seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 What is your take on the Satanic Verses - is it offensive and is Rushdie proud of it?The book Satanic Verses is banned in India. Given that Hussains paintings have not been banned by the govt I find the banning of Satanic Verses unjustified. Also, I am not a Muslim, so I am not offended by what little I know about Satanic Verses (I have not read it). On many other issues I find Salman Rushie's views insightful and agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The book Satanic Verses is banned in India. Given that Hussains paintings have not been banned by the govt I find the banning of Satanic Verses unjustified. Also' date=' I am not a Muslim, so I am not offended by what little I know about Satanic Verses (I have not read it). On many other issues I find Salman Rushie's views insightful and agree with them.[/quote'] It's not about what the government or courts did. It's about taking your own logical stance. The reason you are offended by Hussain's paintings then is that you are a Hindu. Your sense of right and wrong is dependent on your religion - hardly a good enough ground for taking a fair and unbiased stance. Just be honest that you support Hussain being out of the country because he painted things which offended your religion and you opposed the action against Rushdie because what he wrote offended Muslims, about whose religion you don't care, rather than beating around the bush and trying to put in a sense of neutrality and fair play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 It's not about what the government or courts did. It's about taking your own logical stance. The reason you are offended by Hussain's paintings then is that you are a Hindu. Your sense of right and wrong is dependent on your religion - hardly a good enough ground for taking a fair and unbiased stance. Just be honest that you support Hussain being out of the country because he painted things which offended your religion and you opposed the action against Rushdie because what he wrote offended Muslims, about whose religion you don't care, rather than beating around the bush and trying to put in a sense of neutrality and fair play.When did I strut around as the paragon of neutrality in this matter? Of course I am offended by Hussain's paintings of Hindu deities in a large part because I am a Hindu and I am glad he is out of the country. I am also offended by his Bharat Mata painting because it hurts me as an Indian (as well as a Hindu). As far as the legality of his paintings is concerned that is a matter that can be settled in a court of law. But he is a coward in my opinion for running away from India to avoid facing the court of law. Also, I have the full right to point out the hypocrisy of this despicable man, as I have done elsewhere in this thread -- that he pulled his movie Meenaxi out of the theatres as it contained some lines from the Koran to describe feminine beauty. I have however clarified that I am against physical attacks on him, but am fine with filing cases against him which I feel are justified. Frankly, there are many Indians who I would like to leave the country such as Arundhati Roy, Pankaj Mishra etc. Just like I am glad Hussain is gone. Also, the inconsistency of the govt in the cases of Rushdie, Nasreen and Hussain is also pertinent to the issue and cannot be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Now come on. Taslima Nasreen has been physically assaulted by Muslim radicals in India' date= she has got constant threats as well, but she is still courageous enough to stay here, which ironically the govt discourages. Dilip Kumar, Shabana Azmi etc have been protested against by Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal etc and are staying in India as well. MF Hussain ran away precisely because he did not want to face the court cases. Today there is a Congress govt both in Maharashtra and Center, and has guaranteed security to him. But still he refuses to come back and face the charges against him. Now really what kind of argument is that? Telugu folks are ever ready to leave India at the drop of a hat, so are Tamils and possibly Punjabis. Biharis are not so keen, neither the UPites (comparatively speaking that is). Is there any point to this? In the end people react differently to same situations. Dileep Kumar took on Bala Thackeray, Amitabh Bacchan bowed in front of Thackeray. So be it. Different people, different strokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Frankly, there are many Indians who I would like to leave the country such as Arundhati Roy, Pankaj Mishra etc. Just like I am glad Hussain is gone. Also, the inconsistency of the govt in the cases of Rushdie, Nasreen and Hussain is also pertinent to the issue and cannot be ignored. What did Pankaj Mishra do :hmmm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Now really what kind of argument is that? Telugu folks are ever ready to leave India at the drop of a hat, so are Tamils and possibly Punjabis. Biharis are not so keen, neither the UPites (comparatively speaking that is). Is there any point to this? In the end people react differently to same situations. Dileep Kumar took on Bala Thackeray, Amitabh Bacchan bowed in front of Thackeray. So be it. Different people, different strokes.I dont think you understand. MF Hussain has run away from the cases that were filed against him in India. I called him a coward for that, considering the fact that he was assured security in India. Even today he can come back but he does not. And by pulling his movie from the theatres and deferring to the Muslims who protested against it, he has also proved that he is an utter hypocrite in addition to being a coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I dont think you understand. MF Hussain has run away from the cases that were filed against him in India. I called him a coward for that, considering the fact that he was assured security in India. Even today he can come back but he does not. We can agree to disagree on this. And by pulling his movie from the theatres and deferring to the Muslims who protested against it, he has also proved that he is an utter hypocrite in addition to being a coward. That movie should have been pulled off anyway, as cr@p a movie as I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 What did Pankaj Mishra do :hmmm:Pankaj Mishra spread the utterly despicable and anti-national canard that the Chhittisinghpora massacre of Sikhs on the eve of Clinton's visit to India in 2000 was done by the Indian army. This was later proved to be a lie when a couple of years later an American journalist interviewed, in complete privacy, a captured LeT (or HuA I dont remember which) terrorist who admitted that militants carried out that attack disguised in army clothing. The journalist also interviewed the family of the captured terrorist in pakistan. This is just one of the horrendous litany of Pankaj Mishra's anti-national lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 We can agree to disagree on this. That movie should have been pulled off anyway, as cr@p a movie as I have ever seen. What about freedom of expression etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 When did I strut around as the paragon of neutrality in this matter? Of course I am offended by Hussain's paintings of Hindu deities in a large part because I am a Hindu and I am glad he is out of the country. I am also offended by his Bharat Mata painting because it hurts me as an Indian (as well as a Hindu). As far as the legality of his paintings is concerned that is a matter that can be settled in a court of law. But he is a coward in my opinion for running away from India to avoid facing the court of law. Also, I have the full right to point out the hypocrisy of this despicable man, as I have done elsewhere in this thread -- that he pulled his movie Meenaxi out of the theatres as it contained some lines from the Koran to describe feminine beauty. Regarding the movie, tell the complete story. It was pulled out, but then released again without any changes to it. To pull out the movie surely could not have been his decision alone, it was a big banner Yash Raj film. Even today, if you go out and rent the DVD you will find the entire song Noor-un-Ala in it. And I disagree with Lurker as well, I think it was quite a good movie. :icflove: If it makes you feel any good that an 80+ year old man wanting to live away from death threats and court cases for a few paintings he made in 1970 and were never brought up as an issue till 1995, is a coward then so be it. The veer bahadurs were of course the loony brigade giving him death threats and raiding his place. It's funny how your sentiments have to be respected by Hussain, but Muslims' can go for a walk in the analogous case of Rushdie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Regarding the movie, tell the complete story. It was pulled out, but then released again without any changes to it. To pull out the movie surely could not have been his decision alone, it was a big banner Yash Raj film. Even today, if you go out and rent the DVD you will find the entire song Noor-un-Ala in it. And I disagree with Lurker as well, I think it was quite a good movie. :icflove:This is what Hussain said when the movie was withdrawn:“I have told my sole distributor Yash Chopra to withdraw the film from public shows with immediate effect,†Husain said in a statement today. Husain who was visibily upset, however, refused to provide any reasons for his action to reporters. “I have not made the film to make money, nor have I sold it to anyone. Therefore, I need not give any reason for the withdrawal of the screening of the film to public,†Husain said.If it makes you feel any good that an 80+ year old man wanting to live away from death threats and court cases for a few paintings he made in 1970 and were never brought up as an issue till 1995, is a coward then so be it. The veer bahadurs were of course the loony brigade giving him death threats and raiding his place. It's funny how your sentiments have to be respected by Hussain, but Muslims' can go for a walk in the analogous case of Rushdie.What has to be respected is the course of law which has been evaded by MF Hussain. India has laws regarding obscenity and hurting religious sentiments - these need to be respected. Personally, I am at liberty to take offense at whatever hurts my sentiments, as long as I do not indulge in violence. Just like Muslims or Christians are. I am also free to point out MF Hussain's doublespeak in that he painted Hitler nude to, in his own words, "humiliate" him. Yet he also painted Hindu Gods, Goddesses nude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 This is what Hussain said when the movie was withdrawn: He refused to make any changes to the movie - as I suggested pick up a DVD and enjoy the entire Noor-un-Ala song - lovely song, BTW. What has to be respected is the course of law which has been evaded by MF Hussain. India has laws regarding obscenity and hurting religious sentiments - these need to be respected. Arre boss, do one thing. Give me your real name and address and I'll make sure I file at least a dozen fraud cases against you in India. Will you leave your cozy foreign life to follow the course of law in that case? Those cases are frivolous and you know it - they were filed out as part of the entire gang mentality by the loony right. And moreover, what guarantee of security are you talking about? The government could not even secure his paintings in some exhibitions 2-3 years back which had to be taken off when the loony right threatened. Personally, I am at liberty to take offense at whatever hurts my sentiments, as long as I do not indulge in violence. Just like Muslims or Christians are. Good. So respect their right as well, rather than saying Rushdie was hounded wrongly. After all you should be more understanding of sentiments than poor old me. I am also free to point out MF Hussain's doublespeak in that he painted Hitler nude to, in his own words, "humiliate" him. Yet he also painted Hindu Gods, Goddesses nude. That is frankly such a stupid argument that I was resisting answering it till now, but since you keep bringing it up in every other post tell me is sex the only reason you take off clothes for? Is there only one interpretation of nudity? You see someone undressing in a bedroom in proximity with another person, it probably means the same thing to you as someone undressing in the shower of a gym? The binary logic of you right wingers never ceases to amaze! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 You see someone undressing in a bedroom in proximity with another person, it probably means the same thing to you as someone undressing in the shower of a gym? The binary logic of you right wingers never ceases to amaze! :giggle::giggle: Although to be fair Seedhi is a sane right winger..not loony. :secret: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Good riddance! Now if only SRK takes up Pak / Bangladeshi citizenship ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 He refused to make any changes to the movie - as I suggested pick up a DVD and enjoy the entire Noor-un-Ala song - lovely song' date=' BTW.[/quote']Did he withdraw his paintings? No. Not even for a moment. Arre boss, do one thing. Give me your real name and address and I'll make sure I file at least a dozen fraud cases against you in India. Will you leave your cozy foreign life to follow the course of law in that case? Those cases are frivolous and you know it - they were filed out as part of the entire gang mentality by the loony right. Let me apprise you of the facts - the Delhi High Court has bunched up all the cases in various parts of India. He can come to India and argue his case directly in front of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.And moreover, what guarantee of security are you talking about? The government could not even secure his paintings in some exhibitions 2-3 years back which had to be taken off when the loony right threatened. Firstly I dont condone violence, but lets have some perspective. In India there are people who face much greater threats, they dont run away abroad. There is an open threat from the people who did the 26/11 attacks to foreigners in India but still we assure the sportspersons of impenetrable security. The govt can *easily* protect MF Hussain from any harm. He simply doesnt want to return. Good. So respect their right as well, rather than saying Rushdie was hounded wrongly. After all you should be more understanding of sentiments than poor old me.Since MF Hussains paintings have not been banned in India, I definitely disagree with the ban on Satanic Verses. Secondly, Rushdie lived under a death threat from a Head of State for several years - which I certainly condemn. MF Hussain has not faced any such difficulty. I can certainly point to the inconsistency in the positions of the govt on these two issues. That is frankly such a stupid argument that I was resisting answering it till now, but since you keep bringing it up in every other post tell me is sex the only reason you take off clothes for? Is there only one interpretation of nudity? You see someone undressing in a bedroom in proximity with another person, it probably means the same thing to you as someone undressing in the shower of a gym? The binary logic of you right wingers never ceases to amaze!Did you even look at the paintings? Durga having sex with a tiger. Laskshmi sitting nude on top of Ganesha. Sita nude on the thigh of a nude Ravan. A dressed Muslim with a naked Brahmin. The connotations of the paintings are clear to anyone who has a working brain - simply to degrade and debauch Hindu icons. Btw I think we are just repeating stuff over and over. I will just end with restating that I am glad that this despicable human being is out of India and I hope he does not return, a view that I am happy to observe is shared by a majority of those who posted in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 :giggle::giggle: Although to be fair Seedhi is a sane right winger..not loony. :secret:Lame. Did I open your eyes to Pankaj Mishra's true nature though? You seemed surprised at his inclusion in my exalted exit list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Lame. Did I open your eyes to Pankaj Mishra's true nature though? You seemed surprised at his inclusion in my exalted exit list. Matter of fact I was surprised. I hope we are talking of the same Pankaj Mishra here, the writer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 He is free to live wherever he wants to live, millions of people have left India for various reasons and I think he is a free man when it comes to moving. I agree that he painted controversial pictures .. but if Im religious then I should understand that if he portrays my god in a certain way that doesnt make my god inferior. If it does then we are no different than people who were ready to kill for a picture of Prophet Mohd. I think he could have explained n even made an apology to people who felt hurt n move on but i guess these controversies made him even moire popular. Is she racist or just an artist ? Im afraid we will never know... but yes he liked controversies it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphic23 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 He is free to live wherever he wants to live, millions of people have left India for various reasons and I think he is a free man when it comes to moving. I agree that he painted controversial pictures .. but if Im religious then I should understand that if he portrays my god in a certain way that doesnt make my god inferior. If it does then we are no different than people who were ready to kill for a picture of Prophet Mohd. I think he could have explained n even made an apology to people who felt hurt n move on but i guess these controversies made him even moire popular. Is she racist a racist ? Im afraid we will never know... but yes he liked controversies it seems Why? As an artist, I thought you weren't responsible for anything - if the patron doesn't understand the art, isn't it his ignorance not the artist's mistake? I've taken a look at the pictures in the previous page - they're a little weird but I've never been big on art, and I dont get it anyway. He's "experimented with nudity" more so than others but honestly, I dont see anything wrong with not apologizing. But does he think he gets more freedom to express himself in Qatar? That may be questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Why? As an artist' date= I thought you weren't responsible for anything - if the patron doesn't understand the art, isn't it his ignorance not the artist's mistake? I've taken a look at the pictures in the previous page - they're a little weird but I've never been big on art, and I dont get it anyway. He's "experimented with nudity" more so than others but honestly, I dont see anything wrong with not apologizing. But does he think he gets more freedom to express himself in Qatar? That may be questionable. its a million dollar question Graphic.. I saw a discussion about this and I see valid point in both arguments. An apology doesnt have to be " Im sorry I have done it wrong" an apology like " Im sorry if people are hurt, i never meant it that way " says .. Im an artist & had no intentions to hurt anyone ( maybe he might have made similar statements ). My opinion is that he didnt do much wrong n his art n thinking doesnt bother me .. but to be in a society sometimes people need to care about public sentiments to avoid conflict n tension ( and this is the part which is debatable ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts