+ films or whatever that come out every year, so I could be super wrong :)

I could be totally wrong too, as I saw the movie over a decade ago and can count the number of Bollywood movies I've seen in their entirety on one hand.

I agree with this whole lack of shared experience idea. Actually, I think that the assumption of shared experience is made not only at such events(not that I've ever been to one - there aren't enough of desis to host 'em here) but even on this site. This isn't a criticism of the bloggers. But I've seen it happen several times to me and other posters - being attacked under the assumption of making generalizations when in fact the offence was to cite our own experiences. My parents were not insistent that I become a doctor or engineer, I wasn't crushed under the weight of their high expectations(all expectations were my own) and I don't feel any pressure to get married. Not all of us grew up in American suburbia, each one comes from a different background with vastly different experiences of their own. I wish there could be more open debates about that, I'd love to hear from other desis whose experience of growing up didn't fit the typical ABD mould.

My parents were not insistent that I become a doctor or engineer, I wasn't crushed under the weight of their high expectations(all expectations were my own) and I don't feel any pressure to get married. Not all of us grew up in American suburbia, each one comes from a different background with vastly different experiences of their own. I wish there could be more open debates about that, I'd love to hear from other desis whose experience of growing up didn't fit the typical ABD mould.

I know I've disagreed with you in the past, but usually it's not because I disagree with your lived experience. I really enjoy hearing about people's diverse experiences and backgrounds. I think that level of nuance is really important whenever you advocate or speak on behalf of communities that are by no means monolithic.

Oh, man. I'm not going to scroll through again to find the person who asked this question, but YES, South Indian male leads are TOTALLY fugly. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not saying this out of a deeply-rooted and unconscious bias towards "caucasian" features and wheaty-meaty skins, the result of centuries of Western conditioning, no no no, not me. I know lots of hot South Asian men -- why the hell aren't they in the movies? Fair skin does seem to be favoured at the expense of other criteria, even if it means doughy, jowly, bag-arsed heroes.

Arvind Swamy is an abomination unto my loins. This is probably before most readers' time, but he was in this Tamil movie called "Minsaara Kanavu" (transliterated) in the '80s, and I literally jumped up and down in relief when the other guy got the girl (Kajol). The other guy, actually, was reasonably cute, and at least he could dance. Prabhu Deva -- whatever happened to him? Does anyone here know? I haven't been keeping up with recent Tamil cinema, alas, but god-awful Arvind, with his waist-high, tapered trousers and his beach-ball moves, seems to pop up like a bad penny every time I manage to rent a movie.

I meant, obviously, I know lots of hot South *Indian* men, not South Asian (I do know lots of hot South Asian men, but that fact is irrelevant at the moment and makes no sense in the context of my comment above).

Arvind Swamy is an abomination unto my loins. This is probably before most readers' time, but he was in this Tamil movie called "Minsaara Kanavu" (transliterated) in the '80s, and I literally jumped up and down in relief when the other guy got the girl (Kajol).

Oi! That movie was released in 1997. I'm old, but not that old. I don't know anything about Arving Swamy's pants, but the guy did act well in Thalapathi and Roja.

Haha, yes yes pingpong I meant the '90s. Sorry.

But I cannot agree with you about Thalapathi and Roja. Arvind is terrible, terrible! Maybe I'm shallow and just can't get past his face. I'm biased against fugliness. That must be it.

I can't remember, off the top of my head, a single Bollywood film with a turbaned Sikh as the hero/romantic lead int he past 15 years.

Apparently, Sunny Deol, who plays a turbaned Sikh Punjab Police constable, has been sporting headgear to cover his balding head in all of his recent movies. [link]

On Sikh and Muslim leading characters in Bollywood movies, the following movies/characters come to mind in the recent past:
Gadar with Sunny Deol, The hero’s character is Sikh and the heroine’s character was Muslim
Jab we met – The heroine’s character was from a Sikh family
Chak De – The hero’s character is Muslim
Pinjar – The hero’s character is Muslim

Fair skin does seem to be favoured at the expense of other criteria, even if it means doughy, jowly, bag-arsed heroes. Arvind Swamy is an abomination unto my loins.

I would love for the south Indian film industry to raise standards of attractiveness for its male leads.

Maybe to South Indians these men epitomize attractiveness. I sometimes find it hard to believe, but once when one of my uncle's was gaining weight, i said to him, "your going to soon turn into Mammootty" And his response was, "I'd love to be as handsome as that"....so it seems in those south indian states, this look is in and the height of attractiveness for the men ---

http://cinefun.50webs.com/actors.html

Oi! That movie was released in 1997. I'm old, but not that old.

On Sikh and Muslim leading characters in Bollywood movies, the following movies/characters come to mind in the recent past:

brownelf said

Fair skin does seem to be favoured at the expense of other criteria, even if it means doughy, jowly, bag-arsed heroes. Arvind Swamy is an abomination unto my loins.

we may be more baggy than turgid, but we more than make up for it in tapirstyle prehensility . ladies, we will slip an olive in your martinis whil giving you a back rub and spooning coconut chutney on your masaladosai. so there!

down boy.

p.s. the above link is drop-dead hilarious (to me) but may not be suitable for a work environment. :-)

Whats up with the unattractive male actors in South Indian films? Also why do South Indian love scenes always depict the men as asexual and the women as horny seductresses? Why do so many South Indian love scenes show the women practically raping the men?

I think it's actually the other way around... the male characters goading and harassing the female characters until the latter realize that they're in 'love.'

I haven't been to SAAN, so I'm not trying to knock them in my response to nala; just pointing out a frequent challenge and frustration that comes with working with organizers who are often well-intentioned but who want to norm to a unified experience/definition of "South Asian" without taking into account the many different factors that shape participation and experience.

Camille, you are infinitely more patient than me. I have friends who are part of SAA organizations, and I enjoy their events, but I don't care to be a part of such organizations myself.

Prabhu Deva -- whatever happened to him?

I think he's been directing...

Maybe to South Indians these men epitomize attractiveness. I sometimes find it hard to believe, but once when one of my uncle's was gaining weight, i said to him, "your going to soon turn into Mammootty" And his response was, "I'd love to be as handsome as that"....so it seems in those south indian states, this look is in and the height of attractiveness for the men ---

My father admires thick hair and a thick moustache, and viewers also seem to like it when male leads have 'nice eyes,' but I find it hard to believe that women really appreciate this aspect of south Indian films. But then, the vast majority of viewers are male (just go to any movie theater...), so that may have something to do with it. I think things are changing with the younger generation (once these 50-ish guys stop acting with girls a third of their age) though.

Oi! That movie was released in 1997.

It just looks like it was made in the '80s!
I've recently seen my fair share of Tamil films. I can't get over the fashion choices. I'm shallow I know.

Apparently, it seems that people commenting here, and including SAAN have very little knowledge of Bollywood.

Movies with male muslim lead (depicted as muslim)
a) Mughal-e-Azam
b) Anarkali
c) Pakeezaah
d) Waqt
e) Amar Akbar Anthony
f) Garam Hawa
g) Laila Majnu
h) Chak De India..................the list never ends. There is genre of Bollywood movies that set are set in mughal period and uses mughal culture as a back drop.

Movies with turbanned sikh as a lead
a) Vijeta (where very Shashi Kapoor's son Kunal Kapoor played as a Sikh airforce pilot. He was made sikh so that he looked Indian as he is very European looking).

Lk, I totally agree with you that hindus rarely look to scripture for guidelines, at least not the gita. the gita doesn't endorse the caste system as its used today to arrange marriages, etc. But it does define love and show us what an ideal friendship is via the relationship between krishna and arjuna. If couples were actually both striving for the same goal as set out in the gita (realization, moral purity, liberation, whatever you want to call it) they could not be unjust to each other or basing most of the relationship, as is usually done in this day and age, on lust or greed.
For me, this site defined love best:

When we speak of Love, we are talking about the true ultimate Love that depends on no objects, persons, circumstances, time, place, events or reasons because all those must constantly change and come to an end. Such a finite love is no good for a person seeking Eternal Love, without which one will never find eternal peace. We, being sparks of that Love, cannot be pleased with anything less than that Supreme Love.

Love never bargains, trades or expects. Love never complains, never demands, and never hopes. Love never accepts anything less than Love, and therefore, never lowers itself to physical, mental or intellectual pleasures. Love cannot be measured, imagined, argued about or logically arrived at. Only full faith and complete surrender to the will of Love enables us to totally dissolve our ego and merge into this ocean of love.

There are definitely Hindus who followed the gita, or other hindu scripture, as a guidline for their marriage, or perhaps their individual morality and thus their marriage, that have been successful: Mahatma Gandhi, Ramakrishna, etc.....And the all made it work. Problem is, too few hindus really seem to want to strive for what the gita says is their ultimate good....apologies if this comes across as fanatiky to any of you, perhaps a notion of my frustration as a single person also still looking for someone who looks to the gita . . .

Kush Tandon - and Jodha-Akbar is coming out soon :)

Meena, I often felt this way in college, particularly around conversations of "authenticity" among second-gen desis (i.e., that because I grew up in a different "desi" experience, and often not a very "desi" experience, it was somehow less legitimate or authentic).

Yeah, I don't really fit in with all the other South Asians at my college. I guess I'm just not "Indian enough." And some students/faculty just assume that I'm a science student because I am brown, but I'm in the humanities :)
I do not fit the typical ABD mold...

BW@#75:

You might like this cartoon.

oops, #73 was to PK not LK...typos=)

Louiecypher said;

It's when a group purports to be South Asian in scope but neglects to address the situation of minorities in Pakistan & Bangladesh that I get all upset.

As Camille would say, ' Amen to that.'

One of the workshop topics is;

Religion Reinstated
Many states have used religion as a cornerstone for their governments. This workshop will explore how states use and occasionally misuse religion in South Asian countries such as India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan.

I am guessing since the order in which the names of these countries are listed is neither alphabetical nor according to the countrys' respective sizes, it perhaps tells us which country the organizers' believe uses/misuses religion most egregiously;) Of course the crisis in India, a secular country that guarantees ( but occasionally fails ) equal rights to religious minorities has to be addressed before the lapses in Pakistan, an avowedly Islamic state that does talk about ( but rarely allows ) equal rights to religious minorities. It's also understandable that the organizers' included Sri Lanka in this list even though it's internal problem is much more a function of ethnic than religious differences - they had to be fair and balanced. People have to be reminded that its not just Hindus and Muslims who are fallible, Buddhists can be bad too. Too bad Israel is not in South Asia. And since we already have one Islamic representative in the list we can exclude the Islamic republic of Bangladesh from this list of violators because you see at least in Bangladesh the religious minorities don't face an existential threat as they do in, say, India. Also the organizers must not wish to be redundant by talking about the well documented Islamification in Bangladesh and Bangladesh's lack of resistance to it, since they already do so when they talk about Pakistan. Besides, discussing state sponsored/enabled Islamic fundamentalism more than once at a conference where one of the goals is checking Islamophobia, is counterproductive.

Sarcasm aside, let's discuss briefly what the top listed speaker, Angana Chatterjee, brings to the conference. You can follow the link but long story short is that Ms Chatterjee will never miss a party to which Arundhati Roy and Pankaj Mishra are going. It is at this point that I am obligated to declare my personal opinion on Hindu fundamentalism lest I be called a ' Hindu Fundie ' - it needs to be defeated. Those chaddiwallas forcing Hussein into exile, disrupting art shows and canoodling couples alike, and insisting that Muslims in India are foreigners, need to be severely punsihed by the state ( the latter will slip, alas, as freedom of speech )

Back to Ms Chatterjee. In one of her articles she is bemoaning the de-secularization of India by Hindu nationalists while at the same time being sympathetic to Kashmiris' quest for secession from India based on nothing else but, err, Islam. Inconsistency is what riles me. Roy, Mishra and the like suffer from the same fault too. Is it even debatable that in these times Hindu fundamentalism is the pygmy to Islamic extremism's giant? Yet again and again we hear about the monster of Hindu fundamentalism. And nothing about Islamic extremism, which actually if one were to study even briefly is what led to Hindu fundamentalism in the first place.
So what drives these South Asian progressives? No it's not an anti-Hindu/anti-India agenda as the ignorant chaddiwallas insist.

Here's my theory: Most of these artists, writers, filmmakers are Hindus. If you can point out bad, you get points. If you can point out the bad in your own home, well you get double points. But more importantly consciously or unconsciously ( I think it's more unconsciously ) these progressives are cognizant ( unconsciously cognizant!!!) that the worst the Hindu fundamentalist will do to them is rough them up or blacken their face or trash their furniture or send them empty death threats by email or mouth off here on Sepia mutiny. The Islamist will simply hand them their head, literally. So if you are a Hindu and you inveigh against Hindu fundamentalism you become a martyr. Albeit a martyr who always lives to tell the tale of his courage! Isn't there a South Asian professor of English who turned a similar incident into a book? The Husband of a Fanatic? There are progressives in Pakistan too. There are writers, activists in Pakistan too. They are dead against Islamic fundamentalism as are most Pakistanis, yet in all these years I haven't read a single article coming out of Pakistan that says ' Osama is bad ' or some such. They'll say it and mean it but only privately. We all know what skewering Modi, for example has got in India publicly. The net effect of such a biased narrative, particularly in the South Asian diaspora is that the next generation will grow up thinking that only minorities in India are discriminated against. This will lead to more resentment and possible extremist backlash. But it's not just Islamic extremists that are feared by progressives. Recently there was a very well publicized Sikh parade in Canada where among other extremists this Parmar guy was feted. This is the guy who would boastfully assign each Sikh a quota of how many Hindus he had to finish off, a la Bhindranwale who had mathematically figured the quota out to be 36! But you don't read or hear any Sikh progressives airing their own dirty laundry ( not on this issue ) because it is extremely dangerous to do so. People have been bumped off before, right here in North America.

Louiecypher, I strongly recommend you consider blogging on your own just as Bloomberg is considering running for president. There'a a whole constituency out there that's tired of both the right and the left and which finds itself unrepresented in the middle.

Camille,

Meena, I often felt this way in college, particularly around conversations of "authenticity" among second-gen desis (i.e., that because I grew up in a different "desi" experience, and often not a very "desi" experience, it was somehow less legitimate or authentic). Sometimes even the issues folks bring up (e.g. attachment or identification with caste) don't really resonate with me because it is so outside of my experience and how I was raised. I don't even know if what is propagated as "typical" for an ABD really is typical; I think it is in part biased by who is allowed access to a college education and who is not.

I know I've disagreed with you in the past, but usually it's not because I disagree with your lived experience. I really enjoy hearing about people's diverse experiences and backgrounds. I think that level of nuance is really important whenever you advocate or speak on behalf of communities that are by no means monolithic.

So what drives these South Asian progressives? No it's not an anti-Hindu/anti-India agenda as the ignorant chaddiwallas insist.

Here's my theory: Most of these artists, writers, filmmakers are Hindus. If you can point out bad, you get points. If you can point out the bad in your own home, well you get double points. But more importantly consciously or unconsciously ( I think it's more unconsciously ) these progressives are cognizant ( unconsciously cognizant!!!) that the worst the Hindu fundamentalist will do to them is rough them up or blacken their face or trash their furniture or send them empty death threats by email or mouth off here on Sepia mutiny.

It would be interesting to know what drives the "South Asian progressives". Looking at their inconsistencies, I don't think it is based on the principles of "human rights", it is something else, you've attributed one reason. And the surprising fact is that most of these so called "progressives" are themselves from well off / rich / upper caste families. there you go. you get four times the points. :-)

Post #78 Badal,

Bravo!!!!!

You hit the mark! If someone were to get all their information from some of these "progressives" they would think the world was on cusp of being devoured by Hindu fundamentalism (akin to the rise of Nazism in the 30s) while there is a tiny nuisance called Islamism.

Critics of Hinduism face nothing close to the danger critics of Islam - hence the incentive to criticize Hinduism more and Islam less.

But there is also another reason for the velvet glove treatment progressives give Islam. Many progressives are dissatisfied with the current American social order - free markets, limited government, ordered freedom based on property rights, globalization, etc. The 20th century challenge to this system, communism and socialism, are dead. Islamism is the most active force in the world combating this system. While most progressives do not subscribe to the religiously extremist potions of the Islamist agenda they have sympathy for Islamist grievances and have trouble devoting themselves to the anti-Islamist movement because doing so would mean siding with right-wingers against poor radicals in third world countries.

Hindutva and Hindu fundamentalists for various reasons have embraced globalization, free markets and property rights. Hence giving progressives extra reasons to criticize Hindu fundamentalism. Vociferous denunciations of Hindutva along with muteness on Islamism creates a very skewed view of the world.

#78 Badal and #81 JGandhi, you guys make some good points, at least where the views of Indian progressives concerning Islamic militancy are concerned.

My father admires thick hair and a thick moustache, and viewers also seem to like it when male leads have 'nice eyes,' but I find it hard to believe that women really appreciate this aspect of south Indian films.

Yeah, I know what you mean...but I've also asked my female aunts and counsins in Kerala whether they think Mahmooty is hot, and they really, really do. But they also find Shah Rukh Khan hot too... the issue of who actually pays to see the movies or to rent them, I didn't think of that aspect and there maybe something to men being the main consumer of the movies in south india.

I wonder how Keralites would find Sendhil from Heros (who is just really hot to me) to act as a hero in malayalee movies?

The SAAN conference sounds like a great gathering. Wish my little sis could attend, but this is the first time I'm hearing of it. I remember awhile ago there was something called SASSY, that I attended, and brought together 25 and under progressive desis. I'm glad that people pointed out the mistake that SAAN did, in equalizing South Asian film with Indian hindi film....but that should detract from what seems to be a great convening.

51 · khoofia said

i'd be interested in how journalism is shaping up around the new media. i was just perusing some stats on media adoption and ad spend across different age groups. points to note - over 50% of the 18-34 age group is now adopting social networking and user generated content media. for the 35 and over crowd, the premium tv content (tivo type stuff) is seeing very strong adoption. This exceeds adoption for even popular services like rhapsody, itunes etc. subscriptions to online news channels are not near the adoption rates for the social media. my suspicion is that more people today will be getting news via their favored forums rather than directly from cnn, nyt as such. what are the implications of this - when the grand grey ladies are replaced with bare foot (but feisty) gamines of uncertain antecedents.

Khoofia, you raise an intriguing issue. (at least to me it's intriguing). Without sounding like a luddite, the newer technologies have brought about at least one major hindrance to effective journalism. The overabundance of choice. I'm old enough to remember when it was just the big 3 news networks and there was no such thing as the internet. Everyone was on the same page with respect to the news, we were all getting the same thing, for better or worse. While it was understood the daily newspapers had their own slant, one did feel that the papers were trying to be "fair and balanced". With the new medium, I feel that there is so much competition for readers, that the news networks and internet sites all spin their version of the news to maintain a core audience. Now, if one seeks to find their version of the truth in the news, they can go out and find it. As Colbert would say, it's all about "truthiness". Which raises the issue, is there any source that we can all believe is providing reasoned journalism? Don't people have to agree on a certain set of facts or events, so that decisions can be made?

Additionally, the news outlets nowadays, all seem to gravitate to the "human drama" stories, i.e. Britney or the legal dramas, i.e. Roger Clemens. I'd like to see the news outlets have an equal balance of the "human interest" story and other types of stories. What's the point of having global access to world events, if there is nothing more than superficial coverage. As an aside, I think this interest in legal dramas amounts to being tried in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law. The press in my opinion is reckless when it comes to guilt or innocence and is more interested in selling that ad space rather than ascertaining truth.

I appreciate that the internet and newer technologies have allowed more access to news from across the world and has opened up the collective conscience to events outside the US. However, I don't believe that the news outlets are maintaining a level of objectivity or accuracy in the rush to compete with the multitude of voices out there. The discourse seems, at least to me, more hyperbolic. The news outlets and the new medium, have tremendous power to shape opinion based on the stories they choose and how they choose to cover them. I wonder if in the rush to compete, they lose sight of their responsibility to be objective. If everyone chooses the spin on the news that they want to hear, doesn't society become more fragmented as most people will choose to believe that the other outlet is "spinning" the news rather than objectively reporting it.

But there is also another reason for the velvet glove treatment progressives give Islam. Many progressives are dissatisfied with the current American social order - free markets, limited government, ordered freedom based on property rights, globalization, etc. The 20th century challenge to this system, communism and socialism, are dead. Islamism is the most active force in the world combating this system. While most progressives do not subscribe to the religiously extremist potions of the Islamist agenda they have sympathy for Islamist grievances and have trouble devoting themselves to the anti-Islamist movement because doing so would mean siding with right-wingers against poor radicals in third world countries.

"Camille""," "you" "are" "just" "an" "apologist" "for" "america" "hating" "cowards""."

And the surprising fact is that most of these so called "progressives" are themselves from well off / rich / upper caste families

Post 85:
I don't make any of the assumptions you seem to think I made in my post.

Your first assumption -- that the "current American social order" actually has a functioning system with free markets, limited government, etc., is undermined by the reality of American policies, funding, and intervention.

Whether America perfectly embodies these ideals is irrelevant to the point at hand. But generally America hews most closely to these ideals and is the most influential promoter of these ideals. If we read the Islamist critiques of America and progressive critiques of America, the criticism is about America hewing too closely to these ideals - not for America imperfectly living up to these ideals.

I also think the assumption that critics of Hindutva do not receive death threats is incorrect. I think the critique has much less to do with sympathy for an extreme interpretation of Islam and more to do with the false dichotomy created within current Western narratives around the nature of Islam, the nature of the West, and the interactions between the two.

I never assumed that Hindutvas don't recieve my threats. My post says nothing about progressive critiques of Western narratives of Islam. My post primarily deals with why there are "Vociferous denunciations of Hindutva along with muteness on Islamism" by the progressive community.