Pahlaj Nihalani is right. Udta Punjab can't fly

Prannay Pathak
Prannay PathakJun 10, 2016 | 13:50

Pahlaj Nihalani is right. Udta Punjab can't fly

I feel for Udta Punjab. What were you thinking, Chaubeyji, when you wrote the film? Tell me, tell me now, didn't you just copy some immoral Hollywood film about drugs and violence?

Now listen carefully.

The white man cannot confuse Mr Nihalani. Ever since he has set foot in our land, all we have known about dogs is that they must be Tommy or Tuffy. Or if someone gets too adventurous, they name them Bruno.


These foreigner-inspired hippie filmmakers go on writing films like they were expecting an Oscar for them! Ridiculous. Be responsible, Chaubey. Have doggish names for dogs. If Tommy and Tuffy are too mainstream for you, you could have called him Bholu, or Lalu, couldn't you?

What would Mahesh ji think when he sees his child abusing on-screen, you tell me, Chaubeyji?

This is the very problem of pseudo-intellectuals like you in the country today. They're hell-bent on subverting everything in the country today! If you missed out on elementary education, let me tell you that Jackie Chan is the name of a human. Tommy Singh is the name of a dog. You did the exact opposite.

Were you trying to be too funny? Do you realise that people could start having more names for their dogs? Tell me, Chaubeyji?

Your funny and immoral game of names doesn't stop just yet. Is this what Udta Punjab was supposed to mean? Let me tell you, that if we had not thought that this was the name of a movie about Punjab's culture of Bhangra and Lassi, of its flourishing dairy industry and its tranquil, gleaming sunflower fields, we would have immediately stalled the shooting of this movie.

Who in the entire Bharat had known that Udta was supposed to mean high? O ji Chaubeyji, Udta means flying — Flying Sikh, Flying Birds, even Flying Fox at times. And you called the partner-state of the Green Revolution, banjar?


Our good Mr Nihalani considered the fact that there are characters in parallel cinema that abuse under the influence of drugs, but why is Shahid abusing even when he is sober, you tell me, Chaubeyji?

Let me tell you in clear terms, you who are clearly obsessed with Tarantino's neurotically-excessive usage of the word "f*ck" in Pulp Fiction, that we Indians don't abuse when we are sober. We have rules to utter abuses.

We don't do it till we are adults, and while we are at home. We show our utmost obedience and go get water for our parents when there's a sex scene going on in a movie. Thanks to you guys, our children have learned to abuse way before they are mature enough.

We abuse when there's a traffic jam, or when there's a call for the payment of a bill, or when there's a fistfight in the street. Tell me, who in our Indian homes swears out loud like an uncultured drug addict?

And by the way, I have never seen anyone snorting drugs like that, the way you show in your movies.

Okay, having put you guys under the incorrigible category of parallel cinema that simply refuses to act responsibly, wasn't it enough that Mr Nihalani had allowed even the cherubic, juvenile, Alia Bhatt to abuse*?


Even her, my god. We will not let the innocence of childhood be damned by filmmakers who write under the influence of drugs themselves. What would Mahesh ji think when he sees his child abusing on-screen, you tell me, Chaubeyji?

Even if he doesn't, we will not let the message go across that it is okay for schoolgirls to abuse.

Dear Anurag Kashyap and his Chela Chaubeyji, don't try to prove you have the b***s. Mr Nihalani, long ago, fixed cats there. You don't make films, you make a fuss for the sex toy you have made out of cinema*.

Drugs di (Jai) mata di.


Last updated: June 10, 2016 | 16:23
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy