“Defending Thackeray” - excerpts
This is a column from more than 9 years ago but, interestingly, the points made by Pritish Nandy - especially with regards to our attitude towards Pakistan - still appear to be relevant.
I have added my views at the end.
Pritish Nandy on “Defending Thackeray” - excerpts
“…The media loves those who wear their secularism on their sleeve. Who claim to fight for artistic tolerance, cultural freedom and secular values, however fake they may be. Even Manjit Bawa and Jatin Das, who have made their careers out of badmouthing Husain are now grabbing front page headlines by defending him in the name of secularism and free thinking.
…
But what is secularism? Is it an euphemism for liberal politics or is it a true understanding of what constitutes right and wrong in a multi-religious, pluralistic society like ours?
Is a secular person someone like Mulayam Singh who speaks for the minorities and voices their political concerns or is it someone who stands up for what is actually the right thing to do, irrespective of whom it benefits, the majority or the minorities?
Take the massacre of the Hindus in Kashmir. My friend Anupam Kher has been branded communal by some sections of the media (and these so-called secularists) simply because he had the temerity to question conventional wisdom.
He argued, rightly in my view, that disrupting Ghulam Ali’s concert and banning Jansher Khan were not exactly examples of Sena intolerance. They were protests born out of anguish and despair which the secularists have deliberately chosen to misread.
This is not new. Every time a writer or a painter or a musician is attacked by the religious majority in a society, he or she immediately becomes a victim and a hero. Like Salman Rushdie. No one ever bothered to look at the point of view of the Ayatollah Khomeini or millions of conservative Muslims who were outraged by The Satanic Verses. Why? Simply because the media finds it unfashionable to be conservative.
Everyone jumped to Rushdie’s defence. He was seen as an innocent victim of Islamic fundamentalism, a heroic writer standing up to injustice and intolerance. No one bothered to look at the real issue. Was it right, was it necessary for him to make his reputation (and his millions) as a great twentieth century novelist by deliberately hurting the sensitivities of millions of conservative Muslims whose only crime was that they were believers?
But that was not a fashionable question to ask. The fashionable stance was the liberal one: How dare these bigoted Muslims get offended by a work of artistic merit? Anyone who disagreed was labelled a zealot, undeserving of being part of a modern, liberal society. The real issue (Was Rushdie right in hurting the feelings of millions?) was conveniently brushed under the carpet and everyone zoomed onto a non-issue (Was Khomeini justified in putting out a fatwa against him?) and the whole world rooted for Rushdie (as a great novelist, deserving of the Nobel Prize) and abused Khomeini for wanting his head (as a frumpy, filthy fascist, with no understanding of modern literature).
It was politically correct to spit on Khomeini. Rushdie was this brave, liberal, secular, and enormously talented author being harrassed by a wicked, brutal, ugly, fundamentalist state. It became a fight between art and authoritarianism, right and wrong, good and bad. Rushdie was the nice guy. Khomeini was the evil emperor of crime.
Very glib. Very pat. But was it true? Was Khomeini really a bad guy or was he simply standing up for what he thought was unjust to his faith, his people? No one had time for the truth. Public opinion, spearheaded by the intolerant Western media, was clearly prejudiced. No one could defend Khomeini without getting tarred by the same brush.
This is exactly what has happened to Thackeray.
No one is ready to look at the real issues. Which are: Why did the Shiv Sena disrupt Ghulam Ali’s concert? Why did the Bajrang Dal ransack Husain’s flat?…Are these signs of intolerant Hinduism? Or is it outrage at the insensitivity of the media to the anguish of the majority community?
Is it fascist to stand up against those who hurt us, knowingly or unwittingly? After all, no one is saying anything against Ghulam Ali or Junoon or Jansher Khan. Their excellence is not in question. Nor are they being accused of any crime. They are only being identified for what they are. Pawns on the chessboard of our complex political life.
Pakistan is happy to send us their best talent, who win our hearts by their art, their music, their poetry, their excellence in sports. At the same time, they subvert us by sending in terrorists who bomb and kill and loot hundreds of innocent men, women and children whose only crime is that they are Hindu. How can we separate these two issues? How can we say that art and sports unites our nations while terrorism is a crime we must rebut? That Pakistani artistes must be welcomed with open arms but Pakistani-trained terrorists must be fought back?
Is this possible? Is it possible to keep art and life in separate compartments? To fight the Pakistanis at the frontier and welcome their writers, poets, singers and musicians to our cities and fete them? To say that culture has nothing to do with terrorism, sportsmanship is more important than human life? That the murder of the innocents in Kashmir must not be allowed to bloody our ties?
…It is time we called the bluff of our fashionable secularists. For we cannot remain blind to the truth. That the ISI today is subverting our life, our freedom, our political choice.
It is easy to be secular when your father, your brother, your son is not tortured and killed before your eyes. It is easy to be liberal when your mother is not gang raped, your sister is not molested by strangers. When your village is not razed to the ground, your home is not looted. Your means of livelihood are not destroyed by a brutal, meaningless war that runs on and on and on.
…
We believe that art cannot pretend to be superior to life. It is not possible to allow a gaggle of city socialites to sit back and enjoy a ghazal night by Ghulam Ali or a rock concert by Junoon while thousands of innocent people in Kashmir remain terrorised by Pakistan.
…It is time we stopped thinking in terms of what is secular and what is communal and, instead, focussed on what is right for India, good for India. If that, coincidentally, happens to be a Hindu point of view, so be it. After all, even the BJP is ready to forsake that position today. In desperate search of minority votes.
…Who is interested in Husain’s credentials, whether he loves Hindus or not? The question is: Does he have the right to hurt others?
Would he have dared to paint Allah naked? Would he have dared to paint Allah at all? Or is he brave only in hurting those who do not hit back because they think it is politically unfashionable? Because they think that modern India must enshrine secularism and kick everything else in the butt?
I have fought for all the secular causes and I am ready to defend secularism with my life. But not at the cost of India. Not at the cost of what is right.
And what is right is simple: We cannot allow Pakistan to make monkeys out of us. Our tolerance must not be taken for granted. Artistic freedom cannot have precedence over our lives, our honour. The blood of innocents must not be allowed to be shed in vain.
*****
As most of you would know, Pritish Nandy was Shiv Sena’s representative in the Rajya Sabha between Jul ‘98 - Jul ‘04.
*****
MY VIEWS on some of the points above:
I agree with his question about secularism. I think it needs to be answered by our leaders.
I disagree with his distinction between the “real issue (Was Rushdie right in hurting the feelings of millions?)” and the “non-issue (Was Khomeini justified in putting out a fatwa against him?)”.
How can a “fatwa” be a non-issue? It is a matter of life and death. There is no doubt that feelings were hurt but the same thing happens when Husain paints deities and national icons in the nude – Does that make it alright to issue a “fatwa” against him asking for his head? I do not think so.
If, as Pritish Nandy says, Khomeini was “simply standing up for what he thought was unjust to his faith, his people”, surely there are other ways of doing that than by threatening the life of a person?
But with his view on Pakistan and how we should deal with their musicians, singers and actors, I completely agree.
We really cannot separate the two issues of exporting culture and exporting terror when it comes to Pakistan.
As Pritish Nandy says, it is time we “focussed on what is right for India, good for India. If that, coincidentally, happens to be a Hindu point of view, so be it.”
Jai Hind
Extremely well said. Secularism has become a flash card brandished by the most conceited of the pigs present in our country. As is said in this article, the media does not find it fashionable to be conservative. As a result, we, as an entire nation suffer the results of their imbecile judgments.
Comment by Ritwik Banerjee | July 18, 2007
Very well said by Pritish Nandy. These are the points that people of India must explore on its own and be aware of. Now a days nobody wants to go beyond the picture and media is to be blamed for its 50% of its attitudes towards the issues. If Hindus are fighting, there must be some reason for that. Today there are organisation like RSS, Bajrang dal, Shiv Sena and must be many. They have not erupted like this. There could have been some kind of threat to society in particular and so they are there. No one would like to fight in vain.
Shiv Sena has done everything right for preserving secularity of India which govt. has failed to do so in this 60 years if we read by the oint of view of Pritish Nandy and that is 100% true.
Our oppenents( non-Hindus) doesnot like this idea that we are fighting back in protection, so they start describing all this orgs, anti secular.
I am still surprised, how come Hussains pictures denigrating Hindu dieties comes under the defination of Art. and not a Danish cartoon? In that context I fully agree with Pritish Nandy.
But my views are the same of Shantanu, in case of Rushdi, fatwa and khomeni. Khomeni can never be right in his standing for fanatic religion.
In hope hindus(mainly media and reporters) open up their closed eyes and bring justice to those who are real victim.
Comment by Indian | July 18, 2007
I would also like to post this report which is worth reading. It is long so Shantanu please take care of it by editing.
***** EDITED by MODERATOR *****
Human Rights Groups Censures Eleven Countries for Abuses Against Hindus http://www.hafsite.org
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 11, 2007: (HPI note: Following is a press release.) The Hindu American Foundation (HAF), the leading U.S.-based Hindu human rights group, released its third annual report today on the discrimination against Hindus in countries across the world. …
This year’s report includes documentation of significant human rights abuses directed against Hindu communities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Fiji, the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Trinidad and Tobago.
Endorsements for the third annual report were received from several academics and from organizations, including the B’nai Brith International and the Human Rights First Society of Saudi Arabia.
“Several years ago in testimony to Congress regarding Religious Freedom in Saudi Arabia, I called for adding Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists to oppressed religious groups who are banned from practicing their religious and cultural rights in Saudi Arabia,” said Ali Al-Ahmed, Director of the Washington, DC, based Institute for Gulf Affairs. “This report is a great effort in bringing to attention the religious rights and freedoms of 1 billion people with magnificent culture and a great civilization. ”
As in past years, Bangladesh warranted added censure for the most egregious violations with 461 documented acts of murder, rape, arson, temple desecrations and other atrocities.
Ramesh Rao, Executive Council Member of HAF, and the primary author of the report (said) “What is important in the report is the careful documentation of attacks against Hindus, Hindu institutions, and Hindu places of worship - providing a unique record of human rights abuse that other human rights agencies either gloss over or report only in general terms.”
Download the report from here .http://www.hafsite.org/pdf/HHR2006.pdf
Comment by Indian | July 18, 2007
One can see from above report how the govt. is concerned about the issue. Can we imagine happening this kind of atleast small reporting presenting the ruling govt. in India. No way! Govt. itself is the most insecular.
Comment by Indian | July 18, 2007
It is argued by some that art transcends religion and it is just a means of “artistic” expression! So if Husain paints something which happens to be objectionable to Hindus, that is not really his problem. But is it really that simple? Is Husain naive enough to think the huge number of Hindu population would be thrilled or happy to see his paintings? Or he is deliberately trying to be provocative?
Going by the same standards, as someone above points out, would Husain dare to paint something that is insulting to muslim viewpoint, since it is a religion that really rigid and intolerant about such matters (just look at Rushdie or the Danish newspaper cartoons)? Or would he be too scared to attempt something so clearly “suicidal”?
Violence is not justified, but how does one prevent these so-called artists from hiding behind artistic licenses to freely hurl insults and insensitivies against a religion or a group? Would using violence to put “fear” in such people to prevent such incidents be justified for the religion? Or is religion really beyond all this and strong enough to withstand tests such as these? Do events such as this actually call for “taking the high road” and showing others what true Hinduism is. It is an open question with no right or wrong answers. I would like to hear what other posters think. However, before one acts, I think one should always remember the principle: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
Comment by Harry Potter | July 18, 2007
Oh and nice article by Nandy, btw!
Comment by Harry Potter | July 18, 2007
Ritwik, Indian and Harry: Thanks for your comments and sharing your thoughts.
@ Harry: To your questions, my responses (in brief):
1. Husain is not naive but I guess he is being provocatove.
2. I doubt he will paint anything that is insulting to Muslim sensibilities - it would be far too dangerous.
3. How does one prevent these so-called artists from hiding behind artistic licenses to freely hurl insults and insensitivies against a religion or a group? We have recorse to the judicial process and the state can also intervene when there is a clear threat to public order.
4. Would using violence to put “fear” in such people to prevent such incidents be justified for the religion? I think not.
5. Is religion really beyond all this and strong enough to withstand tests such as these? I guess Hinduism is.
6. Do events such as this actually call for “taking the high road” and showing others what true Hinduism is? Yes, that would be my preference.
But as you said, there are no right or wrong answers here. Others may have a different (and perfectly valid) viewpoint.
Thanks.
Comment by B Shantanu | July 19, 2007
The state is never going to do anything. The state — as a single entity — has lost its spine long back. The latest indication is the act of forwarding six Muslim candidates for the post of a vise-president by the leftists.
Not that there is anything wrong about a Muslim taking that post. But there are better non-Muslim candidates.
Comment by Ritwik Banerjee | July 19, 2007
It is too much to expect the Indian Government to do anything to control artistic freedom, especially, when such freedom affects the sentiments of the majority community only. During a debate on this subject on NDTV some time ago, Ms Renuka Chowdhary, wearing a Bindi as big as the full moon, vigorously defended Mr. Husein’s artistic rights. She seemed outraged and disgusted that certain sections in India found anything objectionable in his drawings. She confirmed all his paintings were a beauty to watch rather than being offensive. She believed that the Hindutvavadis must be shown their place so they would not indulge in such absurd activities in future.
We also have a renowned Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu who believes that majority of the Hindu temples must be pulled down or at least closed. According to him naked idols are worshipped in many temples. The temple priest are so embarrassed that the idols are clothed before the doors are opened for public view. When such is the case in our own temples, why go after Husein for making some innocent caricatures? For him the temple idol is explicitly erotic and Husein’s work creatively artistic.
As far as the artists are concerned, they understand the limitations of a secular Government. Therefore, the impulse of artistic freedom is aroused only in relation to Puranic characters and Indian cultural symbols. The flame gets mysteriously doused and they find helpless in conceiving any images of characters mentioned in the books of “Revelations”. It is understood that the community that gets hurt does not wait for a discussion on NDTV before passing their judgment. These creative minds are well aware that such judgments are so swiftly executed, there may not be enough time to react. They also know in such cases the Government and the likes of Ms. Chowdhary will be equally incensed. They all know their secular limits.
Comment by Nandan | July 20, 2007
Very well said Nandan!
Comment by Ritwik Banerjee | July 20, 2007
*** COMMENT EDITED by MODERATOR ***
24/07/07
” Do events such as this actually call for “taking the high road” and showing others what true Hinduism is? Yes, that would be my preference.”
The danger in this route is the Hindu majority will be deemed to be secularly eunuch; the term Baburao Patel coined in sixties; he is the greatest Hindutva icon and a great editor. The response should be measured and telling; how about a few blows.
Secularism and multi cultural societies, the draem of the socialist scoundrals have flopped throgugh out the world; Europe has collapsed and it is in serious trouble in UK and Australia.
***
Comment by Moderator:
Thiagan: I have edited the last bit of your comment as it contains an assertion but does not cite any reference/ links to substantiate it. If you have any such references (and more importantly the link between the two figures you cite), I will put it back on again. Thanks
Comment by Thiagan | July 24, 2007