Anbumani Ramadoss has replied to bharathiraja and said, "Regarding the jai Bhim affair, you wrote me a letter. I'm glad you mentioned that you wrote the letter to me as a field fighter and as an artist who documented social justice in film at a time when no one else dared. No one has a counter-argument to the oppressed people fighting for their rights, regardless of who they are. Today, no one in tamil Nadu can match Ramadoss' ability to fight for the disadvantaged and deliver them social justice.

The dispute surrounding the film jai Bhim is neither a caste nor a political issue. This is a societal issue. The societal issue is that the Vanniyar community, tamil Nadu's aboriginal community, which is dedicated to the development of the state and the needs of its people, is being systematically and repeatedly degraded. It saddens me that neither you nor the film business have a good grasp of this subject.

Would you and the Thevar community be idle if there was a picture of Muthurama Lingadeva in the jai Bhim movie, a calendar hanging in the house of the racist, cruel, psycho-police assistant inspector (villain) who chanted that the nation and divinity you worship is my two eyes, and no fiery grenade symbolising the Vanni? Or would they have boiled over if the Kongu had a calendar printed with a photo of Deeran Chinnamalai, the fruitful field of heroism presented beside God? What if there was an image of Annal Ambedkar on the wall? Have you been sitting on your hands when it comes to creative freedom?

But let me just clarify that I would have been the first to oppose any of the above sequences in the movie. Is actor surya the only one who has artistic freedom? Why was actor vijay sethupathi refused creative control over a film about Sri Lankan batsman Muttiah Muralitharan? Remember how you drafted the letter of harsh condemnation?"
For more interesting updates wa click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel

Find out more:

suriya

SIBY JEYYA

20/11/2021 06:00 AM