HEY HUYS
PLESE DO COMMENT ABOUT THE RACIST COMMENT TOWARDS PRASHANT TAMANG IN INDION IDOL BY SO CALLED JAVED AKTAR
HERE IS LINK
www.idionidol.sify.com
thanks for being a true nepali

Why?????

Nepali????

Sparrow

kun site ho khuldai nakhulne purna siwakoti jiu

its supposed to be

indianidol.sify.com

but what racist comment ????

rom Telegraph India 21st July 2007

Idol faces stereotype music
- ‘Cliche-wrapped’ chowkidar attire for Tamang upsets hills
OUR BUREAU

A still from the Indian Idol episode
July 20: “Hum bolega to bologe ke bolta hai…” sang Prashant Tamang, and the hills erupted once again.

But it wasn’t in applause for the local boy who has made it to the last 10 of Sony’s Indian Idol contest.

The Gorkha community from Darjeeling to Sikkim — which has been voting en masse for Tamang and even holding rallies in his support — was furious the Calcutta police constable was made to dress up as a chowkidar for the song telecast last night.

“This has humiliated the entire Gorkha community. Does the channel want to send a message that Gorkhas are only meant to be chowkidars?” asked Tenzing Khambachay, commissioner of a Darjeeling municipality ward, voicing a grouse the community has long held.

Hill residents hoisted black flags at Darjeeling Chowrasta when Calcutta police orchestra — where Tamang is the lead singer — performed to drum up support for their colleague. Protest posters surfaced across the hills and residents wore black armbands through the day.

“Such crass stereotyping of our community must be challenged and countered,” said Tshering Topgyal, a Kalimpong resident who had organised a vote-for-Prashant rally a few weeks ago.

Tamang was enacting Pran’s role in the 1974 film Kasauti, where Amitabh Bachchan and Hema Malini play the sahib and memsahib to whom he sings. Two other Indian Idol contestants played Amitabh and Hema in the spoof.

The row over Gorkha typecasting comes soon after a Delhi police booklet for Northeast students was found to reinforce stereotypes.

“How many times do we have to prove ourselves?” asked Darjeeling MLA Pranay Rai. It was because of incidents like these that the hill people had to struggle for their identity — a reference to the Gorkhaland agitation — he said.

The hills have been following with pride the progress of the first local boy in the contest, and voting away furiously. In Indian Idol, which is in its third edition, the fate of contestants depends on the number of audience votes they can poll after each round.

Last month, hill residents had turned violent when SMSes they had sent didn’t reach Sony.

Tamang needn’t worry that the text messages will dry up after the chowkidar act, which sources close to him said he had been unwilling to do.

“It is now time for the hill people to cast as many votes as possible,” said Khambachay, who wondered why Tamang could not have been asked to play the policeman he is.

Stray voices of protest against the youth did rise. “Under no circumstances should he have agreed to do last night’s episode. We have been voting for him because we believed he was one of us. He has let us down,” said Jyoti Karki, a community leader in Kalimpong, who wants him to walk out of the show.

But others appealed to the hills to vote for Tamang with greater vigour. A meeting in Gangtok passed a resolution to continue supporting him.

“Many people have felt angry and hurt with Prashant because of the way he was dressed for the episode. We appeal to them all to continue to vote for him because he was compelled to do so by the channel. We will take up the issue with Sony, said Kishore Moktan, the convener of the Sikkim Journalists’ Forum.

MLA Rai wanted an unconditional apology from the channel.

But a Sony spokesperson in Mumbai said: “It wasn’t our intention to hurt anyone’s sentiments. He was dressed to suit the song. Some weeks back, another contestant, Abhishek, had dressed as a Tamilian to suit the song he was singing. We see nothing wrong in it.”

When:19th Jan, 2007 21:13:30 PM Report • Quote • Post Reply

Click to Enlarge

Joined: 23rd May, 2006
Topic Posts: 9
Total Posts: 883

For all the Curry-Queens copypasted:

The row in Britain, and now in India, over the racist behaviour directed towards Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty during the celebrity game show "Big Brother" raises several questions, beyond this specific case, about the notion of racism itself. What has been highlighted is a widespread and persistent failure to come to terms with the meaning and nature of racism and what constitutes racist behaviour. The current debate therefore provides an opportunity to discuss an issue that has escaped widespread, serious consideration for far too long.


On the day the Shetty controversy broke into the headlines, the Guardian reported that a crown court judge in Exeter had been forced to clarify his views on race after earlier saying he found it "rather odd" that a charge of racially aggravated intentional harassment was brought against a man who called a police surgeon a "f...ing Paki". The Guardian reported that in the case in question the defendant, Matthew Stiddard, had been "complaining of back pains following his arrest for a public order offence at Dawlish in Devon. When Dr [Imraan] Jhetam attended, the 36-year-old said: "F... off you Paki; I want an English doctor, not a f...ing Paki."" The case for bringing a charge for racially aggravated intentional harassment would certainly appear, on this basis, to be fairly clear, and certainly more clear than the source of the judge’s confusion.

This week's events also brought to mind the reaction of Australian cricketer Jimmy Maher to the row over his team-mate Darren Lehmann's description of his Sri Lankan opponents as "black c...s". "[Darren] calls a spade a spade," said Maher, "which is not necessarily a bad thing". Other team-mates rallied round, describing Lehmann's outburst as "out of character", made "in the heat of the moment" by someone who is "universally regarded as a nice guy".

It appears that when it comes to acknowledging instances of racism or racist behaviour for what they are, calling "a spade a spade" is something that not everyone finds particularly easy.

On "Big Brother", Shilpa Shetty's race and nationality have been consistently referred to in the most pejorative of ways and generally used as a stick to beat her with. Her fellow contestants have variously told her to "go back to the slums", asked her whether she lives in a house or a shack, failed or refused to pronounce her name properly on the basis that they didn't speak her language, instead referring to her as "the Indian", with this epithet later upgraded to “Shilpa Poppadom”. One contestant said that "she can't even speak English properly" and that "she should f... off home", another that she "wants to be white". Her personal hygiene has been questioned, on the basis of her race, with informed contestants musing thoughtfully that "they eat with their hands in India, don't they? Or is that China?", and that Indians must be thin because they are always ill as a result of undercooking their food.

Having considered the evidence, the show's broadcaster Channel 4 decided that there had been "no overt racial abuse or racist behaviour". A spokesperson for the bullies' ringleader, Jade Goody, said "I would urge anyone who says that Jade is a racist to produce the evidence to support the claim....I have not heard Jade say anything that could be interpreted as a racist remark." Another of the bullies, Jo O'Meara was defended by a friend, who said: "she's not racist". A friend of the third bully, Danielle Lloyd, said that the suggestion Lloyd was racist was "absolutely absurd. I've known Danielle for five years now and not once has she had a racist undertone in her voice ever," as though the problem were merely one of “undertones”.

Though these defensive responses are perhaps to be expected, they can hardly be seen as justified on that basis alone, or even as coherent when set against the facts. What is more worrying is the palpable reluctance on the part of many (though not all) commentators, talk show guests and others venturing an opinion over the last few days to recognise this undoubtedly racist behaviour for what it is. How can this be explained?

Over time, as immigration into the west has continued from the former colonies and elsewhere, racism has gradually become a taboo (a phenomenon that right-wingers, with customary self-pity, have described as the emergence of 'political correctness'). But whilst racism is now known to be a 'bad thing' - something with which polite and decent people do not associate themselves - society has never made a definitive attempt to confront, discuss and agree a common understanding of what racism actually is. The effect has been perverse. It now appears that rather than discouraging racism, its becoming a taboo has simply meant that no matter how racist a person's behaviour, it is considered beyond the pale, even taboo, to describe it as such. Thus racism persists, now not only misunderstood but also with its very identification becoming a line that many people dare not cross. It is particularly surprising that this mode of thinking may even extend to Shetty herself, an Indian raised in India, who later denied that the abuse she had suffered was racially motivated (though this might also be due to her perception of what was the expedient thing to say whilst she was still involved in the game show and vulnerable to continued bullying).

In attempting to (re)establish what racism actually is, it may be useful to distinguish between the sort of 'hard racism' that brings to mind jackboots and burning crosses and the 'soft racism' which affects a far broader range of people at one time or another. The latter may well be more dangerous than the former, being more widespread and insidious in character. Racism is the making of pejorative assumptions about others on the basis of their race, which may include the hardened opinions held by members of far right parties or the softer assumptions that are only revealed or betrayed in certain situations. We can also identify another distinct concept: racist behaviour. This can take all manner of forms, but in the examples discussed here, it has manifested itself as persistent, aggressively pejorative references to a person’s racial or national background. Its cause can be either 'hard' or 'soft racism', but it should also be pointed out that its root cause maybe neither. Racism is often a symptom of fear, ignorance, jealously or personal animosity.

In other words, barring a few ignorant assumptions, a person may not be much of a racist at all yet still be guilty of behaviour as unequivocally racist as that of Goody, O'Meara and Lloyd. The danger is that with the common understanding of racism so narrow, such behaviour will not be identified as such.

Many of the defences and apologias for the racist behaviour of the Big Brother contestants appear to have an implied theme in common: the person in question is asserted not to be a racist, whilst their actual racist behaviour is either left unaddressed or deemed not racist if it doesn't conform to the strictest definition of 'hard racism'. What this appears to exhibit is a prevalent understanding of 'racism' that is restricted purely to the 'hard' sense of the term, specifically the alleged racist character of the person in question, rather than their actions. Therefore, if a person falls somewhere short of being a card-carrying member of the BNP, then their behaviour can not be racist by definition, no matter what they have actually said or done. The effect of the taboo (as opposed to an understanding of the problem) of 'hard racism' has been a widespread refusal to acknowledge the more common forms of 'soft racism' and general racist behaviour. Needless to say that this does not leave us well equipped to deal with the realities of racism as it actually exists.

Racism that falls short of overt Nazism is no small matter. There are large numbers of people who have experienced at first hand, in schools and in workplaces up and down the country, racist bullying identical to that seen on "Big Brother". They will also recognise, with depressing familiarity, the squirming authority figure who refuses to live up to their basic responsibilities and defend the victim or restrain the racists. These people will no doubt recognise what is happening in the “Big Brother” house for what it is, and probably make up a large proportion of the tens of thousands of people who have complained to the communications regulator Ofcom about the treatment of Shetty.

Indeed, this brand of collective bullying, characterised by the ignorant besmirching of the victim’s character and tacitly condoned if not actively exploited by those whose responsibility is to prevent such behaviour from occurring has been exemplified on a grand scale by the now familiar attacks on asylum seekers in the UK. We have seen a hysterical tabloid hate campaign in recent years against refugees and ‘economic migrants’, condoned and even exploited by politicians of both main parties at the highest levels, inevitably accompanied with plaintive whines that “its not racist to talk about immigration”. This has gone together with a rise in physical attacks on immigrants, some of which have been fatal. Recent manufactured controversies over British Muslims also fit into this trend of collective scapegoating, bullying and ignorant hysteria. Racism is certainly not the preserve of skinhead thugs. Those complicit in the phenomenon may come from all walks of life and draw on a variety of motivations, not only heartfelt racial hatred.

Pulling back from the prevailing narrow definition of racism, and engaging with the problem in all its forms, depth and complexity, will reveal many other issues of concern, in addition to racist bullying. We may come to recognise the straightforward racism of the "clash of civilisations" paradigm so beloved of the political class, wherein the west cultivates a conceited image of itself as being essentially liberal and benign, with other cultures caricatured in opposition as backward and in need of correction. We may come to recognise the instrumental effect such prejudice has in formulating foreign policies that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, as it has done throughout the history of imperialism in all its guises.

Racism remains a dangerous, blunt instrument, wielded both by ordinary ignorance and institutional power. In what many believe to be an enlightened western culture an assumption persists that it is no longer a significant problem. On the contrary, not only does the issue of racism persist, it is still not even properly understood, to the point where many seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge its existence when they see it.

***********************

Just comparing the above two.....Just calling shilpa as 'Popodum' could rage the indian populatiion so much...would not any nepalese get furious by depicting prashant as 'Chowkidar'-Was that part necessary at all.

i think prashant sud hav refused to play as chowkidar
its his fault

I think, chowkidaar is also a human being, whether it is Nepali or Indian or else. Prashant was doing drama; acting in a stage with such a good performance; not resembling Nepali or gorkha community. Think positive!! It was a demand of a song what he sang. See, Emon performed as a typical south indian in one of his shows- it doesn't mean that it is humiliating south indians. It is worthless to discuss like what somebody is saying Sony TV humiliated Gorkhas.
It is no doubt that Prashant is one of the best singers and deserves to be an Indian Idol. Indian Idol is an entertainment show and show for tallents to show their tallencies. Prashant is one of them!! Good Luck Prashant!

Dont compare Emon performing as typical south indian here
IF that was so y din they make prashant wear daura suruwal???
i think sony does not want prashant to be an idol

and what positive thinkin yaar?
chaukidar wala issue ta pahile dekhi nai aairako cha , its a debatable matter
and stiil dhotis want to show the world about how they think about nepali
there is nothing positive man
i think prashant was also not happy doing it but he did it

to show all dhotis also PRASHANT sud be the IDOL

I'm not surprised at all. I've always believed this...Indian are some of the most racist, ethnocentric, narrow minded race of people on this earth, not Americans, which I was told a few years back. During this Indian Idol frenzy, if you didn't notice something earlier, you would have never seen this thing coming.
Did you see on one of the past episode, the contestants were making fun of the Chinese guy by making remark of this chinky eye, I mean they were literally going around with their finger around their eyes (the usual Asian eye sign). It shocked me and took me back in time to realize what these people are like (still immature for global economy)
Now it's time for the Nepali to face the humiliation. See the trend. For God sake, there's no sense of PC and accountability among the desi. For those people who've no problem with this, I just want to say that you've have a choice, take the insult or stand for it once and for all on the national level. You know they could have chosen Prasant to do other role, why Chowkidar? Coincidence? Or blatant stereotype?
Had it been there in the US, the show would have been canceled already, with tons of lawsuit.

The site is http://indianidol.sify.com. Purna Siwakoti mis-spelled that site. Enjoy Guys!

Those f**kin dhoti did make fun of all Nepalese by dressing Prashant as chowkidar. Where is the diginity and unity of Nepalese ppl. Wake up guys. Look at those f**ckin assh*les they made such a big issue in "Big Brother" about racism and what are they doing.Those mf hypocrites. Even that so fu**kin called Javed Akhtar discriminated and made a raciest remarks. See http://indianidolclips.blogspot.com/
Scroll it down to the end and see the last part where he said to indian ppl to be careful when they vote and see if the constant they vote speak their language or not( which clearly points at Prashant), if he's from their country or not. Go to hell u dhotis, Slaves of British ppl.

Some comments from other ppl for INDIAN IDOL3Anonymous commented:


Vote for Prashant!!! He must win to overcome the damn racist panel like Shilpa Shetty has won Big Brother from sympathy votes. Mr. Prashant take it ease and make the mouth shut of Mr. Malik, Javed and Alisha who always against you eventhough you doing well. They are all totally racist and they just trying to damage the image of your singing career. They are all bullshit....Paul from England commented:


So called judges are totally racist when Javed start saying regarding race, religion, language blah blah blah and raised voice to vote for gals, it is absolutely disgusting in IId3. Judges are lack of perception power and they are insane. They all are reknowned and popular individuals but why they don't satisfy with Mr. Prashant's performance when he did singing very well. One of the commentator said Prashant voice is thin I totally disagree coz his vocal is superb and suite for romantic songs.

Accept the fact guys, Prashant is one of the poorest singer of the remaining 9 participants. Regarding the issue of receiving comments from Judges, as far as I can remember, Emon, Puja and Smirit (all Bengali and Anu Mallik too is Bengali) has received far worst comments than what Prashant has received so far. If wearing the clothes of Chaukidaar is an issue, why did Prashant decide to wear it. And above all he was just acting and the song that has Pran character in the movie as a Chaukidaar and he was simply portraying it. Why such a fuss about it???

Being a musician....
I personally think.. Prashant has a different Voice...
BUT.......................

AMIT POUL has the every Talent to be an indian idol...

AMIT will be an indian idol for sure..

Without trainning Prashant has such an amazing voice. If he gets formal trainning, what is he gonna do? I seriously think Amit and Prashant has the best voice among all. Emon he sings like women in high tone. Without Trainning Prashant can give them tough fight, if he wins, he will get a chance to work with great musicians and he will improve a lot. Look at Pooja, Parleen, Abishek, Chang they don't have melody. With training they sing so poorly, without training I cannot imagine. Everybody has ups and downs. Prashant did too well in the previous rounds, the judges and public have high exception from him. Now when he is doing alright performances, the judges and people are not happy, they except more from him. People cannot always performe at the high level. Guys give him a breathing room. I think he is gonn give one or two alright performances and his level will rise again. So, lets support him and vote for him. He will definately do better after couple of galas. I didn't see Parleen's, Abshick's, Chang's, Pooja's, Deepali's and Emon's best performances are better than Prashant's. I think Prashant's alright performance is equal to these trained contestants' best performances. Only Amit and Ankita were better than Prashant. Rest is all built by judges.Prashant alright performances were made poor by judges. Actually, it is not bad at all.Listen all the contestants songs again, you will find it out. When I listened for the 1st time with judges comments, I think he really did poorly, When I listened his as well as all the other contestants again, I found he did alright. As I said already, only Amit and Ankita were better.So, either Prashant, Amit or Ankita deserves to be an Indian Idol. Being a nepali I prefer Prashant plus he has to look after his familiy

agree with seiko. amit deserves to be indian idol. No doubt that prashant is also a good singer-but not super than Amit. As a viewer, I can see that Amit can sing any kinds of songs easily unlike prashant. I like to see Amit to be Indian Idol and Ankita to be 2nd, Prashant in 3rd!

may b bcoz we nepali have been always chaukidar of indians (either in india ) or in usa as gas station clerks .. dhotis are clerks for many nepalese and do many work that nepalese don;t do .. but dhotis are great in number and nepalese working for dhoti are greater in number than dhotis working for nepali .. anyway this is truth ... whatever way we think ..