Warning - Indian rant about Brand ambassador and security

@vandana7 (58783)
India
January 8, 2016 8:53am CST
Aamir Khan is no longer brand ambassador for incredible India. They say his contract got over. But mind tells it has not been renewed because he dared to exercise his democratic rights in what is not at all democracy under the garb of democracy. So Amitabh Bachchan is the new Brand ambassador for India. But why deny Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan security while offering it to Akshay Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan, and NOT EXPECT MUSLIMS IN THE COUNTRY TO NOTICE SUCH THINGS. I agree it is wrong to offer protection to celebrities who can well afford it. But that rule should be valid for everybody. I am sure nobody in this country is keen to kill Lata Mangeshkar. Why should taxpayer pay for their security instead of paying it for building river linking projects?
7 people like this
8 responses
@thesids (22448)
• Bhubaneswar, India
8 Jan 16
I mentioned this earlier too. Unfortunately, the constitution of India believes in Secularism and respect for all religions, but Indians are way distant from even understanding what that word means. I have watched both Aamir and SRK make those statements and honestly, I have found nothing wrong with what they had said. Media screwed and botched things up. Why? Is it again the political interference? I have my doubts and questions.
3 people like this
@vandana7 (58783)
• India
8 Jan 16
Now muslims will huddle up together and conversations in their surroundings will send more towards ISIS and Al Queda. Really which low IQ nincompoop came up with this. If such transfer is desired there should be overlapping period in which Aamir gets to introduce the new person, and work with the person for a while and gently fade out. Abrupt discontinuation does seem odd.
3 people like this
@thesids (22448)
• Bhubaneswar, India
9 Jan 16
@vandana7 Well, does anyone who is at the helm seem to have brains? Some of them do have corrupt brains no doubt and that is what dooms the future. I agree with you that all the very recent past incidents and the ineffective steps (if they took any at all) are surely fodder to discrimination, insecurity and unrest. No wonder, what you mention has a great chance of happening, if things are not handled delicately and in the right way.
2 people like this
@vandana7 (58783)
• India
9 Jan 16
@thesids ..I remember reading Hillary Clinton's remarks on Donald Trump's stand on refugees and muslims in general. I agree with the lady and for the first time I began to see her as a far sighted leader. Our guys stand up for Hindus and Hinduism, but when it comes to fighting wrongs or anything happening to Hindus they want armed forces and police forces to step up. All talk and no actions. In any event, I am not for the survival of a religion that looks down on girls so much that it is willing to let innocents die but do nothing concrete about dowry laws.
2 people like this
@RasmaSandra (14762)
• Riga, Latvia
8 Jan 16
@vandana7 everyone should have a chance to live feeling safe and secure. Yes, it is important to spend money on development projects.
3 people like this
@vandana7 (58783)
• India
9 Jan 16
Yes indeed. But the kind of security should also be equal, right? Why should government be incurring expenses for protecting a few when that expense can protect many? If these people have enough monies, they need to spend from their pockets. They earn from film industry, commercials, businesses, but government allocates police personnel for their security. Don't you see they pay no taxes in the process because they get the personnel for their exclusive security, and that of their family members, and their premises, effectively recovering all the taxes that they paid. Does the US provide Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt that kind of facility? There are in all probability kickbacks for such facility.
2 people like this
@topffer (31715)
• France
8 Jan 16
I never heard of a brand ambassador paid by a state. I was thinking that they were always paid by brands. The law should apply to everyone, whatever the financial resources. We have a few ex politicians here who have the right to be protected during a few months/years after the end of their functions. They can refuse it, but I never heard that the state denied this right to one of them.
2 people like this
@vandana7 (58783)
• India
8 Jan 16
Well, that is what is weird. If I had to choose a brand ambassador, I would pick an international player who is recognized by people outside the country, by people both of Indian origin, and foreigners. Not somebody whom only Indians know or people of Indian origin know. Aamir Khan scores over Amitabh Bachchan there because his film Lagaan was nominated for a few Oscars. As to protection, I do not think they require extra protection. They are past their prime. They are not in danger of being killed. Rather they are in as much risk as any other actor actress director, etc. Then why offer protection to some, and not to every one of them? They sure may have pulled some strings to get that special privilege.
2 people like this
• India
24 Jan 16
@vandana7 Aamir Khan scores over Amitabh Bachchan there because his film Lagaan was nominated for a few Oscars. (One Oscar actually.) How much do you know about the actress in the movie "Emily"...? Amitabh has a wide reach, albeit with his name misspelled. So does SRK. Aamir? No.
1 person likes this
@DeborahDiane (17894)
• Laguna Woods, California
11 Jan 16
I do wish the governments would spend more time taking care of the people in their countries. It is nice to see familiar faces again.
2 people like this
@vandana7 (58783)
• India
12 Jan 16
Yeah...it is. :) Happy New Year. :) Funnily not enough thought goes behind any policy that is formulated out here...all that they care for is their pay packets, perks, and vote banks.
@TheHorse (56523)
• Pleasant Hill, California
9 Jan 16
What does a "brand ambassador" do?
2 people like this
@artemeis (4026)
• China
11 Jan 16
At the rate at how India is progressing I am sure if any one is in Aamir's shoes, he would have no objection stepping down from this position. Everything as far as the legal system with the new law on rape crimes does not reflect well with any well read and known individuals that it is interested to come to India. Including myself, the plans will not be among the top ten in my list. No offense.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (58783)
• India
11 Jan 16
I just feel like taking a walk out and screaming unless you change those laws against rape of women, you don't get our respect.
1 person likes this
@artemeis (4026)
• China
13 Jan 16
@vandana7 I am sorry but I have to say that I agree with you that it is very dehumanizing for women to be in your country and let me add that I feel for ALL the womenfolks in India. Law is supposed to bring about justice and promote civility to all under it. But your country simply does not practice it on womenfolks who are being harassed repeatedly. I'm sure that women of other countries will not be safe in such a protracted society and surrounding.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (58783)
• India
13 Jan 16
@artemeis ...We as a nation are in politicians trap.. are not able to find decent folks who can do something...and even if we elect somebody whom we think as rational, they don't allow them to function...
1 person likes this
@Missmwngi (9636)
• Nairobi, Kenya
12 Jan 16
A celebrity gets security? ooh my
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (58783)
• India
12 Jan 16
Ridiculous...it is like return the taxes that they paid...why bother collecting taxes from them? Why should the nation pay if they amass more wealth? Isn't it losing enough spending on movies that nobody will be watching 10 years down the lane?
1 person likes this
@Missmwngi (9636)
• Nairobi, Kenya
12 Jan 16
@vandana7 Sure it is ridiculous, These governments will continue to send poor citizens to their grave
1 person likes this
@SIMPLYD (76464)
• Philippines
15 Jan 16
I share your opinion . If it is the taxpayers money that pays for the security of someone who is so moneyed already , then , it will indeed cause an uproar from the taxpayers .