Sadhu IndianApr 11th, 2007 - 11:43:46

YET ANOTHER FARCE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE OF INDAI
This halabulu about Liz Hurley's wedding is turning out to be a real joke.
The confused psyche of the Indian has to be accounted for; in all the preparations of the wedding were not Indian nationals who knew better, involved? Who was in charge of the, [I must say rather strongly]- 'vulgar' arrangements in Jodhpur and no one knew what it is all about? Who conducted the wedding and who all stood witnesses to it all? Why were objections not raised then and there? We must not run away from the fact people who knew better took part as mute 'spineless' witnesses to the so called 'tamasha' of a religious ceremony,now we are breastbeating that the sanctity of it was compromised.... this can only be farcical-there is nothing of sense and reason here, I am afraid. Obviously 'we' let it all happen in our country and then we now waste precious resources that can be better used for the well being of the people of India, the ones who struggle to eke out a meaningful existence in 'great' India. We make ourselves silly when we behave as 'reactionaries'. When will Indians become more 'proactive' upholding and standing up for values, I wonder.

Report this comment

Joe K.Apr 11th, 2007 - 13:24:38

I say, 'WHO CARES!?!?!?!' This is just a huge publicity stunt for her struggling career.

Report this comment

armendielApr 11th, 2007 - 14:17:37

They are talking about legal action due to 'hurt feelings?' That is ridiculous. It is not the governments job to protect someone's feelings from one or two instances of...whatever. Continued harassment, sure, as that would be infringing upon the rights of others.
I live in the southern United States where most of the Southern Baptists will rail on someone who 'sinfully' works on Sunday, but that will not stop them from gathering together to eat at some restaurant. Should they all be sued? I'm talking class action on the grounds that those poor people who have to work on Sundays in order to not get evicted should be compensated so that they don't have to be sinful? Who would pay for this? The churchgoers? Certainly not. I waited tables in college and the absolute worst customers were the church crowd. They had already tithed to Jesus, why should they tip some sinner who shouldn't even be working anyway? Stupid, stupid, stupid. I really wish common sense would replace religion in the matters of the law.

Report this comment

Shane PayneApr 11th, 2007 - 15:17:52

The problem I see with this person being upset that someone from another country than their own has done somthing that does not go along with their beliefs is this. I am from the USA. I have lived here all my life and I have my own beliefs. Of course not everybody that lives here is from this country. I dont have a problem with that. In America we are expected to accept any faith and let those that follow their own beliefs follow them without consequence and without hindering their right to do so. If we attempt to make them follow what we believe we are horrible people that do not understand their faith. We are expected to allow them to worship as they would in their own country. My problem is that we dont get that same respect when visiting those other countries. No matter who you are or what your faith, you are expected to follow their beliefs and respect them. What would happen if, in order for immigrants from any country to be able to live in America or visit here, they would have to live by and follow our religous beliefs? It would anger a lot of people.

Report this comment

Joe KleinApr 11th, 2007 - 16:57:40

It's all about money. In the Indian/Hindu tradition, the bride is suppose to pay a dowry, normally in cash, to her new in-laws for marrying their son. The bridegroom is like some kind of sacred cow. In Liz case, that didn't happen. If the in-laws are really concern over religious, moral issues, they would have raised hell long time ago. Liz & her new hubby were living together out of wedlock. They were sleeping together & having sex. The in-laws knew then, so why didn't they say anything? Like I say, it's all about money. If Liz was to give them a few million bucks earlier, they would have shut up & wouldn't care if they were having an orgy in public in India.

Report this comment

GajApr 12th, 2007 - 01:44:12

I do not think Vinod Nayar is after Liz's money any ways. On the contrary it is the lady who is after the 2 million (or whatever) pounds that she is to gain from her marriage from the Hello! magazine.
Its not a question of following a local custom here, I guess nowhere in the world is it the custom to throw out the father of the groom for taking snaps of the happy moment. Or is it not the norm to invite seniors (read grandmother of the groom) to the marriage ceremony?
Also given that she has been planning this event for a while now, one would have hoped that Liz would (or atleast Arun) would have the deceny to take off the shoes during the marriage ceremony as is the norm per Hindu traditions. I am sure no one forced them to go through the 'pain' of marrying in a poor country like India.Its not as if she was marrying in a forest surrounded by snakes or insects, this was being held at one of the most luxurious palace hotels in the world,leave alone India.

Report this comment