Watch the video above of an ETC Bollywood Business reporter Komal Nahta making a stupid statement of Nepal being territory of India. The video on youtube also follows a clarification statement by ETC networks on the statement made by reporter. The statement was considered irreverent and aroused several Nepalis to speak against it, mostly on social networks that served as the best medium to be heard.
“…not to forget the Nepal territory because Nepal territory is also a part of India…”
A much talked issue on Social Networks this week has once again fuelled discussions on the Nepal – India affairs. Reporter Komal Nahta of ETC Bollywood Business, a show on Bollywood (India’s part of Movie Industry) made the controversial statement in context of the business of Indian flick, Don 2 .
As matter got intense on social networks, especially on twitter mentioning @KomalNahta of his silly statement, he had to tweet (is that a tweet BTW?) a clarification article and also had to write a convincing blog post by holding his same values.
Honestly, I didn’t even think of considering this statement of any value when I first heard of this. But it really got popular with Times of India quoting it and also ETC’s website and the reporter’s blog publishing clarification statements.
I was further surprised on the attitude of editor’s not even regretting of his statement on his blog post. Rather to justify his point, he further claimed those who made such statements were just irate citizens and hardly knew about his business point. He further added “Probably, most of the Nepali citizens who created a controversy where none existed, weren’t even aware that Nepal is, in fact, counted as part of India for the express purpose of counting the domestic shares of Bollywood films.”
His clarification tweet however starts with a sorry note – “Sorry, guys, to disappoint you. If you have a problem with me saying “not to forget the Nepal territory because Nepal territory is also a part of India”, please be informed that for film business purposes..”
But again some attitude seems to be revealed in responding to other users tweet to prove his point – “ Understood? Or u don’t understand english?”
The tweet on controversial issue was also mentioned by Delhi Times, a Times Of India supplement, in its 30th December edition notably “Explaining his stand on mentioning Nepal as a part of India in his film business reports, trade analyst Komal Nahta recently wrote on a social networking site that “for film business purposes, the business of Nepal territory is, in fact, added to the business of India, and not overseas, as you would believe”.”
I better like the ETC statement, at least regretting if the statement has disturbed its Nepali viewers. “We regret if our viewers have thought so. ETC would like to inform the viewers that historically for film business purposes, the business of Nepal territory is in fact added to the business of India’s collections rather than overseas collections…”
It was not just blog posts and website articles on the issues some youtube videos were also made against the reporter’s statement. Watch this episode on the topic.
This is not the first time that any controversies have aroused Nepalis to speak against it. In 1998, Madhuri Dixit, popular Bollywood actor had to apologise when she said that Nepal was once a part of India. Again in 2000, Hrithik Roshan, another Bollywood actor had to clarify that he had never stated that he hated Nepal and its people. The Hrithik and Madhuri’s case was also covered by BBC News saying ” Movie theatres across Nepal have suspended screening Indian films after an alleged anti-Nepal slur by a Bollywood star.” Recently a comedy show from Stephen Colbert making fun of Nepali identity and culture in one of his episodes aroused similar discussions on social media.
My view on the topic is that be it film business calculations or industry norm or whatever, it is indeed a blasphemous error. If it’s industry norms, the reporter should have mentioned that clearly in his show. Not many have done research on Bollywood’s business to understand how business norms are.
My suggestion for Komal Nahta is that – A sorry note should have worked the best rather than explaining his much complex self-made norms.
What do you say?