UPDATED: Is Taslima being treated differently from MF Husain?
From Free Press Journal, via Sify: “M F Hussain spared, but not me: Taslima” (emphasis mine)
….She (Taslima)Â said in her outspoken manner why she was being attacked whereas ‘nothing happened to M F Hussain who had done so many things.’
I too wonder why?
Also read: MF Husain, “Artistic Freedom” and a sense of deja-vu and More on Husain
and this one for my personal view on MF Husain’s paintings.
.
Related Post: Taslima Nasreen and a deafening silence
.
UPDATE: This is part of a statement by Shri Pranab Mukherjee made in the Lok Sabha (part in bold, mine)
“Throughout history, India has never refused shelter to those who have come and sought our protection. This civilisational heritage, which is now government policy, will continue, and India will provide shelter to Ms Nasreen,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told the Lok Sabha, the lower House of Indian Parliament.
“Those who have been granted shelter here have always undertaken to eschew political activities in India or any actions which may harm our relations with friendly countries,” Mukherjee added in the same breath while alluding to “an issue which has attracted considerable public attention in recent days.”
“It is also expected that the guests will refrain from activities and expressions that may hurt the sentiments of our people,” he stressed in a statement immediately after the customary Question Hour.
My question is: Does the last bit (in bold) apply to Shri Husain as well, although he is not a guest but part of “our people”?
UPDATE – II
I am expanding the scope of this post by also including comparisons between the Rushdie Affair (Jaipur Literary Festival) and MF Husain. In addition, Â I am placing a link here to an incidence involving Francois Gautier too: Will Arundhati Roy please stand up for Francois Gautier?
Me 2 wonder why ? but will hav to ask the commies for more on this
Visit Francois gautiers’ organisation FACT at
http://www.factusa.blogspot.com
1. Two cases are incomparable. They are earth and sky different. While Taslima is a humane and her work reflects genuine concern for human dignity and justice, Hussain takes personal pleasure by his sadistic paintings and earn million dollars.
2. Taslima’s writings focuses on justice, oppression of women in general and muslim society in particular, atrocities on minority hindus by Islamists in Bangladesh etc. Her work means to reform the society, muslims in particular. Taslima is writing on her own religion, what she experiences in her life and by family and others.
Read the first page of her webpage:
http://taslimanasrin.com/
“Women are oppressed in the east, in the west, in the south, in the north. Women are oppressed inside, outside home . Whether a woman is a believer or a non believer, she is oppressed. Beautiful or ugly, oppressed. Crippled or not, rich or poor, literate or illiterate, oppressed. Covered or naked, she is oppressed. Dumb or not, cowardly or courageous, she is always oppressed.” Taslima Nasreen
How come her book ‘Lajja’ is blasphemous, which depicted the cruel atrocities on minority hindus in Islamist Bangladesh? I have gone through the whole book. If highlighting cruel atrocities on hindus means blasphemy?
3. What MF Hussain is doing? He devote his time on sadistic paintings of HIndu deva-devis? Is he working to correct the HIndus from some evil practices, worshiping different murtis/idols? Is he a Hindu? Is he working for Hindu social reform? Should Hindus start worshiping his depictions for sadistic pleasures? Truth is that, he made it a multi-million dollar industry for himself. He knew it very well, some hindus will shouts and he will get free publicity and the market and celebrity status from anti-hindu pseudo-secualr brigades.
4. Hussain deserves severe punishment under the international law, as he is insulting the very decorum (civilty) of deitys. He is not doing any social correction work, but social degradation activities. Can he depict his mother in a nacked form? No action on Islamist Jihadi Hussain has been carried out as pseudo-secular brigades uses Hussain as instrument to beat BJP and other hindu organizations. I am afraid, muslims in general like and support what Hussain did and doing. No muslim will come forward to protect Hussain, if he got hanged to death or jail.
5. Truth will always win, it is the inherent Nature of Truth. That is why, Vedic rishis boldly proclaimed Satyameva Jayate nanritam (Truth alone triumphs, not untruth).
Hussein is an Indian citizen and the law of the land must be allowed take its own course in his case. Criminals like rapists and murderers are assured a proper hearing in a court of law. Whether anyone likes it or not Hussein is entitled to all constitutional rights as an Indian citizen. Yet I feel he is not justified in feeling aggrieved at the treatment meted out to him in India.
Taslima’s case is different. She is not an Indian national. She has no right to say or write anything that is likely to create a law and order problem here. I understand that she is a Swiss passport holder.
Her writings have obviously hurt the feelings of a community. (I have not read any of her writings and therefore I do not honestly know what was considered offensive by the people of Bangladesh.) Why should anyone support such a writer? Non-Muslims have no right to sit in judgment of what must be acceptable to Muslims. Those who support her are doing so because her work is not perceived to be against their religion. It must be remembered that she is a self confessed atheist.
This is what she has to say about religion:
“I am not a believer in God. I’m an atheist. I have always maintained that religion is against human rights and women’s rights. That does not make me an intolerant person. I want to express myself and I believe I have a right to express myself according to my belief.”
It does not need a specialist to figure out how her brand new supporters will react when she decides to “express herself” on Hindu customs and beliefs. The people of her kind are blessed / cursed with an inability to control their urge to express themselves. What if she turns out to be a creeper that feeds on the tree on which it grows?
If an artist or writer feels that his freedom empowers him to put across his thoughts in offensive language or vulgar paintings, he must be willing to face the resulting violence. If we abuse somebody he may decide to “express himself according to his belief.” Violence has been practiced as a mode of expressing dissent by followers of all political parties irrespective of the ideologies they claim to subscribe to. What can be more violent than trying to ridicule someone’s religious conviction without any sense of right and wrong and feel sanctimonious about it? There is no use crying foul. This rules must equally apply to all.
The point is that everyone is entitled to his opinion. Such opinion must be expressed in a civilized manner. Cavalier and pretentious posturing will not contribute to inducing reform in the society
Dear Shantanu
In a free society, individuals are constrained by accountability. There is no aboslute freedom. Freedom is not license to smear others.
HUSSAIN
Hussain can paint anything he likes so long as he is aware that he is FULLY accountable for his actions. If he wishes to, he can, like me, renounce his religion — with proper reason — and objectively critique all religions including non-spiritual religions (like socialism).
But lampooning people’s beliefs WELL exceeds the limits of freedom of expression.
In this particular case, if he paints Hindu goddesses nude he must also (at the minimum) lampoon Muslim god and his own religion. Since he does not lampoon Islam similarly he demonstrates an antipathy towards other religion’s sentiments, he commits a tort (offence under civil law) and well exceeds the limits of the liberty.
It is therefore quite reasonable for aggrieved (they have to be genuinely aggrieved) Hindus to sue him for damages and strip him of some of his millions through the court of law. That would demonstrate to Hussain the limits of his freedom since he does not understand these limits on his own.
Further, Hindus in India need to get used to the idea that civil recompense is the only civilised method of obtaning justice where no crime has been committed. No one is entitled to raise a hand against Hussain (or his paintings, as has happened- if I recollect correctly). That would amount to such individuals committing a criminal offence — a complete trespass of their liberty. A civilised society needs to know how to deal with its talented Hussains and bring them back on the straight and narrow path of liberty.
The government is duty bound to protect him, and severly punish anyone who attacks him.
The government should not censor his work. Censoring or banning any work is unacceptable, even if it extremely offensive–it does not kill someone to see Hussain’s paintings, and people have the option of not seeing that work if it offends them. I also wouldn’t recommend government putting taxpayer money to use in purchasing Hussain’s paintings, though, as a government’s job is to be neutral. Indeed, a government should NOT be in the business of setting up art galleries anyway — all paintings in government control should be sold.
TASLIMA
Taslima’s case is of a Muslim writing about her own religion. She therefore has locus standi, a solid basis in law to do that. She is a religious reformer. Her freedom of expression is therefore almost unlimited so long as she sticks to the truth. Else, somone affected (in this case aggrieved Muslims) can sue her equally. No one can attack her any way. That is a criminal offence. The government is duty bound to protect her, and severly punish anyone who attacks her.
Further, if she is being persecuted in Bangladesh, she is entitled to refugee status and potentially full citizenship in India.
These are the necessary dictates of freedom. Anything less than that is a compromise with liberty.
Regards
Sanjeev
Bharat, Nandan and Sanjeev: Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and comments…I will respond in detail later…
In the meantime, have a look at the UPDATE to the post above.
Thanks.
Nandan,
Wonderful post. Thanks!
BTW, here is a compilation of how our government reacts to freedom of expression issues:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/244298.html
And, I really don’t understand why Taslima thinks Hussain has been treated better in India – he, an Indian citizen, has been hounded out of his country by a mob, not by any due process of law.
Excellent points by Sanjeev.
@Nandan: “If an artist or writer feels that his freedom empowers him to put across his thoughts in offensive language or vulgar paintings, he must be willing to face the resulting violence.”
I dont believe so. In a free society, everyone is entitled to express his/her thoughts. If someone is offended, they can take other steps without resorting to violence. If hindus dont like hussain’s paintings, they can boycott his work, take him to court, protest in the media, boycott his sponsors or others who buy his paintings etc. And I would bet the boycotting is the most effective way. There are many civilized ways to show our dissent without resorting to violence.
My personal opinion on Taslima is that she is entitled to her opinions on islam even while she is here. That is not a political activity. Her writings have been about how islam is against rational thinking and modernism. She has written books that talk about her childhood which got promptly banned. I personally believe that we should encourage more muslim women to come out and express their opinion. On the contrary, indian muslims can petition for her visa to be cancelled rather than throw objects at her during a press conference.
Sanjeev: “But lampooning people’s beliefs WELL exceeds the limits of freedom of expression.”
That is a very slippery slope, indeed …….. how do you determine what is lampooning and what is objective criticism? The faithful tend to object to any criticism
RE: Prakash,
Fully agree with you…… somehow I had missed that part of Nandan’s comment!
Link Fixed.
“my personal view on MF Husain’s paintings”
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/05/10/husain-khajuraho-moral-policing/
Thanks Prakash and Patriot. I stand corrected on the point of violence. I would like to dispel any thought in the minds of my friends that I condone violence.
The fact is that violence not acceptable as a means of protest. But that does not mean it is imprudent to anticipate violence as a mode of dissent. Foolhardy actions normally generate reckless reactions. Discriminating between right and wrong will be the last thing in the minds of an agitated crowd.
We have the example of Gandhiji in front of us. He went against the establishment knowing fully well that he would be incarcerated for his incendiary speeches and writings. He faced violence with equanimity. For, he knew he had a mission to accomplish. Running away would defeat his mission.
I do not detect any such commitment to the cause of freedom of expression on the part of either Hussein or Taslima. For that very reason, I find myself unable to be sympathetic to those courageous artists and writers who turn limp-wristed in front of combative criticism.
When there is fear there is no freedom. To argue otherwise is duplicity. Then what kind of freedom (of expression) are we talking about?
I read your “personal view on MF Husain’s paintings.” I am in full agreement with you. What impressed me most was the following sentence you wrote in a subsequent comment:
[“I feel some people just don’t have the concept of motherland in the sense of this shloka: “Janani Janmabhumishcha Swargadapi Gariyasi” – which is why they find it difficult to understand how someone can be hurt by derogatory references to “Bharat Mata” or “Matrubhoomi”.]
I quite agree. There are many among us who revere their motherland as they revere their mother. It is against this sentiment that we must weigh up certain views articulated on the following lines”
[“If someone is offended, they can take other steps without resorting to violence. If Hindus don’t like Husain’s paintings, they can boycott his work, take him to court, protest in the media, boycott his sponsors or others who buy his paintings etc.”- Prakash]
In other words, they can look the other way or make some noises and vainly think they have done their duty. Owing to my disinclination to pose a more direct but distasteful question, I asked “What can be more violent than trying to ridicule someone’s religious conviction without any sense of right and wrong and feel sanctimonious about it?” in my previous comment.
Apparently, I failed to convey my apprehension clearly and therefore, would reluctantly and with a request for forgiveness in advance, present this question using an entirely different set of words.
How many of us would take such a stance if a person who is the object of our motherly veneration or sisterly love is depicted in the manner “Bharat Mata” was painted by the renowned artist?
I am certain at least a ‘foolish few’ would be tempted then and there to break the vow of non-violence to demarcate the forbidden area and undertake the penitential journey later on to wash away the sins. They might even apologize for their intemperate action in the same way Mr. Husain expressed regret for his paintings.
I happen to believe that at times, mental agony can be more difficult to bear and more painful than physical violence. We can all preach like Buddha, but it takes a Bodhisattva to practice it. Those who can boast of such emotional and spiritual maturity are requested to please raise their hands.
Lampooning: Painting a goddess nude *is* lampooning, I think?
The faithful (If you are referring to Hindus) tolerate a lot of BS from the non-Hindus about Hindu dieties. But not extremes.
The uber-faithful, of course, will:
1. stone a person to death (or try to) even if he unwittingly wraps a bunch of moongfali in a newspaper which happened to have some Arabic Koranic stuff on it (happens in Pak)
2. burn Hindu shops in India even if a US soldier throws a Koran in the toilet in Guantanamo Bay, half was across the world.
3. kill you if you draw even a stick figure of Muhammad (see whay happens to Massihs in Pak)
4. kill if you draw a cartoon of Mohammed as a terrorist (The Theo Van Gogh case in Denmark)
Yes, some slopes are slippery. But many are so rough and solid, you can park a truck on them (and you don’t even need to use the handbrake)…..
Ashish: “Painting a goddess nude *is* lampooning, I think?”
Not really, not if you are painting Goddess Kali. But, I get your point.
“The faithful (If you are referring to Hindus) tolerate a lot of BS …….”
Again, I think you got my point about the “faithful” very well ….. since you illustrate it with examples!
I think we are mixing up two issues here: M F Hussain’s propensity to go for publicity in whichever manner he can and an artist’s right to give free rein to her imagination, irrespective of whether that offends current social mores or not.
To my mind, the artist’s (used generically here) right is largely unfettered – irrespective of what the moral majority may think, and this applies to all communities. This is a hard pill for many to swallow as we think only the positively inclined should be allowed to comment on our (used generically) culture, values and systems. But, the Constitution says that even the ignorant can comment. As a recipient of that comment, you can either choose to ignore it or educate the person delivering the comment, but you do not have the right to beat him up for what he isaying.
And again I mention this, that just because some people behave in an uncivilised, irrational and boorish manner, that is no reason for us to emulate them. Then, what would be the difference between us and these animals?
RE: M F Hussain
I think he is a much, much better capitalist than a painter (although I am in no way qualified to comment on art). He has figured out how to either use controversy (starting from barefeet to nude paintings of goddesses) or celebrity (Madhuri Dixit) to increase the per square foot value of his paintings.
We play into his hands by demonising him and giving him instant celebrity status by all the useless protests that happened. I say useless protests for a very good reason. Think about it ….. what did the protests achieve? Hussain left India (big freaking deal), continues to paint, continues to have road shows and everybody in the international art circuit remembers his name if you ask them to name one Indian painter. So, we, stupid fools, have helped him to sell even more paintings at even higher prices.
So, what can we do ….. next time he does something controversial, smile tolerantly like you would at an idiot child, and say “oh yeah, hussain … that wanna-be painter. Only way he can get coverage is by doing stupid things. BTW, have you seen the paintings of ……….. (fill in your favourite Indian painter name here) who beats hussain by miles” .
What do you think?
Nandan,
You make some valid points, but this is a bad analogy:
“We have the example of Gandhiji in front of us. He went against the establishment knowing fully well that he would be incarcerated for his incendiary speeches and writings. He faced violence with equanimity. For, he knew he had a mission to accomplish. Running away would defeat his mission.”
The reason this is an incorrect analogy is that Gandhiji was operating in British India, where there was no freedom of speech. So, he very well knew the risks he was taking in opposing the British. I agree that it is the stature of the man that he still took those risks.
However, in Independent India, Freedom of Speech is enshrined in the constitution. Therefore, I am entitled to speak, without the fear of retribution (or atleast, that is the way it should be).
So long as I am not inciting a criminal offense (like urging someone to murder a third party) or creating a situation where others’ rights are trampled upon (like shouting fire in a crowded theatre), I should be able to speak my mind without having to think of any consequences, except a rebuttal. And, I do not include violence as a valid rebuttal!
I hold my right to exercise the freedoms, enshrined in the constitution, to be Absolute, provided in this exercise, I am not impinging on anyone else’s rights. And, someone saying that their feelings (religious or otherwise) have been hurt just does not make the cut.
And, I would uphold this right vigorously even for those with whom I completely and vehemently disagree.
I generally do agree with the views expressed by Prakash, Sanjeev , Shantanu and Nanadan, BUT:
I just had a look at the MF Hussain painting in question for the first time at http://www.mfhussain.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=lastup&cat=&pos=0
I truly wonder what all the fuss is about. By no stretch of imagination is the painting vulgar, indeed it is quite tasteful. It appears to depict the pain of the mother in accord with the title “Mother India, the painting at the eye of the storm”
I do not think Sanjeev saw the painting before commenting or else I do not think he would use the expression ‘lampooning’ – I do not see any sense of ridicule in that painting.
It truly pains me when we Indians proclaim ourselves to be the most tolerant society in the world and then blatantly mistreat artists like Hussain and reform minded people like Taslima
Thank you, Patriot. If it were just an academic discussion, I would agree with you completely. If we confine our discussion to only what is ideal and how an enlightened man will and should conduct himself I would be even willing to copy your words and claim it as my own.
Neither do we have an ideal society nor are all the Indians enlightened enough. I am of the opinion that pragmatism has some relevance here. We should all know our limits. Breaking the limits means you are in uncharted territory. You never know what is in store for you. Only the brave must embark upon such a voyage.
We all grow up with time. I will continue to read the idealistic pronouncements of all my friends. Perhaps, in due course, I will catch up and grow into the mould of the man you are talking of. Till that happens I will hold on to my view which is that cowardice can never be a good companion to the champions of freedom (of expression.)
I should add, as an aside, that the cunning Communists can congratulate themselves that they have successfully diverted the discussion from “a man’s right to live” to “a man’s right to express.” Please read the articles in November 26, 2007 issue of INDIA TODAY Magazine to know the full extent of their success.
@Nandan: “How many of us would take such a stance if a person who is the object of our motherly veneration or sisterly love is depicted in the manner “Bharat Mata” was painted by the renowned artist?”
I would expect every indian to be offended by such a painting. I think we should make a concerted effort to stop these without resorting to violence. I am sure there is a legal/political course of action that we can take. I perfectly agree that not everyone in India is going to react like me but that is fundamentally (my opinion again) because most of them do not know any other way to take them on. We should strive to educate them. The painter obviously lacks national pride. It is foolish on his part to paint something like this and not expect any threats. But in today’s world, the media will always project the guys resorting to violence as the bad guy. Today, I think it is important to use the media to your advantage. This is exactly where hindu organisations seem to fail and the communists/secularists seem to do well.
@Suresh: Read this and you will know it is not just about this painting.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002980.html
Dear Sir,
Let me also have a go at this debate. So, let me put my point of view. The debate between Taslima Nad MFH is unrelated and should not have been encouraged.
It is the power of the “Secular Brigade” that has led us to this debate.
The “Seculars” are professionals at obfuscation and always go against true logic and sincerity. They found Nandigram tto hot to handle and when they wanted a way out to wriggle out of the situation and the monster it has grown into they found a means of obfuscating the matter and linked T to MFH.
If you really view it objectively there is no relation between the two.
1. T wrote a book on “Women” and sadly “one” religion did not find the truth palatable as it treats its women worse than animals. Sadly the author was supposed to be a part of the following at one time. She did not highlight any specific matter that is abnoxious to a religion but put the facts about “WOMEN” in general.
In the case of MFH he painted specifically “HINDU WOMEN” known as “GODDESSES” in that religion in the most abominable manner. T did not talk about “HINDU WOMEN” at all!
2. MFH painted “MOTHER INDIA” a” WOMAN” in a form which was not very appealing to those who consider her as “A MOTHER” aka must be a “WOMAN” in the general sense!
Coming to the linking by the “SECULARS” these two irrelevant topics, let us ask the “SEULARS” to consider the following:
a. Let the Cartoon of the Prophet be published in India and then let the course of law take its way.
b. Let the Da VInci Code, Last temptation of Christ be shown in theaters in India and then let law take its course.
Let us ask the “SECULARS” in supporting the “Fundamentalists” to bring the above to India and then let us understand as to how the Law of the land will handle the issue!!
Let not the “Seculars’ bring a nexus of animosity due to religion in the case of Taslima as it was non existent in the “FIRST CASE”
Regards,
vck
I’m adding a few more comments, primarily in response to Suresh Anand and a query I notice above about defining what is lampooning.
First of all I’d encourage everyone to first read (if they haven’t already), J.S. Mill’s essay on Liberty – see http://utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html
My first comment, above, was intended to demonstrate that freedom brings with it responsibilities and accountability.
I noticed that some readers had felt Hussain had insulted their religion. And I felt (and continue to feel) that there were potentially good grounds for that. After all, Hussain is not world-reknowned for painting images of Islamic gods. Just because a particular religion is liberal enough to permit idols to be painted by anyone, that doesn’t give liberty to people of other religions to paint those idols in potentially disrespectful aspects.
But please note that I also clearly stated the principle that ONLY those ***genuinely affected*** can lodge a petition for compensation in court. Equally, I made it clear that expressing anything either in writing or painting is NOT a crime. Even if Hussain were to offend every single person in India, he is STILL entitled to our FULL protection — particularly from the government — not against civil suits but against physical attack from anyone. That is what each of us earns member of a free society (India is hopefully on the way to the Heaven of Freedom depicted by Tagore in his poem), namely, the right to security and life.
The interesting point now emerging in the conversation is that views against Hussain’s painting are potentially one-sided. And that is fine, for a free society permits all views to flourish. If someone sees this painting as an insult (eg. Prakash does) that person can go to court and sue. If someone else sees this painting as tasteful (eg. Suresh does), that person can buy the painting. Both are free to pursue their actions in a free society. There are no final truths on matters of opinion.
But Hussain AND the observer of the painting are both responsible for always being aware of the limits of their freedom.
a) Hussain is at liberty to paint whatever he pleases. However, he should always be aware that by dabbling in the religious symbols of other people’s religion (particularly without having equally done such dabbling to his own religion), he is at some point likely to ***genuinely*** insult certain members of that religion. He should then be prepared to compensate them for that insult they experience. His liberty is not unbounded.
b) The observer is at liberty to like or dislike the painting, but if he dislikes it, he can pursue civil remedies, not attack Hussain. (I wonder if any Hindu who has been hurt by Hussain’s painting has thought of the idea of forgiveness as a solution? Or simply ignoring Hussain?)
This should also answer the question about who defines lampooning: the person ***experiencing*** the lampooning. The court then has to be convinced that this person has genuinely experienced this painting as an insult of his or her beliefs. Hussain cannot then take the plea that he did not intend to lampoon (intent is crucial only in criminal matters). The level of compensation admissible? Perhaps a few hundred rupees since no damage to anyone’s personal reputation is involved. If sufficient number of cases are filed, a significant compensation could potentially add up.
I do admire Hussain as an artist, and I have no particular view on this particular painting, not having seen it, nor do I intend to put my view on this trifling matter out in the open once I see it. A painting is merely a painting. If I don’t like it, I am not obliged to see it again.
But hopefully people on this blog will come out in one voice against violence that constantly seems to threaten our artists in India. Please sue these artists if you wish. But don’t let ANYONE attack them. Please save both Hussain and Taslima from misguided fanatics who do not know what being a free and law abiding Indian means.
Indian can never become a free nation with these violent people mobbing our streets. Hussain must remain untouched, his paintings, his property must remain untouched. So also Taslima.
Regards
Sanjeev
*** PLEASE NOTE ***
If your comments are more to do with freedom of expression, censorship etc, please continue them here …
Thanks.
***
All: Thanks for your comments and thoughts. This is turning out to be a great discussion. I will try and add my own thoughts by the weekend (somewhat tied up at work).
As an aside, has anyone come across this post?
Islamic Lynch Mob Hounds Taslima Nasrin: In the Footsteps of the Prophet
by Alamgir Hussain (co-author in ‘Beyond Jihad – Critical Voices from Inside’)
I think the problem is trying to defend fairness in an unfair legal setup.
*IF* Hindus had the same laws, subsidies, reservations etc as Muslims do, if talk of “United Hindus” (ooh..saffron terrorist) had the same connotation as “United Muslims” (..what’s wrong with that?), *THEN* I would defend MFH’s rights. But now that no Hindu can even dream of publicly painting a Mohammed (fully dressed, I am not even talking about a nude Mohammed) out of fear for his life…I will not defend MFH.
Since there is no legal way to get this continuous trampling of Hindu rights, no way of getting the government to pay heed to open wounds on the Hindu society while making a big fuss out of every little scratch on Muslim society..I don’t care too much about MFH’s rights.
You all must be following this story of how Muslims are screaming for the execution of this English teacher in Sudan..all she did was to ask her students to name a teddy bear..the name the class selected, by majority, was “Mohammed”. And wham! The pious ones stream out of their mosques demanding an execution, rallying around with knives and clubs.
Any slight to Islam is amplified, magnified; the Muslim super-over-reaction is rationalized by GoI (and the shrill pro-Islam rhetoric has reached a crescendo–that’s an Italian word, right?– under Antonia and MMS). And gashes and festering sores (craters, really) on the Hindu are denied, hushed up, lied about, and pooh-poohed. New cuts are made daily, and then some more inattention, laughter, and salt is added.
The anger is building up.
Dear Sir,
I do not know whether what I am going to write will fall within the parameters you have stated above, but I would like state here that it is do with the thought process of the west and the obfuscation of freedom of speech by the “Seculars” that I am placing it under this head as it jells well with the link you have given
I would like to quote from Shri. Aurobindo once again;
” Few societies have been so tamasic, so full of inertia and contenment in increasing narrowness as Indian society in later times; few have been so eager to preserve themselves in inertia. Few therefore have attached so great an importance to authority; every detail of our thought by scripture and its commentators – but much oftener by the commentators than by the scriptures.
The result of this well meaning bondage ( to the outer forms of hinduism) has been an increasing imporvishment of the Indian intellect, once the most gigantic and original in the world.The most striking instance is our continued helplessness in the face of the new conditions and new knowledge imposed upon us by recent European contact. We have tried to assimlate; we have tried to reject; we have tried to select; but we have not been able to do any of these things successfully.
Successful assimilation depends on mastering, but we have not mastered European conditions, rather we have been subjected and enslaved by them.
As little have we understood the new knowledge, we have only understood what the Europeans want us to think about themselves and their modern civilisation.
They ask us, indeed to, to abandon authority, to revolt against custom and superstition, to have free and enlightened minds. But they mean by these sounding recommendationsthat we should renounce the authority of Sayana for the authority of Max Mueller, the Monism of Shankara for the monism of Haeckel, the written Shastra for the unwritten law of Europen social opinion, the dogmatism of Brahmin Pundits for the dogmatismof European scientists, thinkers and scholars.
Let us break our chains, venerable as they are, but let it be in order to be free, – in the name of truth, not in the name of Europe.” (India’s Rebirth. First Edition).
And these words were written during the period 1910 – 1912.
So let us understand what is freedom of speech and expression from our ancients and not base it on new age thinking to be on the “Right Side”
Regards,
vck
Death of a writer. Taslima, the writer, is dead. Now Taslima, the un-writer, is left. She played into the hands of Jihadis (and intimidation of pseudo-secular govt of India), now she will loose support from all sides.
I shall not support a person, who appeases barbarian Jihadis and give-up own convictions. It seems, she was not sure what she wrote. Her conviction is very weak.
Taslima withdraws controversial lines from her book
http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=523111
What she will do with other books? Is she going to re-write all of them?
Taslima should also withdraw reference which hurt Hindus:BJP
http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=523293
*** COMMENT MODERATED ***
tasleema is right on her place.
…
we don’t understand why the muslim women don’t raised their voice against DHARMIK KATTARTAWAAD.
Ritu, Nupur & Preeti,
Thanks a lot for raising this question. I am happy that this question is raised by ladies themseleves. As far as muslim women are concernred the less said the better. They lead their lives in intolerable state – cut off from the outside. When media (rarely) gathers courage to approach them directly, their pet response is : …?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???…! They will quote from here and there and will not let you off the hook until you agree that women are far better treated in Islam than anywhere else ! Some may also counter attack you miserable hindu women : you are burned alive as soon as your husband dies, and in many cases as soon as your grow-up you are turned into a dev-dasi, what right you have to question the great glorious Islam – the only religion in the world that gives repect to women!
Sati and devdasi are their favorite topics since this imaginary hell of hinduism makes it a bit easier for them to carry on in the real hell of Islam.
One of these Burka-freaks even wrote a poem dedicated to burka ! Read it :
You look at me and call me oppressed,
Simply because of the way I’m dressed,
You know me not for what’s inside,
You judge the clothing I wear with pride
My body’s not for your eyes to hold,
You must speak to my mind, not my feminine mold,
I’m an individual, I’m no mans slave,
It’s Allah’s pleasure that I only crave
I have a voice so I will be heard,
For in my heart I carry His word,
“O ye women, wrap close your cloak,
So you won’t be bothered by ignorant folk
Man doesn’t tell me to dress this way,
It’s a Law from God that I obey,
Oppressed is something I’m truly NOT,
For liberation is what I’ve got
It was given to me many years ago,
With the right to prosper, the right to grow
I can climb moutains or cross the seas,
Expand my mind in all degrees
For God Himself gave us LIB-ER-TY
When He sent Islam,
To You and Me…
@patriot:
you mention that MFH was “hounded out of india by mobs”. No. He’s run away coz he doesnt feel up to handling court cases.
and @the person who suggested “forgiveness” as a solution:
How come that wasn’t suggested to Ayatollah Khomeini when he issued his fatwa?
and, i think in MFH’s case only civil remedies took place? The mob was absolutely nothing compared to those in bangalore protesting Saddam’s execution, burning the whole place, buses and all. Or those threatening Rushdie.
Dear Sir,
I think we should leave Taslima out of our debate.
She has let down all “Right” thinking people loke “Us” for a bowl of rice and Fish curry.
Can her words ever count for much?
If you have the conviction you can live on plain water and a few dried rotis and anywhere in the world.
Regards,
vck
…vryone shld note som points….ders som dffrnce between taslima and hussain issues….they cant be compared straightaway…frst point….wat hussain did is not something new….hindu gods and goddess are depicted in similar fashion even in their books, figures as well as temples …the most famous of them is KHAJURAHO….as opposed to that, wat tasleema has written is strictly anti islamic without any base, which is not present or practised anywhere in the islamic world, which is thoroughly alien to islamic concept……..second point……since hussain is muslim tats y hindus are making so much hype…if this wld had been done by som hindu there wldnt had been so much fuss, coz as i said earlier its vry common for anyone to imagin hindu gods and goddess in skimpy attires ……on the other hand tasleema is muslim….so she doesnt has the xcuse tat she is ignorant about islam and watsoever….pls note these points bfor arrvng at any conclusion….
@ prince: You seem to be on a roll here!
I would like to say I enjoy reading your comments but please try and catch up on some reading before rushing headlong into an argument.
For example, you say that, “…wat hussain did is not something new….hindu gods and goddess are depicted in similar fashion even in their books, figures as well as temples …the most famous of them is KHAJURAHO….”
Please read this post from which I have excerpted this bit:
As for your other points, please read the comments above and think about them…I would like to read your response to some of them.
….it seems u want me to beliv tat indian deities are vry modeslty dressed and hindu gods and goddess dsnt carry even a small bit of nudity….see imagination depends on depiction,hw ones impression is depicted in ur sight….as far as hindu tradition and religion are concerned almost all gods and goddess are shown in skimpy attire…..its well known even in hindus tat purdah tradition is somthng alien to indian tradition….purdah and modest dressing was frst introduced by muslim rulers on indian soil…bfore the advent of islam indian men and women used to roam semi nude a fact well known….if u dnt accept this visit ur own blog related to PURDAH…u can see various opinions on tis issue…u seem to make me aware of the fact tat y such depiction of indian gods and goddess came into being from the link wich u gave me…the question is not y such depiction originated but wats the depiction…wenever u think of mother mary u seem to imagin a woman modestly dressed with a baby in hands….coz its the way mother marys portray was depicted….but hindu gods and goddess always wer portrayed in a nude manner then hw com u blame som one if he imagins the same way how it is depicted…its not a mischief or any done by hussain but as far as taslima is concerned she indeed did a mischief as wat she wrote dsnt carry any base in islam making it crystal clear tat she palyed a mischief to malign the image of islam….u tel tat the erotic figures are not present in temples then u need to revise ur basics of indian temples….i thnk the way one can find erotic figurs in hindu temples it seems as if the most basic thng wat makes a hindu temple are those erotic figurs depicted engaged in all those wild sexual postures difficult to get captured even by strong imaginations let loose…i myself had visited so mny temples big and small and it was vry rare tat i fnd any temple devoid of sch figurs….der are temples showing even animals engaged in sex and even humans and animals engaged in sex…u tel sch figurs r far away from deities…do u wanna tel tat hindu gods r limited only to a particular distance wich shows they have a limitation…even if i agree to the point tat erotic figurs are away from deities but arent these figurs present in the same temples wer deities r placed…doesnt it mkes them a part of tat temple too???….if i place garbage in one of ur room will u tel me, “well its no problm since i limit myself to bedroom only”….hw com u present such loose arguments…morever bfore blaming hussain y a hindu forgets tat the most primitive and basic figure of hindu worship is LING and YONI wich vryone knws are male nd female sex organs….wen a hindu takes pride in wrshippng such figurs hw com he panicks on hussains paintings…..in fact they shld be proud of thos paintings coz hussain brought them one step closer to their idols…u told idols of shiva are clothed…i m wondering wich temple u have visited in wich shiva idol was clothed????….shiva is depicted only in small underwear tat too made of tigers skin…an do u think KALI is clothed???..if hindus are so much furious over hussains paintings i thnk they shld put burqas on their females deities and cloth their male deities….
Excerpts from “Husain abuses Hindu icons” by Krishen Kak
(published as “Second Opinion” in The Pioneer, May 14, 2008, emphasis mine)
“…It is not just that MF Husain paints Hindu divinities as naked; it is also how he himself, directly or implicitly, interprets this nudity.
Indian ‘secularists’ protest strongly at Hindus protesting Husain’s pornographic depiction of our goddesses by claiming, as he did on Rajat Sharma’s Aap ki Adalat (September 8, 2004), that it is all a matter of aesthetics, and then he flatly refused to answer any more questions about this. Neither Rajat Sharma nor anyone in that audience dared raise an M-word — that why didn’t he apply the same “aesthetics” to icons of his own religion.
‘Secularists’ in that audience clapped when Husain explained that he’d painted Hitler in the nude because Hitler was a shaitan (Satan, devil) but didn’t insist he answer when again he refused to explain when someone asked whether the goddesses he painted naked were, therefore, shaitan too.
Husain has publicly stated he painted Hitler in the nude because Hitler was evil. Husain has never painted any Islamic icons naked. But he has painted Hindu icons, revered by millions, in the nude, that too in a provocative manner far more objectionable than the Danish cartoons, allegedly lampooning Mohammed, that had Muslims setting the non-Muslim world aflame.
…
The point is straightforward. What’s sauce for the ‘secular’ goose is clearly not sauce for the Hindu hamsa. Recall Parliament’s condemnation of the alleged anti-Islam cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, as against the Delhi High Court’s support of Husain’s anti-Hindu paintings. This is Indian secularism!
P.S. The Delhi High Court’s full judgement can be seen here
Excerpt from an Op-Ed in ExpressBuzz (18th Nov ’08)
From a comment by Sh Ashok-ji on the small but important differences between the situation of MF Husain and Salman Rushdie (emphasis added):
M F Husain went into a self-exile to avoid the various legal cases against him in the courts in India. The media projected this act as a threat to his life by those who opposed his depiction of Hindu gods and goddesses in erotic manner. There were acts of vandalism against his specific paintings, but no one threatened him personally. He was living in India, and moving
about, for a long time since October 1996, for more than ten years.
When he went into his self-exile, more as a drama than anything else, the government of India appealed to him to come back, stating that there is no need to fear, and that they will give him all the necessary protection.
Still he found it worth his while to live abroad in an apparently luxurious life-style. One publication showed him with a multitude of high-end luxurious cars like Ferrari.
Come to Salman Rushdie. Extremist Islamic organization threatened him if he attended the Jaipur Literary Festival of Jan 2012. What does the government do in this case? The obvious. Tell him that he should not attend the programme in view of the threats not only to him but to the others at the venue of the festival.
And there are many in the same government which projects that the so-called Hindu terrorism is a greater threat than the real Islamic terrorism.
Namaste
Ashok Chowgule
^ Not to mention, it was the so-called secular and liberal government of India that was the first to ban The Satanic Verses and showcased Indian secularism, which is Рappeasement of Muslims. Not much has changed today. Plus ̤a change..vagerah vagerah.
Reproducing my response to a comment on facebook on this post.
***
Chandrashekhar: Let me take your arguments one by one.
And I request you to continue this discussion over at the blog – which is the appropriate place for such discussions – essentially because it does not make sense for me to repeat what has already been said elsewhere (e.g. here: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/11/28/taslima-treated-differently-from-mf-husain/).
With that qualifier to my arguments, here is my response to your points:
1] Re. “Did you guys feel offended and let down when M.F.Hussain was driven out of the country?” – I presume the question was directed at me. As Amit Malviya and Amit Virmani have mentioned below, the two cases are superficially similar but there are fundamental differences.
a] MF Husain was not hounded out of India; He chose not to come back and face the charges against him.
b] The government had assured him protection (unlike in the case of Salman Rushdie).
c] As Amit has noted, everything was done to facilitate his return including bundling the several cases against him in one so as to avoid any inconvenience to him + providing him security
d] There were acts of vandalism against his specific paintings, but no one threatened him personally. He continued to live in India for several years before moving to Qatar.
e] Husain’s paintings were never banned
f] There is absolutely no “religious” sanction in Hinduism (or call by any priest/Guru) to physically harm someone for utterances/work that may be “offensive”. This is unlike the case in Islam – as you well know.
2] You say that, “It is clear from the comments that we have chauvinist and hyprocrite attitude” – Pl substantiate your allegation if it is directed at me. It is easy to throw about such words (although this is not the first time I have been accused of being X or Y; e.g. see this: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2010/12/16/pro-hindu-anti-muslim/)
3] And finally, “So if Hindus do not have a religious decree to prosecute..we are better?”
Yes absolutely. We are. I am proud to belong to a belief-system that has evolved beyond such insecurities and narrow chauvinism. So yes, not having religious sanction for such acts does make Hindus better- and I am proud of it.
In any case, pl see these 2 posts on my stance re. MF Husain https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/05/10/husain-khajuraho-moral-policing/ and https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/27/mf-husain-artisitic-freedoms/
I look forward to your point-by-point rebuttal on this, over here please.
As an aside, it is interesting that you have not made any comment on the central point in my post.
An excerpt from “India’s dubious Secularists” by S Gurumurthy:
Now come to Rushdie, a contrast. His life is living hell since he wrote his controversial book The Satanic Verses. Though living, he has, by now, died a million times since February 4, 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fiat (fatwa) to Muslims to kill him. But, why should Khomeini order the killing of a fellow Muslim? With almost a generation gone since 1988 when Rushdie wrote the infamous book, it is time to recall some history. Rushdie’s book was about a disputed tradition in Islam. According to it, Mohammed (depicted in Rushdie’s book as Mahound) had first added three verses (Sura) in the Quran, accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings, but later revoked the verses saying that Devil (Satan) had tempted him to utter the verses to appease the Meccans — so the title ‘Satanic Verses’ for the disputed verses. The Rushdie book set off violent reaction from Muslims.
Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh blew himself up in a central London hotel while making a bomb intended to kill Rushdie in 1989. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of Rushdie’s book was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was stabbed and seriously injured in the same month. And Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the target in the events that led to massacre of 37 people in July 1993. William Nygaard, a Norway publisher, was almost killed in Oslo in October 1993. In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who had opposed Khomeini’s ‘Kill Rushdie’ fiat, were killed. Two bookstores in California, and five in England, were fire-bombed. Twelve people died during rioting in Mumbai. This list does not exhaust the violence.
Starting from then and till now, Rushdie has been hitting headlines for the wrong reasons. Now again Rushdie is in the news. Rushdie had been invited to the Jaipur Literature Festival 2012, Asia’s largest, a week back. Muslims threatened agitations and Rushdie’s presence would have meant violence. So the Indian Intelligence Bureau invented an input saying that four hired assassins were roaming around to kill Rushdie. This was proved fake, calculated to prevent Rushdie from coming to India. The four participants who had read out from The Satanic Verses at the meet ran away from India to escape arrest. William Dalrymple, the festival director, got death threats. Finally, Rushdie’s video address to the Jaipur festival was dropped as, according to organisers, it risked the lives of the participants from the Muslim protesters outside.
The contrast is self-evident. Rushdie, who just wrote about a disputed tradition in Islam, was hounded for decades and is on a death threat even now, and people who had nothing to do with either the book or Rushdie have been butchered. Even today the fear of slaughter in his name haunts the world, as the Jaipur meet shows. But, all that Husain, who, in the name of freedom hurt the Hindus — “considered as the gentlest and most civilised on the earth†according to Mahatma Gandhi — faced were normal protests. The protests by Hindus against Husain were ant-bite compared to the scale of violence against Rushdie’s book, even though the hurt to the Hindu sentiments by the perverted paintings of Husain were explicit and undeniably monumental. But what is distressingly shameful is the politics of contrast. See how the secular media, parties, leaders and state glorified Husain’s right to abuse Hindu gods and goddesses to wound Hindus and how the same secular actors repeatedly decried Rushdie’s similar right to hurt Muslims. Now something even more shameful. The ‘seculars’, including the media, had ceaselessly condemned the normal protests against shows displaying Husain’s painting and pontificated to Hindus about the need for tolerance. But they wouldn’t utter a word against the violence by Muslims nor ask them to be tolerant. The reason is obvious. They are dishonest.