Guest dada_rocks Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 And I will agree to that in principal. I will also think that as a nation India is not there yet. We are deep rooted in our culture, religion, traditions and hence it is not easy to take any criticism as merely freedom of speech. Think it like this. These days India seems to be the flavour in the West. You will hear good things about India every 2nd day in the media. And so on days when India is criticized, or shown in bad light, people are indifferent to it since criticism comes with the territory of having won compliments. However articles like this form the part where only criticism is made and so for the followers of the religion it can give ammunition for being greaved. I do have issue against violence but if the followers sued on an Indian law that is well within their rights. xxx It is far from that stage oinly time swe hear clamour of frree speech is when some hindu symbolism is being attacked otherwise all kind of ban passes unnoticed be it Fancois Gautier's painting shwo on Aurangjeb Da Vinci Code Satanic verses Danish cartoon.. We talk about freeodm of expression when some M F hussain is painting some hindu goddes naked or in compormising position then we hear debate on freedom of expression.. Suddenly I see you have respect for court..be consistent in giving court verdicts respect... . You guys do indulge in cherry-picking even here. when it's incoveneinent court gets damned and every psec becomes judge jury and executioner..
Lurker Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 It is far from that stage oinly time swe hear clamour of frree speech is when some hindu symbolism is being attacked otherwise all kind of ban passes unnoticed be it Fancois Gautier's painting shwo on Aurangjeb Da Vinci Code Satanic verses Danish cartoon.. We talk about freeodm of expression when some M F hussain is painting some hindu goddes naked or in compormising position then we hear debate on freedom of expression.. Suddenly I see you have respect for court..be consistent in giving court verdicts respect... . You guys do indulge in cherry-picking even here. when it's incoveneinent court gets damned and every psec becomes judge jury and executioner.. Phir wahi sada bajaa le kar haajir??? Painting Saraswati naked was an abomination? Mahashay YOU are an abomination. Fact is that many Hindu temples do excel in such architectures. Wasnt there a discussion sometime back as to how India "excelled" in open discussions about sex, how (non) prudish Indians were...till the arrival of Mohammedans?? In other words if there is a pardah its because of Momins, if there is a na-pardah even then thats because of it. By the way MF Hussain got ample criticism about his painting. If you open any newspaper you will see the extent of his criticism, of course Paanchjanya mein woh nahin dikhega.
Guest dada_rocks Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 Phir wahi sada bajaa le kar haajir??? Painting Saraswati naked was an abomination? Mahashay YOU are an abomination. Fact is that many Hindu temples do excel in such architectures. Wasnt there a discussion sometime back as to how India "excelled" in open discussions about sex, how (non) prudish Indians were...till the arrival of Mohammedans?? In other words if there is a pardah its because of Momins, if there is a na-pardah even then thats because of it. By the way MF Hussain got ample criticism about his painting. If you open any newspaper you will see the extent of his criticism, of course Paanchjanya mein woh nahin dikhega. As usual your logic lasted just for one post.. Nowhere sita is shown naked sitting on hanumaan's tail if you believ otherwise then show me or take your mullah doouble-standard crap elsewhere.. NO india is many things no freaking mullah has right to show thumb to ihindu sensibility.. No decency is not islamic it was always there in indian culture.... yes burqua-style covering is islamic for sure.. M F hussain is hailed by psec-pests.. As AruN Shouries says till M F Hussain gathers cajones to paint some dalliance of greatman with aayesha and I can see enough material there he is just a ***** who loves to denigrade hindu gods, can;t hide behind art whatever ***c that art of his means PS: BTW My court case respect reference was meant for you peopple's insistance that court must be damned in certain modi;s case and views of psec cabal be the real court.. Suddenly here I have noticed respect for the court .. tsk tsk
Lurker Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 As usual your logic lasted just for one post.. Nowhere sita is shown naked sitting on hanumaan's tail if you believ otherwise then show me or take your mullah doouble-standard crap elsewhere.. NO india is many things no freaking mullah has right to show thumb to ihindu sensibility.. No decency is not islamic it was always there in indian culture.... yes burqua-style covering is islamic for sure.. Arre bhai saaheb kuch samajh nahin aaya. Thora express karo khul ke. My point was painting naked picture of Gods/Godesses in Hindu literature is not non-existent. Check. My point was painting even ordinary picture of Prophet Muhammed in Islam is an anathema. Check. So if a painter does paint a cartoon that has religious connotation in the former scenario he can fall on precedence,in latter he can not. This was of course to your rebuttal. Otherwise I have already expressed myself where I stand on the issue.
Guest dada_rocks Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 Arre bhai saaheb kuch samajh nahin aaya. Thora express karo khul ke. My point was painting naked picture of Gods/Godesses in Hindu literature is not non-existent. Check. My point was painting even ordinary picture of Prophet Muhammed in Islam is an anathema. Check. So if a painter does paint a cartoon that has religious connotation in the former scenario he can fall on precedence,in latter he can not. This was of course to your rebuttal. Otherwise I have already expressed myself where I stand on the issue. There is no precedence for the act he did that's my point.. There is certain method to the nonsense he kept chrunign for 20 years till one day some hindu outfit said enough is enough and dragged him to court..Since then this idiot has disappeared because he knows his goose is cooked in indian court.. I for one want this clown to paint for pictures likthat that way it mobilizes hindu more and I love that.. Sleeping hindu ginat needs daily shockl towake from their reveree.. I know where you stand you stand at the junction of changing-principle-driven-by-political-convenience..
Centrino Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 A Swedish skier was detained a few days ago for this - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Protest_over_skier_intensifies_in_JK/articleshow/4096839.cms Didn't realize there were Ski slopes in India.
The Outsider Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 Didn't realize there were Ski slopes in India. Manali has some great ones.
Guest dada_rocks Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 Rajinder Poori point out the double standard Why was the arrest and release on bail of The Statesman editor and publisher largely ignored by media? The governments may have electoral compulsions, but has the media totally given up the battle for free speech? http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090213&fname=puri&sid=1 It is not one's intention here to justify the article. Possibly the criticism contained in it could have been worded differently -- but that is a separate debate. Here, one would like to question the government for its over reaction and prompt arrest of the editor and publisher. By no stretch of imagination was the newspaper article as offensive as, to cite a recent example, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi's remarks about Lord Ram made in the context of the Ram Setu agitation. Among other contemptuous allusions to Lord Ram that he made the CM described him as a drunkard. Predictably there were protests and rioting. One person was killed during the protest in Karnataka. Yet, no legal action was taken against the CM. Then there was the violence unleashed by Maharashtra's Raj Thackeray against North Indians working in Mumbai. Thackeray objected to people he described as outsiders speaking or putting up signboards in languages other than Marathi. He objected to so-called outsiders seeking employment in Mumbai. He made contemptuous remarks against people from Bihar and provoked a counter agitation in that state. Yet Raj Thackeray walks free. Was he not spreading disaffection among people apart from committing and instigating other crimes such as intimidation and violence against them?
veeru_rocks Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=1542&eid=5 Johann Hari On Why He Cannot And Will Not Apologise Johann Hari in the Huffington Post on l'affaire The Statesman: ... Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth -- especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize. ...The protesters said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal -- but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone. ...The argument that I was "asking for it" seems a little like saying a woman wearing a short skirt is "asking" to be raped. Or, as Salman Rushdie wrote when he received far, far worse threats simply for writing a novel (and a masterpiece at that): "When Osip Mandelstam wrote his poem against Stalin, did he 'know what he was doing' and so deserve his death? When the students filled Tiananmen Square to ask for freedom, were they not also, and knowingly, asking for the murderous repression that resulted? When Terry Waite was taken hostage, hadn't he been 'asking for it'?" When fanatics threaten violence against people who simply use words, you should not blame the victim. The solution to the problems of free speech -- that sometimes people will say terrible things -- are always and irreducibly more free speech. If you don't like what a person says, argue back. Make a better case. Persuade people. The best way to discredit a bad argument is to let people hear it. I recently interviewed the pseudo-historian David Irving, and simply quoting his crazy arguments did far more harm to him than any Austrian jail sentence for Holocaust Denial.
suraj Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=1542&eid=5 Johann Hari On Why He Cannot And Will Not Apologise Johann Hari in the Huffington Post on l'affaire The Statesman: ... Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth -- especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize. ...The protesters said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal -- but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone. ...The argument that I was "asking for it" seems a little like saying a woman wearing a short skirt is "asking" to be raped. Or, as Salman Rushdie wrote when he received far, far worse threats simply for writing a novel (and a masterpiece at that): "When Osip Mandelstam wrote his poem against Stalin, did he 'know what he was doing' and so deserve his death? When the students filled Tiananmen Square to ask for freedom, were they not also, and knowingly, asking for the murderous repression that resulted? When Terry Waite was taken hostage, hadn't he been 'asking for it'?" When fanatics threaten violence against people who simply use words, you should not blame the victim. The solution to the problems of free speech -- that sometimes people will say terrible things -- are always and irreducibly more free speech. If you don't like what a person says, argue back. Make a better case. Persuade people. The best way to discredit a bad argument is to let people hear it. I recently interviewed the pseudo-historian David Irving, and simply quoting his crazy arguments did far more harm to him than any Austrian jail sentence for Holocaust Denial. He should not apologize. Fanatic Muslims suck, Fanatic Hindus suck, Fanatic Christians suck..... they should all be ridiculed and the twisted teachings in every religion suck too and they should be ridiculed too :finger::finger:
veeru_rocks Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 It's heratening though that at least somewhere in print media people are debating this issue mY heart goes to people like Francois gautier whose program gets shunted nobody even bothers reporting it.. That Supreme Court lawyer whose book on islamic invasion of India gets banend and nobody even bothers to report it..
Recommended Posts