Rubina Ali’s father arrested in Mumbai for trying to sell her

fp_1946097_barm_ali_rubina_022609

Rafiq Qureshi, father of Slumdog Millionaire Rubina Ali, was arrested in Mumbai after allegations that he and Rubina’s uncles tried to sell the little girl to a Middle Eastern family. Rubina’s mother reported a complaint to Mumbai authorities, but Rufiq is still standing by his denials.

By the reports coming out, it seems like Rubina’s uncle was the main negotiator for Rubina’s sale. First offering the child for £50,000, than quadrupling the amount as negotiations continued. Rafiq continues to claim that he thought Rubina was up for some kind of job, and they were negotiating the price for work. The Daily Mail has more:

The father of a child actress in the film Slumdog Millionaire has been arrested over allegations that he offered to sell her for £200,000. Rafiq Qureshi, who lives in poverty in Mumbai, reportedly attempted to trade nine-year-old Rubina Ali in an illegal adoption deal.

Rubina played the young heroine Letika in the movie, which has grossed £185million worldwide and swept the board at the Oscars. Qureshi is said to have been arrested after a complaint was made by the girl’s mother.

He has dismissed the allegations and insists he is being framed. He said: ‘These reports are not true. I went to the hotel to shoot an ad film. I would never sell my daughter.’

It had been hoped that the film’s success would transform Rubina’s life. But her father and an uncle were said to have claimed that they are being forced to put her up for sale because the family has not received enough of the proceeds.

They were accused of using her fame as a bargaining tool to push up the price they can get for her – first asking £50,000 and later quadrupling the amount. The uncle, Moihuddin Qureshi, was said to have told an undercover reporter: ‘The child is special now. This is not an ordinary child. This is an Oscar child.’

The claims were made following a ‘sting’ operation by the News of the World, which said it had been alerted that the child was for sale in a tip-off from a former family neighbour.

It was reported that the little girl, her father and uncles all went to a hotel to meet the ‘prospective buyers’, supposedly a family from Dubai, to discuss the deal in detail. A source close to the family told the Daily Mail: ‘Rafiq was told to bring Rubina to the hotel, where a rich man wanted to discuss a job with him.’

‘He happily agreed because Rubina can earn good money since her Slumdog success. She has had many movie offers. Rafiq didn’t understand everything that was being said to him but he was happy to discuss money for a well-paying job for his daughter. He loves her like any father loves his daughter.’

According to the News of the World, Mr Qureshi is desperate to make the most of his daughter’s success and get them out of their hut in the Mumbai slum known as Poor Man’s Colony. It claimed he had already been approached by a family from Dubai, but was hoping to start a bidding war.

Rafiq allegedly directed a reporter to his brother-in-law Rajan More, who said: ‘Rubina’s life is miserable. Obviously if you wanted to adopt, we could discuss this, but her parents would expect some proper compensation return. We are talking around £50,000 for this to happen.’

Later Rafiq added: ‘Whatever money you have agreed with Rajan, I will accept. There is a lot of interest in Rubina – she has become very famous.’

Trafficking of poor children from across the Asian sub continent has become an increasing problem. Some are sold to the Middle East where they are forced to risk their lives as camel jockeys or subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse.

The shack that Rubina calls home is yards from an open sewer. There was an outcry after pictures emerged of her and co-star Azharuddin Mohammed, who played the young Salim, living in squalor despite the film’s success. Both families have consistently complained that the filmmakers have abandoned them to their fate.

Producer Christian Colson told the Daily Mail last night: ‘We have friends and colleagues in Bombay who are trying to speak with Mr Qureshi to get to the bottom of what happened. Her family is under a lot of pressure.’

He and director Danny Boyle are planning next month to visit the young stars, who were plucked off the street for auditions to star in the film. Mr Colson added: ‘Danny and I are committed to Rubina and Azharuddin for the long term. We are trying to keep a roof over their heads, and keep them in school until they are 18. The problem is there are a lot of parties who are telling the parents different things.’

‘We agreed to buy apartments a couple of months ago but that process stalled because they decided they wanted the money up front instead. In the past few days we have got things back on track, and are now back looking at apartments.’

The film makers have set up a trust to give a lump sum to each child when they are 18. Properties will also be placed in trust, with ownership released to the parents only when the children turn 18 and have completed their education.

Mr Colson added: ‘We can’t buy the properties outright and give them to them, because in all honesty they will sell them.’

[From The Daily Mail]

So why hasn’t the uncle been arrested? He seems to be the one doing the netotiations for the sale. And, logically, why would a father want to sell a daughter who will have a stellar, long-lasting career? And why doesn’t Rubina’s mother seek full custody of her daughter? There are some big holes in the story, and the whole situation is just… sad. There are a lot of coulda, woulda, shouldas, and I’m sure the comments will reveal a lot strong opinions, so I’ll just stay out of it.

Rubina Ali is shown with her father (on her left) in Mumbai on 2/26/09. Images thanks to Fame Pictures .fp_1947121_barm_ali_rubina_022609

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

53 Responses to “Rubina Ali’s father arrested in Mumbai for trying to sell her”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. caribassett says:

    Poor girl. I hope that it is not true, that is just so sad.

  2. Kate~~ says:

    Now….exactly what kind of job could a child do that would cost that much?
    This is so sketchy!

  3. Bros says:

    anyone who is still moaning and groaning about the director’s decisions about pay and trusts and whatnot, this ought to prove that no amount of $ is going to change the mentality or somehow magically change life for these kids. I totally understand why boyle didnt want to plop a pile of cash into these people’s hands-they are irresponsible and have their own exploitative tendencies with their own family members. would you seriously advocate giving this type of family 100k or 250k in a lump sum, out of ‘fair wages’ (which in itself is a dubious concept in this case as the pic was slated to go straight to DVD and was pretty low budg) and delivering it into these people’s hands? hell to the no.

    a trust was exactly the right move for these kids, along with facilitating that they stay in school. a huge lump sum and a shiny new apartment would have been completely mismanaged and wouldnt have done hardly anything to improve the lives of these kids.

    this whole thing is a clusterf#ck.

  4. Pufft says:

    I think her father was framed. He probably thought he was negotiating prices for another film or ad, not necessarily the sale of his daughter.

    I could be entirely wrong, but as a mother I refuse to entertain other reasons at this present moment.

    The whole situation is just sad.

  5. Suzette says:

    Shamefull! Shoulda given them money up front. Coulda avoided some of this histeria. Woulda helped the families from the start get their hands on the money, and let the child continue with life/career.
    $$$$

  6. Alecto says:

    I would think that the families last experience with the film industry with slum dog would teach them that their child can’t expect much money only fame. I don’t think that we can really judge this man who is trying to save his family from conditions and a life style that we in NO WAY can imagine living. Us sitting here behind our computors in our airconditioned house. We cannot even begin to put ourselves in his shoes. He has no education or real world knowledge. Do you really think that he has ever been on the internet? I’m sure he didn’t have a concept of the outside world before his daughter was in this movie. I think that in his mind that he’s probably trying to do what’s best for his family. I blame the people from the movie. If the movie hadn’t have been the big success that it was then they wouldn’t have expected to have been able to move out of the slum and have a decent life. I’m sure they’d be happy with a life that you and I consider beneath us. But the fact that the film was the success that it was then the little girl and her family deserve more. I think that everybody should stop blaming the father and the uncle for this and put the blame where it belongs on the film producers. Why? Her sale wouldn’t profit just her father but her brothers and sisters and COUSINS!! Just like if the film company would pay all these children what they contributed NOW it would help their entire familys now. Not 10 or 15 year from now where it’d only help the one child. These people have only gotten empty promises.
    Now ya’ll go ahead and tear into me cuase I didn’t condemn this desperate man.

  7. Alecto says:

    Bros,
    Yes I think that they should have been moved out of the ghetto. I think their life should have been immensly improved. With where they live the little girl would be lucky to reach adulthood much less reach it mentally intact. This was their whole family’s chance to escape a place that we cannot imagine having to live day in and day out. Desease everywhere. Desperate people everywhere. Due to the fact that this movie made the money that it made then I think a lawyer should have been hired to make sure that these families were able to move out of the ghetto and ALL of the children be able to go to a good school. YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF THE LIFE AND HOME WHERE THEY LIVE!!! What kinda heart do you have to say that these children ANY CHILDREN should live like this. This was this families chance to get the hades out and instead some director got richer. Some rich producer got more money. How much of the many millions that this movie made to you think it would’ve taken to improve these families lives?

  8. Codzilla says:

    bros: Agreed.

  9. Alecto says:

    Codzilla,
    I don’t agree. I think that due to the money this film made then these children shouldn’t have been forced to live in a shack. EVERYDAY that they live there is one day too many. Yes they were promised this that and the other but they didn’t get it. No I don’t think that the family should have been given a lump sum of money. What I think should have happened was that when the movie made the money it made then a sum should have been handed over with a lawyer or conservator type person making sure that these families got what they needed for survival. I think the fathers or mothers should have received an education so they wouldn’t squander their children or their children’s money. Does anybody even know what kind of education level these parents have? Becuase I don’t think ya’ll realize that these people probably quite by the 5th grade to go out and get a job to support the rest of their family.

  10. geronimo says:

    Bros: agreed. The only thing that Boyle & co can reasonably be accused of is naivety in their initial thinking that it would be a straightforward business providing help and financial support for these kids.

  11. Orangejulius says:

    Yep, bros. What a sordid, sorry way for this to end. No, you can’t judge the father because of his circumstances and the culture he lives in, but it sure has shone a light on conditions that most of cannot even imagine.

  12. Nneikha says:

    this is real common in india..am not surprised at all…(after Rubina became famous and all,she quadrupled in “value”)..huh

  13. Orangejulius says:

    Good idea, Alecto, but how practical is it really to be trying to educate the parents?

  14. sohana says:

    If you know anything about the mentality of people in India who live in the slums, you would not advocate dumping a pile of money in their laps – the money would quickly disappear, or make them targets in their neighborhood. Any house would quickly be sold in order to make a quick profit. I’m not sure how the kids in this situation could best be helped, unless they were removed from the family.

  15. dokilis says:

    “And why doesn’t Rubina’s mother seek full custody of her daughter?”

    I have a hard time believing a woman could win custody in such a male-dominated society… but maybe I’m not so educated about the legal system there.

  16. skldfj says:

    🙁 this is ridiculous. I doubt the mother would lie about something like this. CB i dont think she would sue because maybe he is threatening her or beating her. and shes in a tough, seemingly powerless situation since she is a very poor woman in India. i hope rubina will be ok

  17. hatsumomo says:

    “What kinda heart do you have to say that these children ANY CHILDREN should live like this.”
    um Alecto, I dont think bros said that in his post at all.
    Honestly this whols thing pisses me off. now everyone one is going to blame Danny Boyle for this, because somehow this is all his fault for directing the movie, I’m sure…
    And everyone seems so surprised. Why? I thought it was common knowledge that human trafficking and exploitative of children was prevalent. Remember the movie? Latika was a dancer in the film but all too common children are pimped out in those brothels. did you think the producers made that part up?

    and no shit the father is going to play dumb. he has that advantage of being uneducated yes, but he still understands the concept of money and value of little girls. has everyone forgotten “shyima”- the girl that was sold to a couple in the US? her father was dirt poor and he knew what he was doing. he squandered the money he got for her. Do you honestly believe the senerio woulg have been any differnt for Rubina? And does it really suprise anyone that a girl was attempted to be sold? Girls have very little value!!! Girls (not women) are sold everyday there! They just dont have the “value” of a boy.

    And i do believe the producer when he said they would have sold the apartment rather than live in it. You cant just throw heaps of money to a problem to fix it. I know everyone will disagree but its the truth.

  18. hatsumomo says:

    sorry for seemingly echoing earlier posts. I didnt see them up when i was typing….

  19. Mairead says:

    But how do you ensure that the conservator has the best interests of the children and their families at heart and won’t essentially rob them blind? I mean, even mature/experienced performers in the West have been stolen from left-right-and-centre by managers and those meant to promote their interests (e.g. Leonard Cohen, Kevin Bacon-Kyra Sedgewick).

    Many of us who are educated (note I said well-educated, I’m not making any assumpions on anyone’s intelligence)can automatically believe whatever someone in a position of power, like a doctor or lawyer says as they should know what they’re talking about.

    I think the producer got it in one when he said that the families now have hundreds of “well-meaning advisors” telling how best to milk the limelight for all it’s worth.

    The immediate family have gotten promises of accomodation from even the Government, and it really isn’t in their interests to be seen as slacking on these “heroes” for a three or four apartments which will cost them very little in the long-term. Of course, exactly where these apartments would be in quite a sectarian and class-based society is a different matter.

    I know many people here feel that chucking cash at the family since the film did so well is the best thing for all concerned here. I don’t think that could happen – nor for any assumptions on how the family will spend the child’s money – but that it would set a precedent that would not go down well with production companies and Hollywood/Bollywood.

    In another thread, one person said that each child deserved 2million each for their month’s – then Dev and Frieda deserve 3-4million for their 6-8 weeks work, surely in the interests of fairness. And if it’s applied retroactively here, then other actors and child actors will try to sue for a similar payout for their parts in other films.

    And historically, that just hasn’t worked unless they have a percentage of the profits worked into the fee (just ask David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser). Which generally wouldn’t happen for a comparatively minor part for child actors.

  20. Enonymous says:

    I wish that child (and any child in such unfortunate circumstances) nothing but happiness.

  21. Alecto says:

    Sorry Bros but I thought that u emplied it. It seemed like you and the directorsx thought that they should live in the slums getting whatever education that can be given by the producers. Maybe I missed a few posts or something, but what it seemed to me was that they continue to live the slums while catching a bus or something to the school and untile they were 18 getting their trust fund. I never read where there was any immediate relief. Did I miss something? The fact that there was no immediate relief bothered me. And yes I think that a lawyer or some other such person would be in the better interest of the money than an uneducated man looking out for the other 7 or 8 children he has about the immediate relief that they need.

  22. Annie says:

    Agreed with Bros.

  23. Alecto says:

    “But how do you ensure that the conservator has the best interests of the children and their families at heart and won’t essentially rob them blind?”

    So do u tell the parents “I’m sorry but you have to continue to live in ghetto until you one child is 18 and comes into her trust fund?” She’s stll living only a few feet away from open sewage. So you think thats acceptable for her and her entire family to have a hopeless life for the next 20 years? I would rather trust a person to give her the life she deserves and let them prove themself wrong then let them continue their life of despair until she comes of age. What part of her and her entire and whole life sucks beyond compairasin do YOU not understand????

  24. Alecto says:

    Am I missing something???? Is it ok that this little girl and her entire family extended can live in shacks next to open sewage with no running water or electricity is okay? I want to buy her!! I wish I could afford to buy her and enjoy her growing up while the rest of her family enjoys the middle class life of the rest of her family.

  25. Mairead says:

    To be fair Alecto, not one person who isn’t cursing the filmmakers from the roof-tops ever said that the children, their families or anyone else deserve to live in the slums nor should they remain there. It would be preposterous to think that, and is unfair to imply that we said it.

    We’re just not as idealistic that once you move them out of the slums that life will automatically be ok. Nor do we all assume that everything can be sorted in a couple of months flat.

    EDIT – This next part is not aimed at anyone in particular, it’s a general comment. The kids did a job, they got paid for it – the story about how much changes everyday, but the fact is they got paid. The trust and education was meant to be a perk given to the children after the film was an unexpected success. They were apparently paying for the children’s education and expenses relating to that.

    As I said, the stories are changing every day, and although I’m not suggesting that they are dishonest – I do believe that perhaps they’re putting more of a “poor me” spin on things to keep up the media interest(and the cash that come with it) and of a human tragedy has more legs than triumph.

  26. Alecto says:

    Why is it that ya’ll want this child and her entire family to live in complete poverty that YOU cannot imagine. And wait for her in 10 years to choose for her family to be able to get out of this unbelieveale poverty? I’m sorry if I don’t get your thinking that she needs to wait to get out of her life.

  27. Mairead says:

    Alecto – you are not this child’s only defender and saving grace, so please stop acting like it. If you’re going to put yourself forward for the job of making sure that nobody swindles her (family, friends, lawyers, or the film-makers), I would strongly suggest that you practice reading what is written properly, otherwise you’re going to miss some severe loopholes in contracts.

    You know full well that I have NEVER ONCE said that she should be confined to living in a shack until she is married off or turns 18, whichever is the sooner. Also you know full well that what I meant is that things aren’t always as simple as they seem.

  28. Annie says:

    Agreed with Mairead.

    I think to assume we’re saying they deserve slum life is really insulting to our characters. No one has said that.

    We are saying that people aren’t always 100% trustworthy. We’ve seen time and time again how money has torn families apart and how parents stop being parents and they start looking at their children as cash cows. Hi, the Culkins? Ms. Dina Lohan? Look at all these instances where the child is not put first. The money is.

    No one should live in the conditions they suffer, but many many do. And while I consider myself a person who is truly concerned with world poverty and ways at alleviating it, I am also realistic in that endeavor. Where was the uproar about Uganda abducting children and employing them as toy soldiers for over 23 years now? Where’s your rage for that? What about Darfur?

    There are a lot of atrocities in this world, and while that doesn’t mean we should overlook or even condone them, I’m just noting that it’s interesting that only because it was thrust in your face did you seem to give a shit and are getting all self-righteous on us.

  29. ChristinaT says:

    excuse me but how would this have not been alleviated had the family received some money? i can’t believe how many people are making excuses in order to rip off these kids… what happened to that little girl is sad and shameful but how you guys can use it to justify not adequately compensating these kids is beyond me…

  30. Alecto says:

    The kids did a job, they got paid for it – the story about how much changes everyday, but the fact is they got paid. The trust and education was meant to be a perk given to the children after the film was an unexpected success. They were apparently paying for the children’s education and expenses relating to that.

    So even though they got paid to eat lunch that day or month even though the movie made a poop load of money they don’t deserve an IMEDIATE cut of it? Theyh have to go without runing toliet and water with raw sewage outside of their door?

  31. Alecto says:

    Seems to me that the movie people paid her and her family what was it? 3 grand and said “good day to you”. They’ve promised apartments but it didn’t come through/ They’ve promised education but said that they had to ride in the man driving carts that I don’t remember the name for to get to school. Meanwhile the rest of her family have to do with what they get. I don’t think its fair. While I don’t like the whole Britney Spears Lindsey Lohan thing going on I do think there needs to be a happy median going on. Where everybody in the famly should benefit at least a little or a whole lot depending on their poverty level.

  32. Alecto says:

    Thank you celebitchy for allowing me to having my opinion although it desagrees with the majority. I just don’t understand why it’s acceptible for the little girl and all the other children to live in unimaginalble poverty. Desperate times call for desperate means. I don’t think that we can judge these people when we have absolutely no idea how they live.

  33. Alecto says:

    In america we have people like the “OctoMoM” who deliberately have children while living in poverty. Yet we allow her to live off of the government and public image. Yet we condemn people that are truly desperate that just want to get out of the life of living in human waste without the basic human neccessatries. Peole that were promised the life the most of us are basically understand are going to have.

  34. Bros says:

    OMG
    just checked back here from my earlier post. Alecto, you clearly havent been following the 10 or so other posts that celebithy has done covering this topic since the day the controversy emerged. thats why the rest of the regular posters on here have been able to understand and agree with my posts because they probably had seen other ones i have made on this issue where i have decried the protests stirred up by local politicians, sectarian fomentation, civic leaders and the press. I couldnt even get all the way through your rampant hysteria, but you need to take a deep breath of sanity, like everyone is telling you to do.

    A. no one has ever said they deserve to live in the slums, so stop shouting about it like we all did.

    B. the situation clearly can’t be solved with a lump of cash, and cash is one of the things complicating and polluting this saga as evidenced by the news that dad was trying to get some cash by selling a kid.

    C. having enough cash on hand wouldnt prevent the father from selling the kid. to be willing to sell your kid is to be willing to sell your kid even if you had some cash, in order to get MORE cash.

    d. this mentality is borne from circumstances we cant understand or even approach mentality, with our western, liberal UNICEf loving minds, so we shouldnt even attempt to put some kind of logical overlay on it to ease our minds.

    e. your sanctimonious neoliberal bleeding heart blame the director and the evils of the cold-hearted west is just as paternalistic and annoying as youre accusing everyone else of being. We shouldnt allow this or that, they need charity, they need a million dollars for some acting work, etc etc. as neocolonial an attitude as the rest. the director can’t save this family from itself, nor should he.

    f. unless you saw the contract, i have a hard time believing you know what each and every family involved in this film was ‘promised.’ so stop assuming everyone reneged on it. giving someone a lump some of money does not = perfect sunny life where the thought of selling your kid never even enters your mind. didnt you hear about how it wouldhave been dangerous to give a huge sum of money directly over to the family? now, with this news, do you understand why? chill the hell out.

  35. ChristinaT says:

    i am so annoyed at the public for not recognizing the simplicity of the situation… do you go around watching what people spend their salaries on? making sure they don’t use it for coke, or prostitutes or booze or whatever else you deem inappropriate? in a capitalist country, why are people making excuses to not pay someone for their work? where is the logic in any of this? give them the money they earned!!!!

  36. Alecto says:

    Oh geez the fact that you called me a liberal no matter how fancy u called me one makes me want to crack the “f” up. I thought I saw the 20 posts on here about how who the poor little cast was abandoned. I admitted that maybe I had soemthing better to do that day then be glued to the comput scree and check out everybody’s login. My opinion was from the start now was that these childred were treated unfairly when this movie made a gazillion dollars. What their family did or didn’t do is beside the point. This little girl now would want to get her family out of the ghetto and would in the future would want to get out of the ghetto. YOU or I do not have and room to judge people for a circumstance that we do not live in.

    Did I miss a poest where it said that her family was getting out a worse slum than what we have in a america? Did I miss where they were getting out of the the open runnign of sewae? Nope I don’t recall it. All I recall is were they were promised it but never saw it.

  37. Alecto says:

    “i am so annoyed at the public for not recognizing the simplicity of the situation… do you go around watching what people spend their salaries on? making sure they don’t use it for coke, or prostitutes or booze or whatever else you deem inappropriate? in a capitalist country, why are people making excuses to not pay someone for their work? where is the logic in any of this? give them the money they earned!!!!”

    Thank you. It seems to me that people are tryting to prevent her and her family from being another lohan while allowing her and her entire family to live in a dumpster. Saying she’ll get hers in 10 years when she’s of age.

  38. Bros says:

    oh yes alecto, because “I want to buy her” makes so much more sense.

    christina T, they were paid for their acting. this whole increase/trust/ thing came after the film was a success. technically, the director/producers have no obligation to go back and pay for more than they had initially agreed, but did so anyway, given that they could because the film grossed more than expected. if you read sohana’s post above, and many previous posts in previous stories about the danger of delivering large sums of cash (which obviously would be mismanaged by parents who both beat and try to sell their kids) directly into the adults hands here, opening the door for exploitation, mismanagement, and positioning them as targets in the slum. so a trust was set up precisely because this isn’t a first-world straight forward situation for services rendered, have a nice day and spend how you see fit. this required a little extra thought to protect (literally) the family, but especially the kids. the promises about a new apartment and whatnot came from the indian government, so save your vitriol for them, since they are the one who have supposedly not delivered on that promise, although a fat lot of good it would do a family in which a girl’s value is basically what $$ they can get for her. they will keep trying to get cash for her now that they know she can pull it in-by whatever means necessry.

  39. Annie says:

    Whoa whoa there Bros, neoliberal bleeding heart ? Had to throw that into the mix? As if it’s a bad thing?

    Listen. Alecto, you obviously care. And that’s amazing. But I think, what some of us, (not sure about Bros anymore, given the liberal comment) are trying to get at, is that there are numerous intricacies involved in the ordeal.

    It is NOT right that a child, any child, exist in poverty. It is a horrible and tragic fact of our world that many do and I know that if you could, if I could, if any of us could, we would take the millions and millions of children born into poverty and give them better lives.

    The fact of the matter is, we can’t. That is not to say then, that we shouldn’t do anything. No, of course we should act. And of course we should care. But disregarding the fact that her father has proven himself to be very self-serving would be a disservice to Rubina.

    ChristinaT, to say that this is “simple” is just plain wrong. It’s not simple. Things of this nature never are. You’re overlooking numerous factors that will not be solved by chucking some money at Rubina.

    Would the money go to her? If we were to just cut a check for XX amount of money, would that do it? Do you think her family would do the right thing and allow it to be HERS that SHE earned? No. None of us have come from poverty and none of us can truly say how a person in that situation would act. But by sheer virtue of that fact that her father tried to SELL HER (child trafficking HELLO!) shows that this money would have not gone to her.

    So you guys can sit here with your sanctimonious attitudes and act as if some of us are tossing Rubina to the lions but overlooking the character of her father (or lack thereof) will not improve her situation or the situation of the millions of children who exist in poverty as we speak (something that, by the way, I don’t see much outrage about :P)

  40. Bros says:

    annie, I meant that alecto’s neo-liberal position on this is as self-serving as the purported attitude I (and the rest of the people who agreed with me) have. meaning its not simple, and not something that caring and being outraged at poverty can simply fix just by throwing money at it. I would consider myself very liberal, but educated enough to know that thinking its the white man’s responsibility to repair the slums is facile and in this case, misplaced.

    oh and ps about the “YOU cannot imagine the poverty” bs, Ive been in some serious slums in beijing, brazil, iran and argentina, so please dont tell me i’m immune to suffering, and unfamiliar with what poverty looks like.

  41. Annie says:

    I believe I said: None of us have come from poverty and none of us can truly say how a person in that situation would act

    And you haven’t come from poverty, you may have seen it, but you’ve never been a victim of it. My family dealt with it when they were in Vietnam but I haven’t. So even I cannot say and neither can you, how a person would act.

    I never called you immune or even unfamiliar. Reread my statement please.

    Also, if while you’re at it, you’ll also notice that I said the exact same thing about “throwing money at her” not being the answer.

  42. daisyfly says:

    Alecto, it seems that you’re so intent on getting your point across, whether it’s right or not, that you intentionally ignoring the responses to everyone whose arguments you cannot refute.

    Here are the facts in this case that you keep ignoring:

    1. Rubina was paid the standard amount for her work in a film that wasn’t expected to do as well as it did.

    2. In addition to the standard amount of payment, Rubina’s family was also paid a lump sum of money, given access to paid education (something that most of the girls in her neighborhood do not have), and an apartment that is currently in construction.

    3. Rubina’s father spent most of the money on treatment for an injury and a CELL PHONE.

    4. A trust fund has been set up for Rubina – money that is meant for HER and not for her family – to be distributed to her when she reaches maturity. In the US, there are laws that require a family to set aside at least 10% of any earnings made in film, music, and television for the child’s future. In India, whatever the child makes as a child is her parents and not hers.

    Now, you expect that she be treated differently because she was in an Oscar award winning movie; you say that everyone is saying she deserves to live in the slums (which is not the case), yet fail to even mention any of the countless hundreds of children who live in her village who suffer the same plight every single day, who will never have an opportunity like she had, who will never wake up one morning at 18 years of age and realize that the world is now their oyster, they’re now old enough to claim the money that is theirs.

    Throwing money at her family, removing them from their slum, showering her father with nice clothes and fancy anything isn’t going to change the fact that her father tried to SELL her. She has no value as a human being to him or as a daughter unless it’s to make money.

    The family was offered apartments ALREADY BUILT, but the father turned them down. Why? Because they’re not in Mumbai. He has the opportunity to house his family in housing that’s a thousand times better than what he’s in now, but he says no NOT because it’s not safe for his family, but because HE doesn’t want to move.

    Is THAT the kind of life you want for her? To be viewed as a checking account for her father? To be the Indian Gary Coleman? To be denied a decent roof over her head because her dad wants to live ONLY in Mumbai? Her father’s shown no care or concern for her, and yet you think that it’s because he doesn’t have enough money. If you want that kind of life for her, I feel more sorry for you than I do for her.

  43. Codzilla says:

    Alecto, please take a moment to calm down and reread what the people you’re vilifying have actually written. Cramming your fingers in your ears and pointing fingers only makes you seem uninformed and self-righteous, which does nothing to bolster your argument.

  44. Codzilla says:

    Damn, too many references to fingers in my last post. Hopefully the point still managed to convey itself, despite its writer’s shortcomings.

  45. Bina says:

    Oh, the dad knew exactly what he was doing. People have done all this and worse through the ages – selling their children, maiming them so they can beg, abandoning children they can’t afford to feed, aborting female fetuses because they want a boy, sending their children to work in dangerous conditions – and will ALWAYS continue to do so as long as they are uneducated and unemployed. Anything to eat food every day. This is survival at its most basic, ugly and raw. All else is extraneous, white noise against the undeniable fact of an empty stomach.

    I have a feeling a lot of the money would have gone to pay debts. People in the slums are mired in debt that they have no hopes of repaying. As for buying a cell phone, well, why not? It’s not exactly as if they’ve got a landline from AT&T in their shack. For millions of poor people in South Asia, a cell phone is a cheap and easy way to communicate. The cell phone revolution in Pakistan means that I’ve seen people driving donkey carts and talking on their phones.

  46. Bina says:

    I also read on another web site that Rubina was abandoned by her biological mother, and it’s her father and stepmother that have been raising her for the last five or six years. Her mother turned up when the movie was a success and demanded custody of her child. Am I the only one to think that these children’s lives have been ruined by acting in this movie?

  47. CeeJay says:

    Bina, Thank you for joining in and saying what you have so succinctly. A hungry belly and an empty fridge will make many do what seems unthinkable when they are well-fed.

    The family dynamics of each of these youngsters will continue to be confusing and contradictory until each of them reaches the age of 18 and are able to speak and spend for themselves.

    While we all obviously would like to feed each and every child in each and every slum throughout the world, the reality is that we cannot and should not pretend that our well-being, good intentions are going to easily solve the multitude of problems that world hunger creates. For any of us to pretend otherwise is foolish and naive.

    I for one support the process Boyle is following to ensure the children are the ones who reap the rewards from the film’s success. The $$ does not belong to the parents and it has been proven time and time again that each time they are given funds they quickly expend them and return to ask for more. This is not a simple problem. I don’t envy Mr. Boyle’s position. He has stated, I believe truthfully, that he is heavily burdened thinking about these kids and what they are going through. He has made multiple trips back to Mumbai to reach out to the families and will continue to make trips for many years to come. He lived in Mumbai next door to the slums for two years while filming and does not pretend that he even knows the intricacies of daily life there.

    ..Do gooders only do good when the goods go to good in the end…

    That does not seem to be the case so far.

  48. Wow says:

    Okay, now I seriously really do want to adopt her!

    His butt needed to be arrested. In fact they need to go find the other little boy who’s father slapped him for not wanting to do non-stop interviews after returning back to India from the Oscars. I’ll adopt him too because their real parents are ticking me off! 🙁

    Seriosly people, who sells their kids? I know cultures are different in our world, but even if he would have been able to sell Rubina, how could he as a human possibly be able to spend that money with a clear conscience? Ugh.

  49. eternalcanadian says:

    omg, that is horrible! 😮

  50. Jaylan says:

    The information you give is not complete. This is entire real story: Some english journalists went in India in order to “test” the father this poor girl. They heard that he talked about seilling his daughter to a rich couple living in middle East. They proposed 2 millions dollars to the father to see how he would react and he accept it. The behaviour of this “father” makes me sick but the behaviour of those journalists too. Because that’s not how a good and respectable journalist should behave, it don’t honor them. The poor litle girl was forced to claim that “her father wouldn’t do such a terrible thing”. Does anyone really care about a children forced to say such awful things about her father.

  51. young kl says:

    i seen this sam shit on upallnite.tv

  52. anonymous says:

    If I was a judge I would have arrested
    the father for child abuse.

  53. ghdhairs says:

    Nice posting!I was keep listening to the reports lecture about getting boundless online grant applications,so I have been looking around for the top site to get one. thanks for your advice,will acquire some soon?ghd hairs