Originally Posted by
P_R
First of all I disagree with this framework 'ngREn.
Hindus as kroop entity-yE aNNan oththukkuradhu illeengaLE.
As he mentioned in the anu kaapi kadai, he was bringing up how the larger Gods in the Hindu pantheon absorbed the 'smaller deities'. in the Dasa, possibly for the first time in Tamil screen, he brings up the idea that what is nearly imperceptibly integrated today, were pretty much different 'religions' even a few centuries back.
You talk about 'their' atrocities against 'us' in 700 years. Framework-E unselected.
There is no 'us'. In Hey Ram, he demolishes the pointlessness of 'us and them' and how this feeling of victimization is something we don't relate to, judging an group by a representative just does not cut and so on.
Even in Thevar Magan, most notably he sidestepped making it a Thevar-Dalit conflict. That is quite glaring. But he morphed his theme accordingly. And he got away with saying 'kAttumirANdippaya koottam', which is highly judgemental and incendiary, merely by taking advantage of playing a thEvar and having Sivaji speak neutralizing lines.
So, if you are accusing him of being equally bound by the constraints then oh sure.
What he is managing to do within those constraints is what is to be observed.
He is fleshing out the critique to be deeper (of course, he is losing his subtlety these days, adhu vERa vishayam) than the usual ones that are in the market - and I allege the Hindu right react strongly to him precisely because he really engages at a deeper level.
Balance paNRadhukku enakku oru Mulsim villain-ai kAttu; Quraan, Bible-la inninna lines ellAm yEththukka mudiyAdhu-nnu sollu - appo dhaan naan oththukkuvEn -nu sonNA obviously you are going to be disappointed.
And lastly, not about Kamal, in general what I have found curious about these critiques is this: 'we' are tolerant unlike 'them' ; therefore we get criticized ; the inescapable conclusion is that we have to get intolerant of criticism.