Talk:Sarfarosh

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Bharatveer's edits

B, it's been a few years since I watched Sarfarosh, but I'm not at all sure that Ajay's brother was killed by Pakistani terrorists -- I think it may have been the tribals. Leave it out until we're sure. Your other edits were not helpful. You removed all mention of prejudice against Muslims and Salim, which was one of the themes of the movie -- the bad Muslim, the singer, is counterbalanced by the good Indian Muslim, Salim, who is unjustly suspected. Your grammar was somewhat faulty too. Zora 10:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z,I have not removed the mention of prejudice against Salim.If my grammar is faulty , it should be corrected.Complete blanking was not necessary.-Bharatveer 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, Ajay's brother was killed by tribals, who are supplied arms by a Thakur businessman, who in turn gets the arms from Pakistan Army/Intelligence. --Ragib 19:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatveer, you seem to be very much eager to revert to "Pakistani terrorist" theory. However, the movie itself contradicts that, and I suggest you take a look into it before going on reverting the article again. Thanks. --Ragib 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragib, You are trying to be politically corect here instead of being true to the story line of this film.Ajay's brother was killed by Pakistani terrorists and not by any forest rebels.Infact forest rebels have just 2-3 scenes which shows the bus massacre and the weapons transaction etc.-So pls try not to revert it again.-Bharatveer 07:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say he is investigating the bus massacre also, which is incorrect. This happens in some southern state and this link comes up only in the course of his investigation. so why are you trying to insert this incorrect statement?/-Bharatveer 07:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This old, detailed version of story is much more helpful, and may help refresh your recollection of the movie. Ajay did investigate this, and the location doesn't seem to be a souther state. So, what's the incorrect statement here? --Ragib 08:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What political correctness do you see here? I am curious, have you seen the movie at all? The forest rebels are a big part of the movie, rather than 2/3 scenes. And so is the corrupt Rajasthani trader. I have watched the movie a lot of times, and the only Pakistani connection here is the Pakistan Army/ISI officers who supply the arms, and the agents (Naseeruddin Shah and the other guy). I again request you to utilize the weekend by watching the movie again. Thanks. --Ragib 07:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragib,Pls stop your ridiculous bluff.what do you say about that sentence , which says "Ajay is investigating the bus massacre ".How can an IPS officer working in Mumbai Crime branch in\vestigate that case??I am assuming that you know something about how Police works in India(Unlike some other editor here who doesnst have the faintest idea of anything regarding Police in India).-Bharatveer 07:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, B, I only know what I see in movies and read in the newspapers. However, movie police officers aren't necessarily like real police officers. We're talking about the MOVIE now, not how the Mumbai police are run. If I've remembered the movie incorrectly, I trust Ragib to correct me. I don't think I trust you, B, since it's not clear to me that you've watched the movie. Weren't you the one who told me I was an idiot for watching worthless Bollywood movies? Zora 08:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never called you an idiot anywhere in the first place .You were completely wrong about the "investigation" part. when some one points out your error, Pls have the decency to correct yourself instead of indulging in false accusations.-Bharatveer 08:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forking off point by point discussion

Regarding this diff,

tensions between Indian and Pakistan were : Indian-> India, it's a noun, not an adjective
was targeted by Pakistani terrorists -> What part of the movie shows the killers to be "Pakistani"
an IPS, fine by me, I've added it later
nexus between the forest brigands who carried out a brutal bus massacre and the cross-border Pakistani terrorists. Again, Ajay finds out the links among Veeran (the forest tribal leader), the Rajasthani business man and smuggler, and finally, the Pakistani ISI agents. Where does cross-border Pakistani terrorists come into the picture?
had purposefully let off the, this I'm ok with.

evidences should be evidence
Muslim wikilink

Thanks. --Ragib 08:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India & pakistan is the corect one. (i didnt do that edit).therefore OK
The film clearly shows that the terrorists were aided and abetted by pakistan , hence the term pakistani terrorists.
OK
The film clearly shows that the terrorists were aided and abetted by pakistan , hence the term pakistani terrorists.
OK
OK
This was just an internal link to what another editor had written. what is your problem regarding this??-Bharatveer 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, it seems like the only real point you have here is the term "Pakistani terrorist". Well, What do you mean by Pakistani here? Do you mean terrorists who were Pakistani? If they were not in fact Pakistani, then obviously they are NOT "Pakistani terroists". You do realize that there is a big difference between "Terrorist abetted by Pakistan", and "Pakistani terrorists", right? Equating these two terms is not linguistically correct by ANY means. Therefore, please do not add this misleading and completely incorrect wording into the article. Note that "Terrorists abetted by Pakistan" is completely correct, as depicted in the movie, and I'm fine with that. Thanks. --Ragib 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The film clearly shows the attacks are carried out by agents infiltrating through the border)- in this case which means pakistanis) and they are helped by unscrupulous businessmen inside India.Thats how the way film shows that.

So the term "Pakistani terrorists " applies here.SO do not try to make it as if they were only aided by pakistanis which is not the way the film portrays.You left out the Investigation part again. -What do you say about that?-Bharatveer 09:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Bandits living in the forest, who were born in India, who have never been to Pakistan, can't by any means be considered Pakistani terrorists. It was the guns that were crossing the border, not any agents. That's bad enough -- that IS the sort of thing that leads to international incidents. There's no need to exaggerate it.

Bharatveer, have you watched the movie? I've noticed that you're not answering this question. Zora 09:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.I have seen the film here .You are just confusing the forest bandits with the terrorists.In the film , they are not shown as having to do anything with the attacks in the mumbai city.-Bharatveer 09:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are THREE parties here: Pakistan, Mumbai gangster, tribal dacoits. Pakistan sells cheap arms to gangsters; gangsters sell arms to dacoits; gangsters profit and people die. The action scenes in Mumbai involve the gangsters. Pakistan is indirectly responsible, but the carnage is carried out by homegrown Indians, not by Pakistani infiltrators. Zora 10:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dont have to toe the official pakistan government lie here.In this article the storyline should be as per this film.And in this film , the people who attacks are clearly mentioned as "from pakistan".-Bharatveer 10:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I have no connection to the Pakistani state, and no particular admiration for it either. You're insisting on something that is untrue in order to make a political point, and that is NOT OK. It also seems senseless to me, given that the movie, unexaggerated, is very anti-Pakistani as it is. Zora 11:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you know that the film shows an anti-pakistani stance.Then what is your problem in writing the the accurate summary here.So It becomes very clear as to who is trying to make political point here.

Pls let the storyline of this film be true to the the film and not to anybody's idea of exaggeration.So ragib & zora ,please get rid of your "political correctness and try to write the summary as per the original story line of the film.-Bharatveer 11:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

try to write the summary as per the original story line

EXACTLY. I am suggesting the same to you. The tribals, Veeran and others, Sultan and other gangsters, are all shown in the movie to be Indians "aided" by Pakistan intelligence. Why don't you watch the movie again to refresh your memory. You are changing the storyline, and this is not really open to your intepretations. Let the movie be what is really is, rather than what you think it to be.

Also, I suggest you clear out the confusion about "Pakistani" and "aided by pakistani agents". Is Veeran the tribal leader a Pakistani? Is the Rajasthani business man a Pakistani? Is Sultan, the gangster, a Pakistani? The movie's storyline is different from what you are thinking it to be, so please watch it again. Thank you. --Ragib 18:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So u mean to say your problem is in the word "pakistani terrorists" . I think that can be changed to just "terrorists" as no meaning will be lost by that emendment-Bharatveer 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You are right that I have the problem with the wording "Pakistani terrorists". I recommend changing that to "Forest bandits" (where applicable) or "terrorists" (where applicable). Specifically mentioning who is what is what I want to see in this article. So, Veeran, Sultan, the Rajasthani trader - each had a different role / affiliation (forest bandits, terrorist/gangster, dishonest arms trader) etc. So did Khan, and Gulfam (Pakistani ISI agents). --Ragib 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain terrorists would be less objectionable but I'm not sure that extending the term terrorists to brigands is useful. I had the impression that the guys from the forest were motivated more by money than by ideology. Ditto the Mumbai gangsters -- money rather than ideology. I could be wrong. I suppose I need to rent the film and watch it again. Zora 04:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be terrorist ,Since there is no mention of forest brigands/ tribals at that stage of the the story . so this comment but their relationship derailed when Ajay's family was targeted by tribal bandits (using arms smuggled into India from Pakistan needs to be changed to "terrorists". See also this reviews IMDB user comments.

review.-Bharatveer 04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of two cases

In the film , Ajay is just involved in the case involving gun running & terrorists .It is only during the course of his investigation , the involvement of forest brigands becomes clear. So it needs to be corrected.-Bharatveer 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]