For those of you who have seen the documentary “India's Daughter”, does it lower India's image to the world?
Shoor Veer Singh, Infrequent movie watcher
Yes, the documentary does tarnish India's reputation. It is terribly one-sided.
How should have our government reacted to it?
First, they shouldn't have allowed her to make documentary if it broke any laws.
Now, I know countries like US and UK are not any better in rape stats than India. What government should have done is to instead of banning the documentary, they should have criticized the doc for its one-sidedness and the characteristic flaws it had. In the world of internet, banning is futile.
Banning the doc just showed the world that Indian government is uncomfortable talking about the rape problem it is plagued with. I am happy that most Indian men and women oppose the ban.
Also, this documentary can help in changing the mentality of some people. It brought forward the thoughts of an unapologetic rapist to the world, which is not that common. This cartoon depicts this brilliantly:
In isolation the doc seems coherent and apposite, but when watched keeping in mind the overwhelming write-ups, whose only stimulus is to build a disparaging narrative of this country, its motive seem dubious.
Many people offer statistics to contradict the argument that India has a lot of rape incidents. To me, it seems insensitive or rather callous to statistically analyze something as heinous as rape. But the notion that India is a country of rapists and Indians going to other countries will spread this mentality needs to be effaced.
BBC and NY Times need to be called out and condemned for their racist and India-phobic propaganda by everyone. India does have a rape problem, but so does UK, US and countless other countries. We have a better conviction rate for the crime, and the battle which India is fighting against rapes is many times fiercer than how UK and US is dealing with that.
India is a big country, and a lot of things happen here. Lots of good and lots of bad. BBC seems to focus just on the negative things. And people aren't bright, they view this singled out picture of India and get a very wrong idea of this country. I read comments of people regarding reaction to such news on social media, and they weren't pretty. One bright person even supported the German professor for 'not letting a rapist live in her pious country.'
Swetha Murali, M.S Computer Science, North Carolina State University at Raleigh (2017)
For the past two days I have just been reading about India's Daughter and the Government's decision to ban it. I have read compelling arguments from people favouring the ban as well as from the ones not favouring it and I found myself swaying from one group to the other namely favouring and not favouring.
I do agree that this documentary definitely taints the image of our country. Moreover it was released by BBC and by reading few of the answers I understood that BBC has always denigrated India and Indians by portraying us as snake charmers and cow worshippers(in my 21 years of stay in India I still haven't encountered a single snake charmer). By releasing this documentary, especially with the title like "India's Daughter " BBC has tried to portray India as a country transitioning from inhabiting snake charmers to inhabiting rapists. The documentary creates an image of Indian men as rapists and Indian women as meek who silently accept these rapists. It fails to consider the viewpoints and opinions of many Indian men and women who fought and are still fighting against rapes.
My opinion is that BBC should educate itself about India and probably rename the title of the documentary to "Nirbhaya's Rapists' Opinion" or something to that effect but only more creative. A documentary titled India's Daughter should probably focus more about broadcasting to the world about the achievements of numerous Indian women.
A fact which I found totally amusing: The most amazing western country namely The United States of America has never had a female President and the so called rapist and male chauvinist country namely India has had a female President as well as Prime Minister.
Debanjana Chakraborty, Been there, faced that!!
People all over the world will now form a very wrong opinion about our culture. I agree our culture favours male dominance over female but so did other cultures too! India is just taking its time to shove off the patriarchy and completely bring in gender equality, which many other countries have already done.
Do you seriously believe what the rapist and the defence lawyers asserted in the documentary is actually what they believe?
Do you genuinely feel Nirbhaya was brutally raped and assaulted by the rapists just because they wanted to teach her a lesson?
No. They didn't even give a damn about lessons and justice. They were just horny and wanted to have fun by forcing themselves upon her and praising themselves for their so-called masculinity. And now, when the accused are exposed in front of the entire world, they just want to hide their intentions and weakness by blaming the victim and the stating out the so-called rules about our culture. This is something integral to human nature- the blame-game!!
Omkar Patil, Student at IIT Delhi
Here are some stats, you can easily find it on Wikipedia:
Rape per 100,000 population as per 2010:
South Africa: 132.4
India ranks #94 in rapes!
Rape in India – Why it becomes a worldwide story
Now, some people will be ready to make claims like 90% of the crimes go not reported in India. I don't know how do they know what amount goes unreported if they are really unreported.
Moreover, I don't know how people presume that even a single rape doesn't go unreported in western nations. This bias is basically because we Indians tend to hate ourselves and feel inferior, the same reason why the 1 lakh Britishers ruled for more than 30 crore Indians for about 200 years.
I agree that a huge number of rapes go unreported in India, but I find 90% an over-hyped number.
BEHIND THE CURTAIN: ON UNREPORTED RAPES IN INDIA
Anyway, still lets assume 90% goes unreported.
Even then, rate per 100,000 is 18. Yet it is much less than that of other countries mentioned above.
Can you guess what will happen if BBC stereotypes every American male as a crazy rapist? No, it doesn't have the balls to do so.
Bala Senthil Kumar showed an excellent point in one of his answers.
1/6 th of MIT students are victims of sexual assault.
Can you imagine the outrage and the noise levels on Indian media if an IIT were to announce that 15% of their female students were rape victims?
The BBC's famous presenter Jimmy Savile is a paedophile. BBC cancelled the investigative reports exposing him.
All the above argument was just for the morons who are very eager to call India a country of rapists.
Now lets talk about BBC's hidden racist agenda.
So Holi is a 'filthy festival' and we stupid Indians are spreading filth. Was this the BBC's mission of trying educating and informing the world correctly?
So "Indian society" is a "sick society". By this statement, she has directly shown how she was trying stereotype Indian males as rapists.
BBC disobeyed the court order.
BBC disobeyed the government order.
BBC released the video 4 days prior to the scheduled date.
Now, is it that difficult to predict their real intentions?
Why didn't BBC see the filth in their own so called developed nations? Why at all do they need to make a documentary from an example from India?
The rapist was paid 40,000. He demanded 2 lakh for the interview which was later negotiated to 40,000. Might even be tutored. So what happens is, that a roadside goon, who commits such a rape, becomes an overnight filmstar! Is this justice?
India's Daughter: Rape convict paid Rs.40,000 for interview? | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis
Nirbhaya's name was revealed. Is this justice? It isn't even legal.
However, the juvenile's name was chosen not to be revealed, because he was a minor. This is justice at its best! By the way his name was Mohammed Afroze, and as an Indian, I am proud to speak out his name.
Nirbhaya's friend, who was with her on the fateful night, calls 'India's Daughter' a fake film. This person was with her that night, he fought to save her, but got terribly injured. Whom would you believe, him or that British film-maker? Udwin later tried to defend the documentary after saying that he was asking for money. But at the same time she denies giving money to Mukesh, the rapist. So, she means that this brave hero is greedy for money and this bastard rapist is very honest and didn't ask for a single rupee!
Calling this a documentary is an insult to the word 'documentary', when it misused special permissions for research, to make a commercial video.
Tejasvita Apte, Cinephile: Yes, the crazy one
Here is a small question to all the readers -
Suppose you live in a plush high society apartment in Mumbai. You find that there is a wild elephant in your house. You have no idea how it got there. Would you worry about making sure that the elephant doesn't harm you, or would you worry about what your neighbours will say?
Personally, I would care a hang about what my neighbours think when there is a real possibility the elephant will trample me to death.
This question reminds me of such a scenario.
Does India's daughter lower India's image you ask?
May be it does. So? Does BBC have a vested interest? (As I am constantly reminded by some friends) May be it does. So?
Can we really ignore the elephant in the room though? And questions like these are doing exactly that. Ignoring the elephant and going after the fly (imaginary?).
The elephant in the room is the fact that a woman is raped every 20 minutes in India. A bride is burnt every hour for dowry.
Given the gravity of the situation, does it really matter what the outside world thinks of us when this is the official government statistics?
The reality is much worse I am sure.
Therefore if we truly cared about India's reputation, we would first have to start caring about India's daughters. Violence against women is a very real, grave problem. Trying to fix that would be true service to the nation.
Anangsha Alammyan, Indian.
I doubt if we'd find anyone so high up the ladder of success as Mr. ML Sharma openly objectifying women and comparing them to a 'flower' that needs to be protected by men, in any other part of the world.
I know rapes happen elsewhere, but those are more like episodes of uncontrolled lust, and not a long-thought out scheme of 'punishing women' and showing them where they belong.
I doubt if men in any other country think that 80% of the women are 'bad', just because they have male friends and roam around at 9PM.
I know this documentary focuses only on the 'ugly' side of our country, and it would be totally wrong to say that all men here think along the same lines. They certainly do not, and never will. It will most certainly portray our country in a bad light. But it also highlights a particular mindset prevalent among some people in India, and simply shoving it under the carpet and pretending that such things do not happen will only provide ideal conditions for such thought processes to brew faster, thus provoking more such crimes in the future.
Bala Senthil Kumar, Years in cinema, more in life.
Not at all.
But it can reinforce many existing negative perceptions.
India ranks 136 on the Human Development Index. That is not due to this documentary!
The image of India to the world should be way bigger than what can be affected by one criminal incident. When there are way more gruesome crimes taking place all the time, exactly as Leila Seth, former Chief Justice of India says in the film, this incident just got a whole lot more attention, because of the circumstances. The film exploits this.
Oh, I wish some people would shut up already with the nonsense about denying the truth and such rubbish. Who denied the rape took place? It's a well publicized event.
What would shock people is telling them a woman is more likely to get raped in Sweden than in India.