After complaints that a film by a Sikh director and a Sikh actor is insulting to Sikhism, some protozoans hid bombs in two Delhi theaters (thanks, Sapna). At least 44 people were wounded when the bombs went off this evening, some critically:
Bombs exploded inside two movie theatres showing a controversial Hindi-language film in the Indian capital on Sunday, injuring at least 20 people, officials said. Both theatres are located in the Karol Bagh neighbourhood of west Delhi and the explosions occurred 15 minutes apart, said Junior Home Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal.At least 13 people were injured in the first blast at the Liberty Cinema about 20:30 (15:00 GMT), chief fire officer RC Sharma said. The explosive was planted under a seat in the front rows, he said. About 15 minutes later, another explosion rocked the nearby Satyam Cinema, wounding at least seven people, Sharma said. At Satyam, the bomb went off inside the washroom. [News 24]
There’s some discrepancy regarding where the first bomb was placed:
The intensity of the blast was so powerful that the police fear that many of the injured, who are currently undergoing treatment at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, may succumb to their injuries… Explosions, suspected to be caused by bombs, occurred at Liberty cinema hall took place in the rear stall during the screening of the controversial film Jo Bole So Nihaal. The blast at Satyam took place in a toilet. PVR cinema halls in south Delhi has also been evacuated as a precautionary measure. [Times of India]
Members of Sikhism’s highest body, the Akal Takht, said the film, Jo Bole So Nihaal, was ok by them, so I wonder about the rationality of blowing people up in a neighborhood that’s itself full of Sikhs. It’s true that it’s not entirely cool to explicitly play to dismissive stereotypes — the official site begins with ‘He is cute! He is adorable!’ And using a religious phrase as a title was bound to chafe in a religion-obsessed country:
Some Sikh groups had taken offence at the use of the religious phrase in the title and to some scenes in the film which showed characters entering Sikh places of worship without removing their shoes and covering their heads — considered sacrilege by Sikhism. [Reuters]
But dissing a movie is the realm of bloggers and movie reviewers. This violent reaction to a schlocky, anti-terrorist Bollywood film is self-defeating on every level. You think a movie insults religion and shows people in a bad light? Try mass murder. I hope these criminals are hunted down and granted the love of a good Indian jailer.
Like Kal Ho Naa Ho, the movie is set partly in New York and shows off the Brooklyn Bridge. It’s playing at Loews State in Times Square:
… Sikh groups demanded a ban on it. They were angered by its title and scenes depicting a Sikh character being chased by scantily clad women.
I have no doubt that Vikram Chatwal begged to be included.
Here are more news stories about the bombings.
The defence minister seems to like that government angle: ‘Terrorists strike occasionally to make their presence felt,’ Mukherjee said late yesterday, adding the bombers could have staged the weekend blasts to send a message to the government. The blasts occurred on the first anniversary of the Congress-led coalition government taking power after ousting the Hindu nationalists. ‘Terrorists struck in Kashmir last year when the (Congress-led) United Progressive Alliance came to power,’ Mukherjee pointed out.
No, youÂ’ve left your initial post at bombing by Sikhs due to Sikh film.
You really should see someone about that anti-Sikh attitude. If you didn’t have a bias against Sikhs you would not hesitate to amend your initial post to show that no link between the bombs and film/Sikhs have been found. But why should I expect someone, who thinks only of Sikhs as either “jolly sardars” or terrorists, to edit his initial post to reflect at the very least that there is no evidence yet that the bombings are due to Sikhs or the film. You will bend over backwards to avoid jumping to conclusions about the LeT being involved in this bombing yet you had no problem claiming that the Sikhs are involved. Why not even a shred of doubt of for the “jolly sardarjis” in your initial post?
Has anyone seen the film yet? Is it offensive?
All that aside, I think we are all speculating too much. There is no concrete evidence yet, only speculation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4575267.stm
In terms of the Sikh community, it is offensive that everyone jumps to the conclusion that a Sikh is to blame for the bombings. Even though such action by a Sikh has not been seen in the past decade. The last incident was the one involving the Air India flight which was a victim of suicide bombing on the coast of Scotland.
Did you even read this post?
My grandfather was Sikh. I knew gurudwara before I knew temple. Here’s what I’ve written on Sikhs:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
I find it incredibly racist of you to ignore Amardeep’s analysis, the same as mine, simply because he’s a Sikh:
You are, frankly, acting like an ignorant ass. I will call it like I see it no matter what you think.
Amardeep didn’t create this post, so why should I ask him to change it. You wrote this anti-Sikh post so why pass the buck to Amardeep.
I’m only 14, so acting like an ignorant ass ain’t out of the ordinary for me. The way you call it you see Sikhs linked to the bombings… without any proof or verfication… so you are acting like ignorant anti-Sikh ass. What’s your excuse?
Oh man, do I feel silly for arguing. Sorry, bro.
Anyhow, continue to believe what you want. I see ‘protozoa’ who want to ban the film as the motive. Since you automatically see ‘anti-criminal’ as ‘anti-all Sikhs,’ consider who’s doing the stereotyping.