MovieChat Forums > Amu (2005) Discussion > Why end with

Why end with

posted 15 years ago by sophiaspring
3 replies | jump to latest

I find it upsetting that it ended with Ghodra train fire without mention of the atrocities of Gujrat and without clarifying that Ghodra was in fact an inside job as has been proven while muslims were blamed to set the burning and violence against muslims in place. The govt. politicians, BJP, Modi and Hindutva all worked toegether and provided muslim houses lists to mobs who were provided petrol etc. The same Modi is still in charge of Gujrat and some of the same people from 1984 and Gujrat are succeeding in govt. and rank as we speak.

[–] RRHowell41 14 years ago

Actually, to have gone farther would have been to dilute the message of the movie. Instead, what you wound up with was a subtle reference to a different set of riots that had had very much the same modus operandi as the riots covered in this movie, though with a different ethnic group.

This is a very powerful movie.

[–] jtdeclercq 13 years ago

I agree. Why expect the director to spell out the entire range of atrocities which have taken place over the years? For starters, the mass killings linked to the Partition of British India between India and Pakistan. Or, following the razing of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the riots in Dharavi early 1993, which spread over the country and left two thousand dead.

India has a history of communal violence. One can't expect a director to spell it all out. What she did, symbolically, was to touch upon the unavoidability of violence, be it ethnic and/or religious related.

[–] RRHowell41 13 years ago

Hopefully not entirely unavoidable.

Still praying for peace in the upshot of the Ayodhya decision, but it seems to be holding for now.

That there will never be another riot seems unlikely.

That India will somehow find her equilibrium, and heal the many wounds--that is the hope and prayer of many.