By IANS,
Panaji : A Congress Rajya Sabha MP from Goa has called the producers and exhibitors of controversial Hindi film “Dum Maaro Dum” “anti-national” for insisting on retaining “objectionable dialogues” in the prints released internationally.
“Dum Maro Dum”, which is Rohan Sippy’s third directorial venture, will be released Friday in 20 countries at 350 international locations and at 1,000 theatres and multiplexes throughout India.
In a letter written to the union Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni Tuesday, Shantaram Naik has said that the “producers, exhibitors are fooling the people of Goa and the state government by indirectly saying that they will now defame and denigrate Goa and Goan women only on foreign soil”.
“It appears to have no regard for the people of the country and their dignity, and money is the only criteria in their mind,” Naik said.
On Monday, the Panaji bench of the Bombay High Court had disposed a petition seeking a ban on the film, claiming that the “objectionable portions” in the films promos – as alleged by the petitioner – had been deleted by the filmmakers.
While the petitioner, Savio Rodrigues had also sought deletion of the dialogue “In Goa, liquor is cheap and women, cheaper,” which is mouthed by actress Bipasha Basu in the film, Fox Star Studio International Private Limited (FSSIPL), the film’s distributors had, however, assured the court that the controversial dialogue would be deleted from the film and the word “women” had been replaced with “relationships” in the film’s national promos, while the international promos would run with the original content.
Naik has now said that the current contention of the FSSIPL was “unacceptable to the people of Goa.”
“The central government should revise the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification with respect to ‘Dum Maro Dum’ and, pending the decision of the central government in revision proceedings, to declare the film as uncertified and suspend its exhibition as per the clear provisions contained in section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952,” Naik has demanded.