Answer by Omkar Patil:
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!
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. But this is the number claimed by the most pessimistic social worker.
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.
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?
Have a look at these links.
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?
Hats off tofor collecting the following link :
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?
Here is the short and bitter summary of today’s discussions on BBC documentary –
1.We outright reject any stats, incidents, numbers given to prove how Western society is severely suffering from the same disease and probably much more than us. Probably a deep down self hatred.
2. We let go Nirbhaya’s parents rights in our desperation to protect a British film maker’s rights. Probably a colonial mindset.
3. We reject and ignore the law of the land which was openly flouted while filming and release. Probably used to live under banana Republic.
4.We stoop so low that we start sympathising with rapist saying “he only showed society a mirror”. Out of some progressive backward race Battle.
5.We mock and blame those who are sick of this sale of someone’s pain by calling them patriarchal minds. Desperation out of ” we know it better” syndrome.
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?
Nirbhaya’s name was revealed. Is this justice? It isn’t even legal.
U/s 228A of Indian Penal Code, No person can disclose the name of the rape victim and if anybody discloses the name, he shall be punished with either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable for fine.
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.
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.
Some people are “shocked” after seeing the mindset of a rapist. They call it an “awareness documentary”.
What at all did you expect him to say?
Did you really think he will feel guilty? Can such an inhumane monster who can insert a rod, ever feel guilty?
Also, how do the controversial statements by the defendant lawyers show the true face of the ‘society’?
The biggest mistake these lawyers do is accept such cases, being greedy. They already know that it is impossible for them to win such cases, so naturally they make controversial statements. They don’t believe in what they speak, but speak it out of greed, for money. That is why, ‘Devil’s Advocate’ is a term for such people.
They also appear to be paid by Udwin, probably much more than Mukesh. So, it is stupid to perceive what they speak as the thoughts of ‘Educated Indian society’.
This is blatant stereotyping, stereotyping a few people to be the face of Indian society.
has shown it snapshot wise in this answer:
But wait, when was the last time BBC interrogated terrorists for “awareness”? By that logic, shouldn’t the videos released by ISIS be shown on television for ‘awareness’?
I can also justify showing these beheading videos, by speaking bullshit like “Why the truth should be hidden?”, “It is against freedom of speech”, “Why to hide from the world a video, which is just showing a mirror to the Islamic society”. Never mind, just an analogy.
This is how the western media reacted:
So congratulations, India has already got defamed.
Have you ever come across this Quora question?
Regarding the awareness argument, some say truth should not be hidden. “Is truth really hidden?” For the awareness of the public, aren’t the newspapers enough?
For those who think that this was the most inhumane rape, just search on google “most inhumane rape”, you will come to know about most inhumane form of rapes, most of which are outside India.
The reason some people are supporting BBC is that they are being too emotional and not logical. They are thinking more with their heart and less with their brain. I have explained enough about BBC’s hidden agenda. Also, showing something racist and controversial is likely to make it a commercial success worldwide.
Ultra-feminists and liberals will always find an excuse to defend this documentary. I don’t know why they perceive speaking against the documentary as supporting rapes. Rape is a big issue in India, (though not as big as compared to most of the countries), no doubt regarding that a crime as gruesome as rape needs to be addressed. Awareness needs to be spread, but care should be taken that the awareness is positive. Negative form of sensationalism as in this documentary, will only spew hatred. Huge number of people are already angry about the rape problem and this anger is justified.
However, extreme anger will result in incidents like the Dimapur lynching incident.
Anarchists would stupidly justify this by saying, that is what should be done so that men won’t dare to rape.
What about false rape accusations? Should we go out and kill each and everyone accused of rape? There are reports that that this person was innocent. Whatever it may be, but angry mob can’t decide who is a innocent and who is guilty.
That is why we need to believe in judiciary.
Media tries to spread awareness and hopes that the rapes will reduce after it spreads awareness. However, it fails to show the complete picture. A person accused of rape is readily declared as a rapist by the Indian media. But in case he is really innocent and gets acquitted, he still loses all the respect in the society and becomes an outcast. Media doesn’t apologize him, neither do they make a news that this person was innocent.
I won’t have any problem, if documentaries are made positively, aiming at solutions rather than the problem.
Some people would still say, “Agreed it is a poor documentary, but why ban it?”
I have enough explained how the content is objectionable, and freedom of speech doesn’t mean any objectionable content should be allowed.
However, the ban was just because of multiple breach of laws.
Even the court has refused to remove the ban.
Anarchists will still oppose the ban and disrespect the judiciary.
If you are a non-Indian reading this, please understand that I am not throwing mud on other countries by showing the stats, but I simply mean that India is not a country of rapists.
Those who still desperately want to find flaws in my arguments, ask yourself are you proud as an Indian.
Thanks for promoting
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,