Consider you go to a shopping mall and go to the soap section and you find soaps from only 'one' brand on sale. You have no other option to choose from because 'some people' think that since you live in India, this is the only soap you should be using. All other brands will make your skin peel. So they have banned all other soaps. Can you live with it ?? Is that justified that someone else should decide what option you should choose - by banning all other options ??
Same goes with entertainment. We all were once fans of SRK for whatever he used to do onscreen. Then few audiences changed their taste of entertainment and couldn't derive the same pleasure from the open arms of SRK as earlier and started finding pleasure in the likes of Irrfan and Nawazuddin Siddiqui.
Now, all of these artists can co-exist and keep producing their stuff, and serve their respective audiences. This is how audiences as a whole - gets diversification in the offerings to fulfill their entertainment needs.
Now, SRK for movies (in India) is what Kapil Sharma is for stand-up comedy (in India) and what Chetan Bhagat is for books (in India). They have their own audiences to serve. And, they are doing it perfectly.
Now imagine, its imposed on your face that every friday only SRK's movie will be released and book-stalls willl only sell Chetan Bhagat's book and you are bound to laugh only on Kapil Sharma's jokes. All other artists are banned because you live in India and you are not allowed to get exposed to any other stuff. Entertain yourself with what these 3 gentlemen are serving to you.
Why?
Because all other artists are not following traditional guidelines, producing taboo stuff and by watching them you will learn the cuss words, which we assume you are not at all exposed to till now, and you never use them in your day-to-day life. So, every other stuff - "Banned" !!
Now, majority of the population will not be bothered by this ban as they were anyways busy watching "Comedy nights with Kapil Sharma" and are pretty much getting all that they want from a comedy show.
But what about the rights of others who want options in entertainment. What about the rights of the artists who want to innovate and provide unconventional stuff by pushing the envelope in any field ?
When you set a boundary for the entire society to live in a certain limits with pre-defined options, you are actually hampering the growth of the society overall. As well as you are killing an innovative idea in the mind of the artist itself fearing what would be its consequences if he pens it down. He would be banned ! He would be FIR'd ! What more ? He would be killed ? Hail Democracy !!
It should be audience's discretion to watch or not-to-watch certain content based on their known allergies. Even if its on TV, you have an option to change the channel if you don't like it. Forget about Internet where it requires an instrument, an internet connection and most importantly a will to click on a certain stuff. Don't click if you don't wanna watch it. Don't have an internet connection if you are okay with television laid stuff. Nobody is pushing you for anything.
Its like you go to a restaurant and gets pissed off by them serving fish to the customers just because you are a vegetarian. On top of that, you force the restaurant owner to stop serving the fish to others as well because you are allergic to fishes. Wow !! Man, you have option to step out of the restaurant and eat somewhere where it suits your needs and likes. Its as simple as that !!
Finally, I think the people who are against the AIB video and worked so hard to pull it down are no better than the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo. Freedom of speech is fundamentally violated in both the cases.
#NoCountryForFunnyMen
#AIBKnockout
