Lets clear something up first. Last I heard, the film is NOT banned. The censorship board banned it...but that lasted about a day or so before the RSS/BJP backed political influences gave it the go ahead. The members of the board who passed the ban have resigned or are expected to quit soon. I'm sure its all just a big 'ole coincidence though. So yeah, like I said before, the law and the media are in his pocket.
Do you actually have any sources on that? There's pretty much nothing I can find backing up your claim. In any case, the Badal government (the one that supposedly supports the Deras, according to you) did ban it.
How? The reasons couldn't be more different. No one said Sadda Haq or Kaum De Heere hurt any religious sentiments. They were banned because India isn't ready to accept the reality of what happened.
Do people actually believe the crap about "idolized and promoted murderers?" Do you?
No, I don't. But in this arena, what you "think" they got banned for is really irrelevant. From the POV of the Indian government, the film idolized two people who killed a government official-and that is true, regardless of the context behind it. I do know some Hindus who supported a ban on Sadda Haq because they felt it was offensive to idolize terrorists, so there's that perspective as well. One may argue, that the reasoning you're giving for banning the movie (stopping a murderer and rapist) is absolute BS-the "real" reason is that the Sikhs are insulted by this Ram Rahim because of his blasphemous actions. Some Islamicists argue that they killed Charlie Hedbo not because he blasphemed their religion, but because he participated in the anti-Muslim French regime. If you're going to ban media that everyone can see, you better have a wholesome view that incorporates everyone's ideas.
You realize that KP Gill also believes it is perfectly fine to butcher thousands of innocents (men, women, infants, seniors) in order to quell a resistance? The animal probably doesn't understand the meaning of the words "rape" or "murder." Anyways, my point is that it is only a double standard if his argument is valid. If two people make a similar argument for two different cases but one of them is lying and motivated by a political agenda, then it isn't a double standard.
Yes, I personally believe Gill just sought a ban on Sadda Haq because of personal reasons and to not see himself in a negative light. But again, that's irrelevant to the type of arguments being made. Which is why seeking a ban is always very tricky, because you can't really parse personal arguments from the official "this is idolizing bad people/offensive".
I agree with you on the rest. It shouldn't be banned because of the "offensive to Sikhs" nonsense but, IMO, it should still be banned nonetheless. We could've used this as an opportunity to shut this clown down but instead we've decided that behaving like bigger clowns is the way to go.
Would you seek a ban for a new movie from Bill Cosby? If so, I can see your line of reasoning. IMO, this movie, just like Sadda Haq, should be shown; sure, the former will be cheap trash, while the latter has some actual historical value, but both should have the right to enter theaters regardless of who feels offended by them. I don't think anyone is missing out from not seeing the movie, but I hope this stupid Dera head doesn't use this as an opportunity to victimize himself further and portray himself as more of a savior.