Da Vinci Code encrypted:

A supposedly great performance by Tom hangs and Audrey Tautou in which, as Ron Howard the director put it, the two are absolutely involved in the characters and could not have been better cast. A superb story (I am on the fence as far as whether it is true) which has survived controversies that it ran into for interpretations of the symbolism left behind by a master artist, and which introduced me to Dan Brown's writings. Alas, this is not to be seen by the Indian public sooner, because the government thinks it is too controversial a topic and some Indian Christians are already up with their guns and all.
The movie has been shown in Italy, around where a lot of the story is based. It would be just for people to think that their religious symbolisms and plausible evidences have been misinterpreted to show that a lot of Christian religious history, from the first AD has been all wrong. But has the Christian world, outside India, not taken it with an open mind? Is this what differenciates the 'modern us' from them, an open-mindedness about everything, especially culture and religion? Why does Indian Christian community have to feel threatened by the movie? If the damage had to be done, it already would have been, simply because the 'teaching' of the book has reached the people in the book that was released a couple of years ago. Since it is an English movie, which is at the least thought-provoking, one can be guess that people who go to a theatre to watch it will not take things on face value.
Evidence or the lack of it can hardly shake thousands of years of faith in people. The recent trends in Indian society might suggest that, say Hindu, youth are not religiously inclined in the sense that they are not knowledgeable of the rites and rituals of the Hindu ceremonies. But does that mean they stop believing in Lord Ganesha citing lack of proof, or stop believing in Lord Hanuman questioning evidence of his being?
Indian Christian community has been probably the most open-minded group of people in India in several ways. Looking at the intelligent and smart Indian Christian friends I have, I am of the opinion that their faith will not budge even an inch, by the revelations encrypted by Da Vinci years ago or propagated by Dan Brown and others recently. So, what is bothering the people who are protesting against it? The masses will not see the movie in all probability, and the educated man will not fall for it. Orthodox families may not even watch the movie even if labeling it as sacrilegious.
Then why the unnecessary publicity which will only give mileage to the promoters of the movie? And what is dearer will be in more demand. So, be ready to see pirated discs flood the market; another demon to be killed. In today's connected world, people will even pay and watch an movie online (download/streaming/whatever). So, how far will the protesters go to curtail the screening of this movie anyway?
On an equally significant dimension of this issue is that the choice of watching movies is being taken away from the people. This has been an issue from times immemorial. Movies that are usually R rated are reduced to the level of G by the time they are released in India. Why does a movie like 'Water' by Deepa Mehta not allowed to be shot and screened in India? Is it because it reflects the conservative perceptions of many who think this is not how India should be portrayed? Why should a set of middle aged if not old conservative people decide what the country should see? Given they ought to be on the panel for several good reasons, can the representation of liberals not be increased in the panel.Especially, when it comes to foreign movies avid movie watchers are at an utter disadvantage. Why are songs like 'Sarkhailo Khatiya, 'Kaantaa Lagaa', and many others recently, passed while scenes which depict contextually relevant nudity in foreign movies clipped. In my opinion such racy songs leave the same kind of impression a nude scene does. At least people cannot hum tunes of scenes that censor board clip.
In a democracy, there ought to be public debates before any decision that affects a good number of people directly is taken by the government . Let there be an equal number of conservative and liberal experts in an televised discussion and let them clear out their apprehensions in public. Let there be an 'ombudsman' who can preside over these discussions and make official observations. We may start becoming a mature developing society rather than being 'headmastered' by a censor board and conservative factions.