Of Movie Certification, Dubbing and The Mess Around It

(pic:wikimedia.com)

Amidst a legacy of banning screening of movies with scripts that even tangentially deal with the delicate matter of religion and religious institutions, the State of Tamilnadu and cities of Hyderabad and Benglur have successfully upheld this trend and proceeded to either ban or stop screening of Viswaroopam (a Tamil movie made by Kamal Haasan).

If this episode made one crowd raise dust by alleging this move as cultural terrorism by the Tamilnadu State, another termed it as a murder of art in the cinema form, while yet another demanded the grounds on which a State government can ban screening of a movie that has been certified as appropriate for the Indian audience by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). While interpretations about this being akin to an act of terrorism or a murder of any form of art are open to subjective debate, the argument that a CBFC certification should be enough for a movie of any genre and topic to warrant screening anywhere in India - a country with as diverse movie tastes as its cultural footprint - is nothing but a belittling of the natural variety in the tastes of the movie-goers in this country. It is but a fantasy to assume that one single board, notwithstanding its size, can certify movies as appropriate or inappropriate for an entire country as diverse and populous as India.

If the certifying board, CBFC, found no objectionable content in Viswaroopam why is its maker finding himself in the midst of such a judicial stalemate in his home and neighboring States? Why are people from his own neighborhood not finding his movie appropriate while a certifying board far displaced from his people found it appropriate? If the Viswaroopam episode has anything to offer for the thinkers and legislators in this country, then it must be the fundamental question of the validity of a central body such as the CBFC itself.

In this age of technology that enables movies made in any language to be dubbed and simultaneously released in all other languages of the world in their respective markets, it is surprising that we are still living with a mechanism so obsolete as to certify movies for the entire subcontinent. Film markets such as Karnataka still practise an unwritten ban on entertainment dubbed in Kannada caring little for the same CBFC certification that these dubbed movies may carry with them. The reasons behind such banning could be several, but the CBFC is apparently blind to such concerns, neither is it empathetic of the audience's entertainment aspirations, thereby leading to unhealthy breaches of a free-market and avoidable litigation.

A certifying body much closer to the audience and finely savvy of its aspirations is the need of the hour. Film certification in India today carries little value in the local context and is therefore leading to all types of conflicts related to screening of entertainment content, leading only to the disappointment of the end consumer of such content. Ironically, the real decider of the quality of a movie and if it is certifiable or not - the end consumer - is being kept in darkness thanks to a deadly combination of an obsolete certification process and a delicate social equilibrium. This has to come to an end by drawing the curtains down on a national certification ideology and letting the markets take it bottoms-up.

Anatomy of a Rape: Sponsored Crime and Consumer Awareness

LATELY, watching TV at home has become synonymous to watching 'public undressing' performances like this, this, and this (among many others) most of the time. TV today is giving birth to more voyeurs in this society than anything else ever did. It is sad that creativity has lost all its colors and reserved itself to blue!

Sponsored by Lewd Entertainers?

Snapshot of a disturbing AD

With advertisements restricted to 20% of the TV airtime per-hour, advertisers are pushed to the limit of retaining viewer attention, and resorting to 'public undressing' seems to be their way-out?! Watching these lewd visuals have gradually come to being an acceptable ritual in the living room. What used to be earlier a taboo to even talk about has suddenly become the tea-time pastime for a good portion of the TV market. And this very society is now plagued by rapes & other heinous crimes. These behavior changes sponsored by the market forces are not doing any good to us at all.

Daring Questions, But...
Clearly, as a society, you cannot undress in public (on- or off-screen) and not be plagued by crime at the same time! We've got to choose between these two. There's absolutely no logic in daring the opposite sex by taking them to the limit of hormonal tests by means of these public undressing performances. Likewise there's no logic in questioning the integrity of people when there's no way of separating the ones with integrity from the ones without it. It is enough trouble if each city has one rapist at large. But on similar lines demanding capital punishment to anyone that commits this crime, however heinous, doesn't help alleviate the problem. A judicial precedent means nothing for a mind that is weak enough to become criminal.

The Whole Anatomy
Rapid, unplanned and unsustainable urbanization has triggered unforeseen migration at national levels, leading to unhealthy inter-personal relations in an otherwise well-connected society, also causing a perceivable plummet in average moral values among dwellers. Viral consumerism, considered quintessential to running any urbanized settlement, has blinded the average citizen to the ill-effects of such sponsored behavior changes in a society. The aberration between market and society faced by common man makes him miss the big picture - that he is being modified (from within) in the pretext of being captured better by market forces. Even to the extent of approving the inappropriate and making their societies breeding grounds for criminals.

Although a weird one, this is a comparison I find convincing always - crime is like a river, with not a single clear source of its birth, innumerable tributaries contributing to its growth, all headed towards one common destination: an out-pour of the darkness out of oneself. This state-of-mind called crime cannot be culled by an act of law, instead it should be culled by an act of collective conscious minds. In fact drawing from experiences of various people in the same society, it can even be deduced that penal laws constructed out of similar compelling situations (viz., Sec 498A IPC) have only jeopardized harmony in the society and paved new avenues for corruption of the human mind. Like it is said, in the case of Sec 498A, it has heralded new ways of exposing the lowest levels of the executive & judiciary to corruption, who had been deprived of the benefits of erstwhile penal laws.

Hence, in the interest of public welfare, it would be prudent of the youth to not take up the cudgels for compelling the legislature to play a blind-game. Instead the same youth had rather display their collective sense and strength in warding off spirits in the market that, in the name of consumerism, convince people to even approve vulgarity such as 'public undressing'. Being a better informed customer is as important today as being a better informed citizen. Let us not build unnecessary fortresses of legislation when we can prevent such a need by being a better informed customer.

Sandalwood, you have a Missing Link!

Sandalwood: Missing a key link!

Mr Prakash Belawadi, a renowned name in Kannada cinema and among social think tanks yesterday critiqued a recent Bangalore Mirror article titled The Economics of Dubbing. A critique well done, no doubt. But if this has to help anyone at all, that better be the end consumer of entertainment content in the Kannada Film Market (KFM).

The statistics Mr Belawadi cites is pretty straight, in that the entire Indian film market is soon going to be worth 5 billion USD and that KFI's share in that is fast dwindling. He goes on to quote that -

The Kannada film industry needs to tune in to the new age or be politely requested to drop out.

While his observations are true, the perspective in Mr Belawadi's analysis is limited to the making half in a film ecosystem. KFI, in need for an overhaul, needs to focus on the consuming half and critics such as Mr Belawadi would be better off addressing that perspective. Mr Belawadi notes that -

The average Kannadiga avoids our commercial cinema not because she lacks self-esteem but rather that she has too much of it. It is only because we love our culture so much that we shun our cinema.

but fails to elaborate the subtle need for a consumer of Kannada cinema to not shun Kannada cinema but choose various degrees of participation in the feedback mechanism. The critique misses to mention the urgent need to establish feedback mechanisms in the KFM, which could actually serve a great deal in ensuring the KFI produces what the KFM has been craving for! Outcomes of such mechanisms stand as solid proofs of concept for innovative entertainment business models, like dubbing, and also as attractive presentation of KFI as a profitable destination for investors. Expert analysts and thinkers like Mr Belawadi are expected to advocate proliferation of such market survey engines in the KFM.

Apart from deriving meaning out of what audiences are thinking, such survey systems will also add to the volume of people speaking about Kannada cinema, which is less heard if not muted today. If consumers are shunning commercial Kannada movies, that's a feedback no doubt, but that's not sufficient feedback, especially when some seniors in the industry use a flopped film to blame their audiences! The Kannadiga cine-goer needs to be heard. The cine-goers' demand for better entertainment in their own language must be met, agnostic of its maker. 

With a tough customer around, any industry will correct itself if it wants to remain worthy of business. The contemporary rowdy voices rising repeatedly against a legal market innovation called dubbing (in Kannada) will be forced to face the reality with such surveys and this will pave way for a cleaner KFM and thereby a more profitable KFI. We have to find this missing link, and we need everyone to look for it.

(Related read: The Gumma-nomics of Dubbing)

Wrong Statistics and The Gumma-nomics of Dubbing

This article in yesterday's Bangalore Mirror laid out a laundry list of so-called deterrents to dubbing in Kannada. Owing to the nature and presentation of its contents, this article sent out two messages - One that Sandalwood (KFI i.e.), as it stands today, is pure crap and people who'd like to come and invest & innovate in this industry had rather stay away or brace for super-losses. Another, that regardless of its lossy-by-design nature, the dubbing industry seems to be a threat to KFI! Seems like a big gumma (ghost in children's parlance) is running the KFI, not its talent or business acumen.

What this article does is take media rights beyond imaginable boundaries and use statistics, however unsupported, to project a notion that is deeply embedded in the minds of a few people in the KFI, and perhaps another few programmed souls in other quarters. In saying that -

The film industry has steeled itself against the onslaught of a ‘consumer group’ which is demanding dubbed content in Kannada, especially films.

and from the way it is said, the this article seems to be a mouthpiece of the anti-dubbing squad within KFI. But this very statement is so irrational with respect to the functioning of an industry. If a consumer group has been demanding dubbed film content in Kannada, is it wise for the film industry to consider it as onslaught and 'steel' itself against it?


Even if one were to momentarily accept the statistics presented in this article, isn't this 'steeling' of the industry against a consumer group (among its audiences) enough evidence for the claimed minuscule share of Kannada movies in the film market in a Kannada state? Here're some interesting anti-statistics:

1. If 9 out of 27 lakh theater-goers in Karnataka watch Kannada movies, and the other 18 lakh watch non-Kannada movies, market wisdom lies in figuring ways to attract those people towards Kannada movies again, not in blindly disowning those 18 lakh cine-goers as non-Kannadigas and mentally shrink one's own Total Available Market. 
2. It is also a true businessman's interest to see why, among 6-crore people that live in this state, only 27 lakh people (a disappointing 5%) are being captured in the film market. A careful observation reveals that a good portion of contemporary movies of KFI are remakes of movies people have already watched in other languages, and another portion of KFI made movies are deprived of screens because those theaters have very little Kannada movie choice to choose from, or yield to immense pressure from a deluge of non-Kannada movies ready to fill the gap created because of a dysfunctional image of KFI projected by itself.
3. That 50 lakh Rupees is what dubbing rights of a non-Kannada movie costs, and that 5 crore Rupees is the minimal expense of making an original Kannada movie (or even a remake), and given that the current annual revenue of the latter is just 100 crores with at least 100 movies made every year, makes dubbing of films into Kannada surely more profitable to investors than movies being Made in KFI today. Besides, it is what the people from 'consumer groups' are demanding.
4. If movies of other languages can grab 120 screens across Karnataka on the first day of their global release, and corner nearly 66% of Kannada audience, it only goes to show the command non-Kannada movies have come to hold over an otherwise Kannada movie-going audience. The reasons for such success is a shameful combination of KFI's lackluster market behavior and a daring act of entrepreneurship performed by non-Kannada film businessmen.
5. The general expectation of movie audiences always follows the best entertainer, and hence the expectation of Kannada cine-goers has outgrown the KFI itself. The time-warped KFI standards is perhaps the reason for this. But the steeling of KFI against consumer demand is portrayal of its inability to meet growing audience expectations, and display of arrogance in the form a cold-ban on dubbing. 

At this juncture, the non-Kannada movie revenue model is worth imitating for KFI, with revenues from multiple platforms like Internet, TV, Mobile and other conventional media like CD/DVD being exploited to their limits. The best way to react is to mimic, yet compete. The way to handle the evolving consumer need would have been to not oppose dubbing but embrace it in this liberal market and derive the same benefits that film industries of neighboring states have been deriving.


Lets not make belittling of ourselves the way of existence, and our ray of hope in the market. If actress Tara, the current head of KCA (Kannada Chalanachitra Academy), had to reserve her stage-seat during the recently concluded GIM 2012 with a reason, the film industry that she belongs to must show some mettle and prove its business sense. If dubbing of movies into Kannada is such a loss making business, why fear the gumma; just mind your business.

(Related read: A Dubbed audience and the suspicion around Dubbing)

"Your Actors are Unethical. Come watch Hindi movies" : Indian English Media?

During the recently climaxed Nikhita-ban episode in Kannada Film Market someone wrote "But it is also a fact that kannada film industry needs serious overhauling and crass cinema needs to be rooted out!". True. And here's what I have to add at this juncture.

The English media in this country needs an overhaul too. Firstly of course on ethical grounds, and then on similar grounds where they owe their responsibility towards their readers and towards general public welfare.

Bollywood is mostly Indian English media's selling counter. Bollywood is predominantly where women are portrayed more naked than any other "*woods" in India. That means more page-3 stuff for these brokers of lewdity & voyeurism, and this stuff only attracts more people to walk-in naked into their subsequent page-3s - Which explains the repetitive Hindi sloganeering by the back-end teams of these news 'makers'. Kissa-kursi-ka, Silsila, Pati-patni-aur-woh - these are the punchlines the purported English media employs to sell their cheap news items. 

So much held up with Bollywood and its accompanying vulgarity (conveniently renamed as cool & hot based on context!) is this inefficient English media that they hardly ever have spare time on the other *woods, also benefited by portraying Bollywood as the movie-wood of the entire nation. Thereby solemnizing their neglect towards other language movie industries.

So when there's some sensation (like the Nikhita ban) happening around Sandalwood, say, this English media doesn't blink an eyelid before pouring all of its karmas on Sandalwood and trying to suck out any remnant of an intention in people to watch Kannada movies. It does its best to defame Sandalwood in the already rendered semi-liquid minds of Sandalwood cine-goers.

But the same media family doesn't find value in sensationalizing the equally undemocratic dubbing ban that has been stinking in Karnataka since decades. Not a word of opposition or a paragraph of reporting, nor a column of news, and surely not a blog or an essay about the industry features in their dailies. 

Doesn't it all expose the English media's lackluster attitude towards the welfare and entertainment needs of its audience in Karnataka? This episode of Nikhita-ban has only brought to light in front of Kannadigas that the English media just doesn't care a damn for what Kannada movies mean to Kannadigas or what Kannada itself should mean to Kannadigas; all it is bothered about is carving out the cheapest tunnel to traffic Kannada cine-goers away from Sandalwood towards Bollywood - its selling counter - obviously something that will push its bottom-line upward.

Turning a blind eye to the diversity in its audience has probably brought short-term benefits to the English Media in this country. Short-term. Yet, unfortunate.

ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಸಮ್ಮೇಳನದಲ್ಲಿ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್

ನಿನ್ನೆಗೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದ ೭೭ನೇ ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಸಮ್ಮೇಳನ ಕೊನೆಗೊಂಡಿತು. ಅದರ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರಾದ ಜಿ.ವೆಂಕಟಸುಬ್ಬಯ್ಯನವರು ಕೆಲವು ಮುಖ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಅತಿ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಹಲವಾರು ಭಾಷಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊರಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಚಿತ್ರಗಳ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಕುರಿತಾದ ಅವರ ನಿಲುವು ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ಗಮನ ಸೆಳೆಯಿತು. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ೬+ ಕೋಟಿ ಕನ್ನಡಿಗರ ಭಾಷೆಯಾದ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಸಮ್ಮೇಳನವೊಂದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಷ್ಟು ದೊಡ್ಡ ಜನಸಮೂಹದ ಎದುರು ನಿಂದು ಹೀಗೆ ಒಂದು ಜನಾಂಗದ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇರಿಕೆಯ ಪ್ರವೃತ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಎತ್ತು ಹಿಡಿಯುವ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಕೈ-ಜೋಡಿಸಿರುವುದು ನನಗೆ ಅಷ್ಟು ಸರಿಯೆಂದು ಕಾಣಲಿಲ್ಲ.

ಚಿತ್ರ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಬೇಡವಾದರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಗಳೂ ಬೇಡ. ಅಲ್ವಾ?
ಜಿ.ವೆಂಕಟಸುಬ್ಬಯ್ಯನವರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಪರಭಾಷೆಯಿಂದ ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಡಬ್ ಮಾಡುವುದು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಬೇಕಂತೆ.
(೧) ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗನ್ನು ತಡೆಯಲು ಯಾರಿಗಾದರು ಹಕ್ಕು ಕೊಟ್ಟವರು ಯಾರು, ಯಾವಾಗ? ಒಂದು ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ಡಬ್ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾದರೆ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕೊಡುವವರು ಕೇವಲ ಆ ಮೂಲ ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದವರು. ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಮಾಡದಿರಲು ಹೇಳಲು ಯಾರಿಗೂ ಯಾಕೆ ಹಕ್ಕು ಇದೆ? Censor ಬೋರ್ಡಿನೋರನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು!!

(೨) ಎರಡನೆಯದಾಗಿ, ಇಂದಿಗೂ ನಮ್ಮ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಟೀ.ವಿ ವಾಹಿನಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುವ ಜಾಹಿರಾತುಗಳನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ - ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ಬೇರೊಂದು ಭಾಷೆಯಿಂದಲೇ ಡಬ್ ಆಗಿ ಬರುತ್ತವೆ. ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ಈ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗುಗಳನ್ನೂ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಬೇಡವೇ? ಆದರೆ ಬೇರೆಡೆ ಜಿ.ವೆಂ ಅವರೇ ಹೇಳುವ ಹಾಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಜಾಹಿರಾತನ್ನು ತಿರಸ್ಕರಿಸಿ, ಕನ್ನಡ ಜಾಹಿರಾತಿಗೆ ಒತ್ತಾಯಿಸಬೇಕಂತೆ. ಇವರ ಮಾತುಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಅರ್ಥ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳೋದು ಸ್ವಾಮಿ? ಯಾವುದನ್ನು ಸರಿಯೆಂದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು, ಯಾವುದನ್ನು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು??

ಬೇಡವೆನ್ನಲು ಕಾರಣವಾದರೂ ಏನು..?
ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಒಂದು ಕಲೆಯಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ ಜಿ.ವೆಂ ಅವರು. ಅದೇ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಷೇಧಿಸಬೇಕಂತೆ. ಅಂದರೆ ಇವರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಚಿತ್ರವೊಂದರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲೆಯಲ್ಲದ ಯಾವ ಭಾಗವೂ ಇರಕೂಡದು. ಚಲನ ಚಿತ್ರವೊಂದರಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ವ್ಯವಹಾರವೂ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ - ಅದನ್ನೂ ನಿಷೇಧಿಸೋಣವೇ? ಹಾಗಂತ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗೆನ್ನುವುದು ಕಲೆಯಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಇಷ್ಟು ಹಗುರವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಲು ಆಧಾರಗಳಾದರೂ ಏನಿಲ್ಲಿ? ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಅಂದರೆ ಏನು ಎಂದು ಇನ್ನೂ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಕಾಲ ಯೋಚನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಿದ್ರೆ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲವೇನೋ ಮಾನ್ಯರು. ಒಂದು ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿರುವ ಚಲನ ಚಿತ್ರವಾಗಲಿ, ಜಾಹಿರಾತೂ ಆಗಲಿ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ನೋಡುಗರ ಮನಸ್ಸಿಗೆ ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ತಾಗಬೇಕೆಂದರೆ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಮಾಡುವ ತಂಡದವರು ಕಲಾವಿದರಾಗಿಲ್ಲದೇ ಹೋದರೆ ಆಗದು. ಇದನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ ಜಿ.ವೆಂ ಅವರು.

ಕಲೆಯಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೂ...
ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಒಂದು ’ಕಲೆ’ಯಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೂ ಅದು ಯಾವ ಕಲೆಯ ಉನ್ನತ ರೂಪ ಇಂದು ಕನ್ನಡ ಚಲನಚಿತ್ರೋದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ, ಕನ್ನಡ ಜಾಹಿರಾತಿನ ಉದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ, ಮತ್ತದರಿಂದ ಕನ್ನಡಿಗ ಚಿತ್ರ-ನೋಡುಗರು ಯಾವ ಕೊರತೆ ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವರೋ, ತಾತ್ಕಾಲಿಕವಾಗಿ ಆ ಕೊರತೆಯನ್ನು ತುಂಬುವ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನಾದರು ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ. ಕಲೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕಲಾವಿದರ ಗುರಿ ಕಲಾನುಭವಿಗಳ ಸುಖವೇ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೆ ಡಬ್ಬಿಂಗ್ ಅನ್ನು ಹೀಗೆ ವಿರೋಧಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದನ್ನು ಅಷ್ಟು ಕೇವಲವಾಗಿ ಅಂದು ಮಾತನಾಡುವುದು ಉನ್ನತ ಸ್ಥಾನವನ್ನು ಅಲಂಕರಿಸಿರುವ ಜಿ.ವೆಂ ಅವರಿಗಂತೂ ಖಂಡಿತವಾಗಿಯೂ ಸರಿಹೊಂದಲ್ಲ ಅಂತ ನನ್ನ ಭಾವನೆ. ಚಿತ್ರ ನೋಡುಗರು ಡಬ್ ಆದ ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೊಳಿಸಿದರೆ ನೋಡುತ್ತಾರೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ಎಂಬ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಯನ್ನೇ ಕೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳದೇ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಒಂದು ಕಲೆಯೂ ಆಗಿರುವ ಉದ್ಯಮದ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೀಗೆ ಗೂಬೆ ಕೂಡಿಸಿರುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದು ನನ್ನ ನಿಲುವಾಗಿದೆ.