User:Kuaichik/Pettipettietc

a section called "Reasons for Exodus"
on History of the Romani people
- below the "Origin and Diaspora" section,
along with the edit summary: "Reference to Banjara (feel free to reformat this info, not necessarily to delete it)"

(After I removed the population figure for India, Rezistenta removed it.)

Rezistenta, I did read the link, and I know the Banjara (or Lambani) are "gypsies." However, they are not necessarily Romani. In spite of what you may like to think, though, this page is specifically about the Romani people. That's why we have Gypsy as a disambiguation page here on Wikipedia.

Before removing the population figure for India, I contacted the user who put it up in the first place. He asked me to provide some reasoning, and I did. So he agreed but also suggested that I make a reference to the Banjara in the History section, and I did that, too.

And everything was just fine until you came along and reinserted the population figure for no reason at all! How conveniently selective you are in your reading. I'm not as stupid as you may think I am. And I'm pretty sure I know more about the Banjara than you do.

But of course, there's no point in me trying to reason with you. It never works; you just ignore me. I try to make a noncontroversial edit and you just pounce on me without even raising a concern on the talk page. I guess I'll have to let you screw up all kinds of Romani-related articles and wait till you're banned. Feh!

(What I really wanted to write instead of this:)

So my attempts to resolve that question were at least somewhat futile, no one (at this point) is saying much on this talk page, and to make things worse, a user with a joke of a user page has inserted his own unsourced opinion. Maybe I'll just leave this page to whoever stumbles upon it and let them say whatever the heck they like. Sooner or later these idiots will fall over themselves anyway, I'm sure.

[edit] "THE Republic..."

(A post originally intended for [[User:ILike2BeAnonymous|ILike2BeAnonymous]'s talk page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roma_people&curid=26152&diff=204858827&oldid=204858024

Really? *lets out embarrassed laugh* Personally, I don't see anything syntactically wrong with just "Republic of Macedonia." Not disputing you, just expressing how embarrassing this is. *sweats, lets out another embarrassed laugh*

[edit] "Gypsy"

I don't want to waste too much time on this, but I really feel like this is the most satisfactory explanation I have seen so far of the problems with the word "gypsy."

In English, the word "gypsy" is usually associated with the stereotype: nomads, fortune tellers, thieves, swindlers, beggars, sorcerers, etc. Sometimes the word "gypsy" can be used in any of the above senses (and in more stereotypical word senses), even if the "gypsy" in question is not actually Romani, but "Romani" is not used this way. In English, the words "Rom," "Romani," etc. necessarily indicate an ethnic group; the word "gypsy," by contrast, has the connotation of the stereotypes. (Note also that it is usually spelled with a lowercase "g" for this reason. Those who reclaim the word, however, usually spell it with an uppercase "G.")

This is also why the words "antiziganism" and "antigypsyism" are used, but not "*anti-Romaism" (or any other such term): because non-Romanies who are antiziganist (or antigypsyist) direct their anger towards those they call the "gypsies" (or tigani/tziganes/etc.). Also, they usually are affected by stereotypes concerning "gypsies," or use said stereotypes as justification.

To say that "Rom" and related words could be used pejoratively is somewhat wishful thinking. Theoretically, this should be possible with any "politically correct" word. In practice, though, it isn't. When racists want to say something bad about another ethnic group, they tend to use whatever has already been established as the most negative or pejorative word (in this case, "gypsy"). (The "Pikeys" are specifically non-Romani, so even if this word is pejorative, it could not be logically used as an ethnic slur against Romanies.)

In fact, the only situation I know of in which a "PC" word became an ethnic slur was in the case of the "Untouchables" of India. As I recall, the situation was something like this: Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi used the word "Harijan" (literally "people of Vishnu") instead. Even though this term was obviously quite well-intentioned, it eventually was used in a pejorative sense. Then the "Untouchables" themselves came up with another replacement, "Dalit" (meaning something like "downtrodden"), but this became pejorative, too.

"Gipsy" is, in my opinion, not a "misspelling" per se. It is a correct spelling, but it is not very common nowadays, so I guess you could say it's slightly archaic.

[edit] A plan for a reply to Iulian on Talk:Romanians

Oh, so now you claim that we are the ones who are not reading carefully and that we are the ones who are unable to argue our position reasonably? Did you happen to notice that Adrian did not address any of our arguments and that most of his comments on this page are not even content-related??

Just because one person made some search on Google doesn't mean we can assume that most people cannot tell the difference between Romanies and Romanians. That search is not a reliable source. Most importantly, neither you nor Adrian has accounted for the fact that neither of the two groups are (particularly) related and that their names, Romani and Romanian, are not the same.

Adrian, I don't know why we're getting into such trivial arguments (i.e. having little to do with the article itself), but first of all, it's "illogical," not "unlogical." Second, if you've called us idiots, and you aren't involved in any other disputes right now, then the people you are calling "idiots" are somewhat unlikely to be anyone besides us. (They are certainly not likely to be any other Wikipedians but us!). Not a foolproof deduction, but still logical.

To anyone else who might be reading this discussion: Don't you find it interesting that Adrianzax kept changing the bolded statement on the top his userpage from "Hi, I'm adriazax (sic!), my purpuse (sic) is to enhance and protect the neutral policy of Youtube." (emphasis added) to "Hi, I'm adriazax, my purpuse is to enhance and protect the fundamental five pilars on which Wikipedia is build on, expecially the neutral policy of wikipedia " to "Overcoming darkness with light" to "Truth Is (the) Strongest Weapon In War " to "tired of idiots" ?

[edit] New proposed reply

GTBacchus, I think you are asking a perfectly valid question, and so I wish to give you a very clear answer to your actual question instead of going off on other details (no offense intended against anyone who did talk about other things instead).

No one who has contributed to this page before is supporting Adrianzax. In fact, only one Wikipedian (SupervladiTM) is supporting him , and that too only because Adrianzax canvassed him (and other Romanian editors) for support (by sending out messages in Romanian to various Romanian Wikipedians, each saying (in Romanian) something like: "Hi, do you have an e-mail or Messenger address? I have something to discuss with you.") Before Adrianzax sent out such messages, SupervladiTM had never edited this page before.

~~Those who have contributed significantly to this page either have objected to Adrianzax's edits in some way or are not currently editing on Wikipedia.~~ So, back to your first question: "Why is anybody editing the page at all until a consensus is reached here?" Because no one here supports his actions.

[edit] Reply about to be sent to GTBacchus before Dchall1's reply

GTBacchus, did you care to notice that no one except Adrianzax has expressed any agreement with what he is doing? And also that, even when we try to plead with him, he simply dismisses what we say and then continues doing what he was doing before? --Kuaichik (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(Note: In reality, one user agrees with him now. One! As opposed to, um, like, five at least?!)

[edit] pookkaalam varavaayi: kOLEjilEykku pOkaarraayi!...

naaTTilvechch(u) kOLEjilEykku pOkunna samayam "pookkaalam" allaayirikkumallo! :-/

Pookkalam Varavayi
Directed by	Kamal
Starring	Jayaram, (Baby) Shamili, Murali, Geetha, Rekha
Music by	Bichu Thirumala, Kaithapram
Cinematography	Jayanan Vincent
Release date(s)	1991
Running time	N/A
Country	India
Language	Malayalam
IMDb profile

Pookkalam Varavayee ("Good Times Are Here") is a Malayalam comedy of 1991. It is about a little girl trying to escape from divorce trauma.

[edit] Plot

The film begins with a verdict in a divorce court in the case of Jayaraj (Murali) and Usha (Geetha). Among other things, the judge declares that their (five-year-old?) daughter, Geethu (Baby Shamili) shall spend four days of each week in her mother's custody and the remaining three days with her father. Geethu is mostly neglected by her parents.

One day, the driver of Geethu's school bus changes. The new bus driver is a man named Nandan (Jayaram) who comes from a village. Geethu begins to find solace in Nandan. Eventually, she even decides to go to his village for a "vacation" from divorce trauma.

[edit] "Made-Up" Exonyms

Peyre has added a sentence in the introduction of this article which reads as follows:

"(Not knowing where the Romany were from, Europeans made up origins for them; while the English assumed they were Egyptian, the French, for instance, called them Bohemians.)"

I appreciate his contributions. However, I find this to be lacking in insight (no offense intended) and slightly misleading. In fact, I find it partly false.

True, the Europeans did often have very strange ideas about who the Romanies were (some even believed that they were from the Moon!). However, there was some truth behind both names "Egyptian" and "Bohemians," and neither name was limited to any one country by any means. ("Bohemian" used to be a synonym for "gypsy" in English. Also, gitan (meaning "gypsy" in the literal sense, i.e. "Egyptian") is still a very common name for the Romanies in French, as is gitano in Spanish.)

Many Romanies did, in fact, migrate to other countries from Bohemia: hence the name. There were several reasons why the Romanies were called "Egyptians" (or "gypsies," "gitans," etc.). For example, at the time that the Romanies entered Western Europe, many nomadic groups (including the Roma) tried to gain entry by claiming that they were the Israelites left behind in Egypt by Moses. Also, many Romanies migrated into Western Europe from the Balkans, which were also known as "Little Egypt." So when others asked them where they were from, they sometimes replied with the phrase "Little Egypt." (Whether any Romanies actually did migrate from Egypt seems to be a matter of dispute. I know for sure that Prof. Ian Hancock does not think they did.) --Kuaichik 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or Hungaros in Spain as a general name for various groups of Central & Southeastern European Roma who immigrated from the 19th century onwards (as distinguished from the local Kale). I still did not joined back the discussion on Romani topics, but I hope I'll do it soon. I just made some articles about some movies for breaking the routine, as stress-relieving editing :). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 00:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! :) Yes, there's húngaros, too, not to mention all those other exonyms. Like Heiden! :-D

Actually, I was thinking of editing the above post and then posting it on the "Romani people" talk page. In fact, my idea of "stress-relieving editing" is basically any kind of editing. And of course, most of that editing is on Romani people or on the talk page :-P

But considering that I have to go back to college on Wednesday (and then stop editing until further notice!), I may not be able to finish that post. I am hoping to create a certain article, though...I don't know whether that will happen, either! I'm sorry for not telling you earlier... --Kuaichik 04:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment re: User:Jvalant's comments on Talk:Bengal Genocide of 1943

Look, I obviously know the British were racist tyrants and often quite stupid. But think about it: we are talking about Bengal, Britain's very first foothold in India (and, for a long time, the location of the capital of British India). Do you think they would really do something so incredibly idiotic as to try to murder all Bengalis, especially when they needed them to readily provide food provisions for the army?

Why would they want to do this all of a sudden after 200 years? India was the crown jewel of the British Empire, and Bengal, one of their first colonies within it. In Bengal, they could live ever so comfortably, what with so many "natives" attending to their every need and even making them, the colonists, look good. What are you thinking, that the British suddenly said one day in the early 1940's: "I say, those Bengaulers put far too much of that hot red powder in those fish curries of theirs! They should die for the good of the Empire, what!" ?

And why only the Bengalis? Why not the Gujaratis or Punjabis or Awadhis or Malayalees? Why didn't the British start up similar huge famines all over British India?

[edit] On the name "Hayden" and other linguistic matters :)

(With apologies to Desiphral, since I'm not used to reading Devanagari and I want to make sure I understood what you were saying)

Čačes Hayden san tu thaj kadaja butji si jekh nèvo bilačhipe so kerdjan te xoxaves e manušen.

Truly you are Hayden, and these works are a new bilačhipe (no-good thing?) that you did to lie to the people?

So in other words: Vòrta, san Tu o bi-lačho Hayden. Editisardjas te xoxaves e Vikipedijànsken(ge?)!

Yep, something like this. I did not use the definite article o for Hayden, because in my mind always looked more like a common noun, associating it with the name Hayden/Haiden (I don't remember the orthography) that the Dutch gave to the Roma. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! "Common noun"? That's harsh! But hey, what do I know...:-P

The spelling is Heiden, which means "heathens." Heiden also means something more like "meadow" and is a cognate of the name Hayden (and the word "heath" in English). I found "Hayden" to be translated as something like "hedged valley."

I was part of the German Club choir in high school, and I remember one of songs we sang was one by Goethe, called Röslein auf der Heiden (Little Rose on the Meadow). I used to be confused about that word Heiden ("Huh? Little Rose on the...Heathens?!? No, then it would be den Heiden..."), until I looked around online. (I have a dictionary, but it doesn't have this word, since it is kind of old and archaic.) --Kuaichik 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the info, polyglotism really does wonders (I had in mind the meaning of heathen)! I wish you all the best on this path, a path that I personally respect (and but baxt for that application). BTW, if, as I suppose, you intend to use the second person singular, then it's editisardyan, -dyas is for 3rd sing. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Editisardjan! I'm sure that paraphrase is just full of grammatical errors. I was particularly wondering about the last word (Vikipedijànsken(ge)). :-D

OK, I just looked in my German dictionary again, and now I realize I didn't look closely enough. Der Heide means "heathen" (feminine = die Heidin), but die Heide means "moor" or "heath."

You wish me all the best on the path of polyglotism? You say it as if you weren't a polyglot yourself :-D Numa najis tuke. Vi avel Tuke but baxt! :) --Kuaichik 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margita Bangova AfD comment (replaced by TMQ's 2nd reply to WilyD)

Where is it sourced? In a Canadian tabloid, in a sensationalist Czech TV station, or in another publication that extracted the information from one (or both) of the two above-mentioned sources? Those appear to be the only sources that have been provided for any of the information here. Notice also that the Washington Post report, cited in this article as the source for the claim that one woman influenced Canadian-Czech relations, does not really say this. It only says that the TV documentary may have influenced these relations. And none of the Romanies interviewed in the Washington Post report mention Margita Bangová even once, though they did mention the other (far more likely) proposed cause of emigration from the Czech Republic (i.e. "Czech Prejudice," as the title of the report says).

[edit] (First Draft of) Plot (of Parash Pathar)

Template:Spoiler The film begins with a quick motion picture of Dalhousie Square in Calcutta (now B.B.D. Bagh in Kolkata) with a background voice (presumably Ray's) noting that many middle-class Bengalis pass through this square. From here, Ray transitions into the beginning of the story, saying that the story that is to follow is about one member of the middle class. The middle-class Bengali gentleman in question is a bank clerk named Paresh Dutt.

One rainy day, Dutt finds what he first mistakes for a marble in Curzon Park (now Surendranath Park). He decides to give it to his son who likes to play with marbles. The child, though, soon discovers that it turns iron into gold (i.e. it is the Philosopher's Stone). When Dutt asks for the stone, the child refuses at first. Dutt buys all the sweets he can and swaps them for the stone.

Dutt tests the stone on various iron objects; he is so incredulous at what he sees that he bursts into tears, but he soon tells his wife. He decides to buy some old cannonballs (which were plentiful at the time due to the struggle for Indian independence), convert them to gold, make sure they have turned into gold (they have), and sell them. While being driven by a chauffeur, he imagines a colonial statue being replaced by a statue of himself, as well as a cultural ceremony in his honor proclaiming him a patron of Bengali culture.

When he arrives in his new home (now a mansion instead of an "old tenement"), we see that he now has a young secretary named Priyatosh Henry Biswas. Priyatosh informs Paresh Dutt about his daily schedule; among other things, he mentions that Dutt is invited to a cocktail party (his first). Dutt is initially excited about the opportunity and is also eagerly anticipating the coming elections for which he is a candidate.

However, when he arrives at the cocktail party, he begins to realize that he has little idea of how to behave in the circumstances. Soon, he engages in drunken revelry. When one outraged, sober guest orders him to leave, Dutt reveals the secret of his success: the Parash Paathhar or Philosopher's (lit. "magic") Stone.

The next day, the host, who is a native speaker of Hindustani and has a limited knowledge of Bangla, asks Dutt for the "secret formula" that allowed Dutt to find the stone. Dutt recites a nonsensical Bengali children's poem about a red-green orangutang posting job advertisements in Kolkata, claiming that it is a mantra in Sanskrit. When the host finds out the truth, he decides to expose Dutt.

By this time, however, Dutt has already been preparing to flee his residence. He leaves the stone, office, and valuables with his unwary secretary Priyatosh, cautioning him to hand over the stone if the police ask for it. While fleeing, he finds out that the papers include the headline "Iron Turns Into Gold." Priyatosh also finds out about it when he calls Indira, who divorces him now that his boss's reputation is ruined. Soon, the police enter the house, only to find that the desperate Priyatosh has swallowed the stone. Paresh and Giribala Dutt (his wife) are caught and brought to a police station for interrogation. During their interrogation, a medical specialist tries to remove the stone. Instead of removing it, he simply repeats the words (in English): "Amazing case! Amazing!" without explanation, much to the frustration of the police inspector.

The news sensation results in a panic in Bengal; once again, a rapid motion picture is shown with narration by the same voice as before, this time showing people digging up what little gold they have and desperately trying to sell it to the local goldsmiths.

The doctor finally explains that Priyatosh is digesting the stone. The outraged constable phones the police station where Mr. and Mrs. Dutt are being held; soon afterwards, all the gold turns back into iron, and Paresh Dutt returns to a life of peace with his wife, servant, and secretary. Template:Endspoiler

[edit] Characterization

Paresh Dutt:

Giribala Dutt:

Priyatosh: Priyatosh is not nearly as strategic as his boss. He tries to entice a girl named Indira with his well-paid job, apparently believing that money can buy love. He succeeds initially but does not realize that people can run out of money very easily...until the scandal leaks and Indira breaks up with him.

Brajahari (The Servant):

Police Inspector Chatterjee:

The Interrogator:

[edit] Trivia

The credits for Parash Pathar are presented not in Bengali (the language used for credits in almost all of Satyajit Ray's films), not even in English, but in French. (This is probably due to the fact that Ray's films began to be quite popular in France.) For this reason, some DVD's call the film "Parash Pathar (la pierre philosophale)," i.e. the title in Bengali and French, respectively.
This is the first Satyajit Ray film in which Chhabi Biswas was an actor. In this film, he is merely one of the several guests at the cocktail party. However, in Ray's next film (Jalsaghar), he has the lead role.

[edit] Correct Citations II

Alla, "aLLaa"vum "alla" enna Griikbhaashayile vaakkum malayaaLaththilninnalla vannath~. Pakshe sTiivan kOLbarTTinte varththamaanam "orraili phaakTar" enna shOviinnaa eTuththath~.^[1]

[edit] Fake Works Cited

^ <ref></li></ol></ref> Steinberg, Jacques. "The News Is Funny, as a Correspondent Gets His Own Show", The New York Times, October 12, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-07-13.
[edit] Correct citations

Ee Steven Colbert enn parranya cherruppakkaaran OrraiLi phaakTarriinnaa shOvinte kOmaNTri eTukkunnath~.^[1]Steinberg, Jacques. "The News Is Funny, as a Correspondent Gets His Own Show", The New York Times, October 12, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-07-13.

Example: Steinberg, Jacques. "The News Is Funny, as a Correspondent Gets His Own Show", The New York Times, October 12, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-07-13.

[edit] Original Ankur Text

Lakshmi (Shabana Azmi) lives in a village with her husband Kishtayya (Sadhu Meher), a deaf-mute Dalit alcoholic potter who communicates using gestures. At the beginning of the film, during a village festival (apparently called Damdamdora), she claims (in a prayer to the village goddess) that her only desire is to have a child.

Surya (Anant Nag), the son of the village landlord, has just finished his undergraduate education in the nearby city of Hyderabad, barely managing to pass. Surya's father has a mistress named Kaushalya to whom he has given the best land in the village. Their illegitimate son, Pratap, has also finished his undergraduate studies but with First-Class Honours. Surya's father forces Surya into a child marriage with Saru (Priya Tendulkar) and schedules Pratap's wedding to take place around the same time. Because Surya must wait until Saru "comes of age," he begins to feel sexually frustrated.

He is then forced to administer the village, though he prefers to spend time with his friends in the city under the excuse of pursuing "higher studies." At the village, he meets the overseer, Police Patel Sheikh Chand, before moving on to the old house where he is to stay. The house is maintained by Lakshmi, and as soon as Surya arrives, she and Kishtayya take his luggage inside. After making enquiries from Lakshmi, Surya asks to be taken to his house's water well, where he finds village women filling their pots. He immediately forbids them to take water from his well, and Lakshmi (now Surya's servant) passes on the message to the village women.

The next day, Surya hires Kishtayya to ride his bullock cart and go on errands. He also begins introducing a number of measures (often controversial), such as monopolizing the village's toddy trade, having Lakshmi cook his meals and make tea (instead of ordering meals and tea from the village priest in accordance to the local custom), and cutting off the distribution of water to Kaushalya's fields. He claims that he will cut off water only temporarily unless Kaushalya provokes him.

While Kishtayya gives schoolchildren rides after school, the priest visits Surya to ask for a donation since a festival in honor of Lord Krishna is approaching. He expresses his disappointment at the fact that Surya did not order meals from the temple and mentions that Surya's father was fond of meals cooked by the priest. Though he pretends to chuckle as he says so, he stops smiling when he sees Lakshmi in the background grinding spices.

After the priest leaves, Lakshmi goes into the kitchen with the spices and steals three handfuls of rice. In the evening, she buys a few vegetables and returns home to make dinner (supper). On the way home, she sees Kishtayya in his bullock cart and discerns that he is drunk. She makes dinner, but when Kishtayya arrives, she scolds him and tries to convince him to give up drinking. His only response is to engage in sexual intercourse, which Lakshmi initially resists.

The next morning, Surya discovers that cattle have wandered into his yard and are feeding on the grass. While Lakshmi and Kishtayya drive them away, Pratap asks Surya to restore the water to his fields. When Surya refuses, Pratap announces his intention to report to their father, a warning that Surya dismisses.

Lakshmi tells Surya that the cattle belong to the priest. Surya gives Lakshmi a note that he wants Kishtayya to deliver to the landlord in order to bring back some fertilizer. While Kishtayya is gone, Lakshmi pounds spices, occasionally wiping her eyes. Surya, who is attracted to Lakshmi (and possibly sent Kishtayya away merely as an excuse), slowly approaches her and asks whether she is crying. She responds in the negative and asks whether he needs something, after which he slowly walks away.

He suddenly hears the sound of pots from the well and finds village women disobeying his previous orders to stop taking water from him. He calls for Lakshmi, then suddenly sees a cobra approach him. He stands still and calls again, this time in an alarmed tone. Lakshmi chases the snake away by prodding it with a stick, but Surya shows no sign of gratitude.

[edit] New Old-Style Text

[edit] New Text

Lakshmi (Shabana Azmi) lives in a village with her husband Kishtayya (Sadhu Meher), a deaf-mute Dalit alcoholic potter who communicates using gestures. At the beginning of the film, during a village festival (apparently called Damdamdora), she claims (in a prayer to the village goddess) that her only desire is to have a child.

Surya (Anant Nag), the son of the village landlord, has just finished his undergraduate education in the nearby city of Hyderabad. Surya's father has a mistress named Kaushalya to whom he has given the best land in the village. They have an illegitimate son named Pratap. The landlord forces his legitimate son into a child marriage with Saru (Priya Tendulkar). Because Surya must wait until Saru "comes of age," he begins to feel sexually frustrated.

He is then forced to administer the village. He is to stay in an old house, and Lakshmi and Kishtayya are to act as his servants. Not long after his arrival, he begins introducing a number of measures (often controversial). For example, on his second day in the village, Surya (who already finds Lakshmi attractive) has Lakshmi cook his meals and make tea. This disappoints the village priest, who is accustomed to delivering food to the landowner, though at a higher price than Lakshmi asks.

On the same day, Surya also hires Kishtayya to ride his bullock cart and go on errands. The following day, he has Kishtayya collect fertilizer from the landlord's house. Surya uses Kishtayya's absence to try and flirt with Lakshmi but fails. In the meantime, the villagers gossip, and many (most notably the overseer, Police Patel Sheikh Chand) believe that Surya has already slept with Lakshmi and will treat her the same way the landlord treated Kishtayya: try to conceal the scandal by giving the mistress a plot of land.

Kishtayya is caught stealing toddy, after which he is publicly humiliated. He then leaves the village one night. In his absence, Surya and Lakshmi sleep together. A few days later, Saru arrives at the village. Saru does not approve of Lakshmi's presence, partly because Lakshmi is a Dalit and partly because Saru has heard the villagers' rumors. The next morning, Lakshmi begins suffering from morning sickness. Saru sacks her, claiming that she is too sick to work.

Many days later, Kishtayya returns, having cured himself of his alcoholism and made some money. Lakshmi is overwhelmed with a feeling of guilt, because she believes that she has betrayed her husband. On discovering Lakshmi's pregnancy, he salutes the village goddess at her temple. He then decides to try to ride the bullock cart again but carries a stick as he approaches Surya. Surya sees Kishtayya and mistakenly believes that Kishtayya is seeking revenge from him.

Surya has three men hold Kishtayya and then proceeds to whip him with a rope used for lynching. The commotion attracts others (including Sheikh Chand and Pratap) to the scene, and Lakshmi rushes to defend her husband. She angrily curses Surya, then slowly returns home with Kishtayya. In the final scene, after the others have left, a child throws a stone at Surya's glass window and runs away.

[edit] New Text With Refs I

Ankur ("Seedling," 1974) is a colour film in Hindustani.^[2] It was the first feature film directed by Shyam Benegal^[3] and the debut of multiple Indian actors (in fact, Sadhu Meher was the only actor who had previously acted in a film).^[4] Like many of Benegal's other films, it belongs to the genre of Indian art films.^[5] The plot is based on a true story that occurred in Hyderabad district (India),^[6] apparently in the 1950s.^[7] It was filmed almost entirely on location.^[8]

Ankur has won three national awards and 43 other prizes, both in India and abroad. It was India's Academy Awards nomination for 1974. It is approximately 125 minutes long.

This film includes one whipping scene and more profanity than is usually found in Indian films.^[2]

[edit] Plot^[2]

Ankur is a film that analyzes human behavior in general and heavily stresses characterization (though the story is not fictional). The story revolves around two characters, Lakshmi and Surya.

Template:Spoiler Lakshmi (Shabana Azmi) lives in a village with her husband Kishtayya (Sadhu Meher), a deaf-mute Dalit alcoholic potter who communicates using gestures. At the beginning of the film, during a village festival (apparently called Damdamdora), she claims (in a prayer to the village goddess) that her only desire is to have a child.

Surya (Anant Nag), the son of the village landlord, has just finished his studies in the nearby city of Hyderabad. Surya's father (Kader Ali Beg) has a mistress named Kaushalya to whom, he claims, he "gave the best land in the village." They have an illegitimate son named Pratap. The landlord forces his legitimate son into a child marriage with Saru (Priya Tendulkar). Because Surya must wait until Saru "comes of age," he begins to feel sexually frustrated.

He is then forced to administer his share of land in the village. He is to stay in an old house, and Lakshmi and Kishtayya are to act as his servants. Not long after his arrival, he begins introducing a number of measures (often controversial). For example, on his second day in the village, Surya (who already finds Lakshmi attractive) has Lakshmi cook his meals and make tea. This disappoints the village priest, who is accustomed to delivering food to the landowner, though at a higher price than Lakshmi asks.

On the same day, Surya also hires Kishtayya to ride his bullock cart and go on errands. The following day, he has Kishtayya collect fertilizer from the landlord's house. Surya uses Kishtayya's absence to try and flirt with Lakshmi but fails. In the meantime, the villagers gossip, and many (most notably the overseer, Police Patel Sheikh Chand) believe that Surya has already slept with Lakshmi and will treat her the same way the landlord treated Kishtayya: try to conceal the scandal by giving the mistress a plot of land.

Kishtayya is caught stealing toddy, after which he is publicly humiliated. He then leaves the village one night. In his absence, Surya and Lakshmi sleep together. A few days later, Saru arrives at the village. Saru does not approve of Lakshmi's presence, partly because Lakshmi is a Dalit and partly because Saru has heard the villagers' rumors. The next morning, Lakshmi begins suffering from morning sickness. Saru sacks her, claiming that she is too sick to work.

Many days later, Kishtayya returns, having cured himself of his alcoholism and made some money. Lakshmi is overwhelmed with a feeling of guilt, because she believes that she has betrayed her husband. On discovering Lakshmi's pregnancy, he salutes the village goddess at her temple. He then decides to try to ride the bullock cart again but carries a stick as he approaches Surya. Surya sees Kishtayya and mistakenly believes that Kishtayya is seeking revenge from him.

Surya has three men hold Kishtayya and then proceeds to whip him with a rope used for lynching. The commotion attracts others (including Sheikh Chand and Pratap) to the scene, and Lakshmi rushes to defend her husband. She angrily curses Surya, then slowly returns home with Kishtayya. In the final scene, after the others have left, a child throws a stone at Surya's glass window and runs away. Template:Endspoiler

[edit] Etymology (Planned Edit)

According to Keralaapaanineeyam, the word Malayalam was originally used to refer to the land that is now known as Kerala. In Malayalam, mala means "mountain," and aazhi means "sea."

[edit] Bad(?) Jokes

(I suppose you could call the fact that I posted the following on this page, rather than on the Romani people ("Roma people") talk page, an attempt to avoid troll-feeding.)

"steeling Romanians identity" Is it possible to "steel" an identity for a task, or is it only possible to steel oneself? :-D

"In what language are you writing in this page? I suppose that it is English." Ohh, close, but no cigar. Actually, we're writing in Nahuatl. And you?

"You can do better then speaking lies and acuzing me for ignorance." Yeah! Why don't we just make fun of you instead?

"...Romania is a country of Romanian Nation..." Hmm. And what are the other countries of Romanian Nation?

"...The gypsies can now chose their way respecting the others." I would think this was supposed to say something more like The gypsies can now choose their way of respecting others. But no, you speak English so well; surely you couldn't have made that many mistakes.

So I'll assume you made just one mistake The gypsies' can now chose their way respecting the others. There should have been an apostrophe after "gypsies."

What a polite toilet! So impressed was it with the Romani people's respect for others that it, too, began to respect all others!

Please don't tell me bulsh..ts... Don't worry, we won't tell you "bullshits" anymore. We'll just tell you "bullshit" :-D

[edit] References

^[2]Blah blah by Blah Blah Et Cetera.

4th source = http://www.webmallindia.com/shop/filmography.php?cat=0&na=ANKUR&PHPSESSID=1dc2724d4c456edebf6e2864760368e4

5th = http://www.redhotcurry.com/entertainment/films/bollywood/ankur.htm

7th = http://www.cornerstoneprod.com/cs_ravi.html

IMDB = http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071145/

User:Kuaichik/Pettipettietc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] Plan fuer Ian Hancock auf deutsch! :)

[edit] A. HUGE. List.

[edit] Bengali Films

[edit] Punjabi Films

[edit] Urdu-language films from India

[edit] A Sindhi Film

[edit] Mughal Architecture

[edit] Sufi Musicians

[edit] Indus Valley Sites in India/Afghanistan

[edit] Sufi Literature

[edit] Persian Literature

[edit] E paramìča e lekheske "Rromane džene": The Saga of the Romani people article

[edit] "THE Republic..."

[edit] "Gypsy"

[edit] A plan for a reply to Iulian on Talk:Romanians

[edit] New proposed reply

[edit] Reply about to be sent to GTBacchus before Dchall1's reply

[edit] pookkaalam varavaayi: kOLEjilEykku pOkaarraayi!...

[edit] Plot

[edit] "Made-Up" Exonyms

[edit] Comment re: User:Jvalant's comments on Talk:Bengal Genocide of 1943

[edit] On the name "Hayden" and other linguistic matters :)

[edit] Margita Bangova AfD comment (replaced by TMQ's 2nd reply to WilyD)

[edit] (First Draft of) Plot (of Parash Pathar)

[edit] Characterization

[edit] Trivia

[edit] Correct Citations II

[edit] Fake Works Cited

[edit] Correct citations

[edit] Original Ankur Text

[edit] New Old-Style Text

[edit] New Text

[edit] New Text With Refs I

[edit] Plot[2]

[edit] Etymology (Planned Edit)

[edit] Bad(?) Jokes

[edit] References

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search

[edit] Plot^[2]