I think that the movie was pathetic... A very important and sensitive issue was not handed well.. The story line was jerky and some of the characters crass.. There were also issues related to appropriateness (south Indian style flowers in the hair and dress in Benares is difficult to swallow... ) References to Gandhi were sad, disjointed, inappropriate and irrelevant... All in all I don't think that Deepa Mehta has understood India. She has tried to pick a sensitive issue and make it sensational... reading the brief on the jacket you will know what I mean... The Bajrang Dal raising objections just proves that they too are ignorant and operating on misinformation... they just managed to hype up the film..

having said all that... the issue is important.. I have something to say on that as well...

The verses of Manu referenced in the film do talk badly of widows but they must be read in context of the time that they were written.. {Tukaram the great Maharashtrian saint and social reformer said 'be kind to slaves'... we cannot turn back 450 years later and say that Tukaram was evil because he condoned slavery! all he was doing was being realistic and HUMANE at that time}... Manu's laws are around 1500 BC... 3500 years ago... They may appear to be wrong today but may not have been wrong in the context of the time then... What was the position of women then? ... they had no rights to property, profession or even name (let alone identity).. Their identity and status came from the man in their life (father / brother or husband)... what happens to a young widow then? she has been married off and hence her father would have nothing to do with her... for her in laws she was a burden... she had no skill / no property and no means of supporting herself... what could she do? just what thousands of women are doing now... commercial sex work! (while saying this one must not forget that not all women had to do it... Those who had grown up sons were cared for... only a small portion ended up in Benares... that too was 'just a financial matter of not spending on her upkeep and not tradition / religion' as John Abraham says to Seema Biswas.. I am not condoning Manu... I just think that the laws are not relevant NOW... perhaps they were then... did you know that the first three US Presidents were slave owners?

The reference to the 34 million widows figure in the census of 2001 in context of the film and the situation there is just humbug.. Yes there are 34 million widows (probably an equal number of deserted / destitute and bigamous wives)... but their situation is not that of the widows shown in the movie... Times have changed and well... The statement is clever... It is not untrue... but it is not the whole truth as well.. After all the moment we don't allow widows to participate in haldi kumkum, do kanyadaan and perform other religious functions we are oppressing them socially and culturally. ... in reality the situation of widows is BAD but not as bad as the film (for instance only in some remote pockets of karnataka will you still find widows, all of them very old, with shaven heads)... They do have much more rights and awareness.. also society is changing and we will be where the Western world is in a few decades...

Deepa Mehta is posturing as a 'film maker with a social conscience and a votary of women's rights'... I think that she is just a shrewd film maker but not a good one at that... if she wanted to talk of the issue, she would have set in today's time and referenced back to the 1930s and earlier... The movie contributes nothing to social debate.. FIRE did that to a certain extent... FIRE ultimately did well more for its salacious content than debate... I hope that the movie does not get an Oscar.. it will be shameful..

Yes meeta... it is bad for widows in India..they are not allowed to take part / perform the simplest of religious ceremonies... no such restrictions for widowers..BUT it is not as bad as the situation they are showing in the movie... the country has progressed beyond that.. the reference to 34 million is therefore not untrue but could be misleading...