M.F. Hussain accepts Qatar citizenship

[seedhi]

And in my humble opinion Nehru >> Shastri >> Indira >> Vajpayee.

To each his or her own.

Okay so my guess about Tamil extremism in SL was right on. Help me understand this now. Why is India's meddling in Baluchistan a "strategic depth" policy while India's support to Tamil cause a "blowback"? Surely you know geo-polity enough to realize SL was being wooed actively by Pakistan and China, or dont you? xxx

Because SL was never a threat to us like pakistan. And because it is an emotive issue for Tamils in our country. Supporting Balochis will not have a similar blowback since there are no Balochis on our side of the border, and no pakistanis as well.

[Lurker]

Because SL was never a threat to us like pakistan.

Really? You probably should follow SL politics a bit more. When Prabhakaran was killed felicitations was received from Pakistan and China in Colombo. You should read the compliments from SL top brass about how it would not have been possible without Pakistan(and China).

And because it is an emotive issue for Tamils in our country. Supporting Balochis will not have a similar blowback since there are no Balochis on our side of the border, and no pakistanis as well.

Surprising that you think it is an "emotive" issue for Tamils in India without realizing how Tamils were coming in drove as refugees back then. As a matter of policy I dislike support of terrorism, whether in SL or Pakistan, but I find it hypocritical(although not entirely surprising) that folks like you have different rules for different countries. Wait, you have one rule for Pakistan(and Islam) and completely other for everyone else. xxx

[seedhi]

You do realize ours is a country of 1 billion population. Even in 70s it would be 40-50 crores. If even 1% of that population sees the painting that number would be much bigger than population of many countries.

How does this contradict my assertion that those who saw the paintings in 1996 probably saw them for the first. Moreover' date=' it was probably a new generation of Indians who were riled up in 1996.

What you also do not seem to realize is that while an average Indian can be given a pass for not knowing about Hussein's painting what do you have to say about the Jansanghis?? The Vajpayees, the Advanis etc? By all accounts these two gents were very well received in social circles, and Vajpayee being an artist would know about MFH. What about Thackeray?? Was he not making cartoons back then? Were these gents, the now custodian of Hindu sanskriti, sleeping for 30 odd years or so?

As I have said, you can go and ask these gentlemen. I think Advani and Vajpayee did not have much to do with this issue. Thakeray ofcourse played a political game. Let me make myself clear - I do not support the violence by Shiv Sena and the Bajrang Dal. I can only answer as to why I am personally happy that Hussain has left and why I am offended by those paintings.

No I dont buy that at all. There is a distinct lack of politicial will in India and without it these are empty words. Remember that the party in power, at the Center, when Fire movie controversy happened was BJP. If Mr. Advani(who was the HM) could not reign a bellicose Thackeray why should I expect that from a Congress HM? Well I take that back, I would expect it from the HM(regardless of political leanings) but it just wont happen. xxx

I dont buy that argument. Lots of people live with security in India and the Indian govt was willing to provide Hussain with the same. The argument made by his supporters is that he likes to be a free bird and would suffocate under the security cover. If thats the case then its good, both for him and Indian govt that he has left.

[yoda]

Another thread taken down the BS route. For some reason some of you simply can't stay on the topic of a thread and have a need to re-hash the same stuff you guys keep repeating everywhere.

[seedhi]

Really? You probably should follow SL politics a bit more. When Prabhakaran was killed felicitations was received from Pakistan and China in Colombo. You should read the compliments from SL top brass about how it would not have been possible without Pakistan(and China).

Does that make Sri Lanka a security threat to India? The Sri Lankan President himself said that the success against the LTTE would not have been possible without Indian help.

Surprising that you think it is an "emotive" issue for Tamils in India without realizing how Tamils were coming in drove as refugees back then. As a matter of policy I dislike support of terrorism, whether in SL or Pakistan, but I find it hypocritical(although not entirely surprising) that folks like you have different rules for different countries. Wait, you have one rule for Pakistan(and Islam) and completely other for everyone else. xxx

Its entirely a gain/loss decision. History is proof that India lost more than it gained by creating the LTTE and they way it was subsequently handled. India will gain more and lose nothing if Balochistan becomes a bigger headache for pakistan. Anyway we have strayed far away from the topic. Lets call it a day for now.

[Lurker]

How does this contradict my assertion that those who saw the paintings in 1996 probably saw them for the first. Moreover, it was probably a new generation of Indians who were riled up in 1996

I hope you do realize you are basically making weird statements now. So in 1996 it was a new generation of Indians. What was new about this generation? That they refused to understand that there is a Supreme Court that can be reached if there is a controversy? That getting violent is a no-no? Or are you suggesting the new generation of Indians were a non-tolerant, non-followers of laws who only understood the language of jiski laathi uski bhains?

As I have said, you can go and ask these gentlemen. I think Advani and Vajpayee did not have much to do with this issue. Thakeray ofcourse played a political game.

Thats a cop out. By most accounts Vajpayee and Advani are two of the most important figures in Indian Hindutva movement. If these gents did not see any issue really what are you, and every other follower babbling about? I hope you realize you have effectively moved from Advani/Vajpayee camp and into Thackeray camp with that argument lol. xxx

[Lurker]

Does that make Sri Lanka a security threat to India? The Sri Lankan President himself said that the success against the LTTE would not have been possible without Indian help.

Yes it did make SL a potential security threat to India in 70s and 80s. SL was actively wooed by Pakistan & China and I would say even USA as there was an effort to encircle India. Regarding SL President's statement he was absolutely right. However he focussed entirely on how India did not support LTTE, without even mentioning the issue. Killing of Rajeev Gandhi was death nail for LTTE. Apart from folks like Karunanidhi nobody supported them. Point being India did not support SL as such, it just walked away from LTTE. On the other hand SL was supported by Pakistan and China directly in terms of arms and ammunitions.

Its entirely a gain/loss decision. History is proof that India lost more than it gained by creating the LTTE and they way it was subsequently handled. India will gain more and lose nothing if Balochistan becomes a bigger headache for pakistan.

Thats ironical. On one hand you judge an incident (SL) after the fact, on the other hand you prejudge Pakistan? Sirjee even America made a blunder in Afganistan, they are only too proud not to admit it. What makes you think we would be successful in Baluchistan?? xx

[triam]

My response to a similar post above. Talk about OTT. Who is talking about sacrificing humanity or advocating any kind of violence? People are just saying is what the guy did is plain wrong. The Islamic comparison was brought up to show how other religions are and how we are NOT the same. Now the real question here is do people have the right to protest and express their disapproval at all about this or are they just supposed to STFU?

I present you this,

hindu protests against Fire equated to what...property damage? tearing down film posters? -anyone remember "FITNA" -- a dutch film showing the link between violence and excerpts from Quran ---- how did muslims react? LIVELEAK had to take down the movie from their servers citing seriously physical threat to their staff.....open death threats were announced at mosques after friday prayers from pakistan to Indonesia. -Sudanese Teddy bear case: Gillian Gibbons was arrested for "insulting islam" by naming one of the teddy bears in class "Mohammed" -She was arrested and given 15 days prison time and deportation to UK -10,000 people marched the streets chanting death to Gibbons by firing squad, she was moved to a secret location in fear of jihadi attacks -Theo Van Gogh -- FILM: Submission -- critical of women in Islam - Theo was attacked in Amsterdam by a Dutch-moroccan man and his throat was slashed in broad daylight..he died due to severe wounds -Md. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh 7 times and then stabbed him several times nearly beheading him. - A note was left behind threatening jews and justifying the act with similar fate of 7th century poets Abu 'Afak, Asma bint Marwan and Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf--- who dared to criticize Koran

so I am just asking where to draw the line? If someone kills 2 people for some protest, will the justification be, oh it was only 2, do you know how many people were killed in the Danish cartoon controversy?

[seedhi]

I hope you do realize you are basically making weird statements now. So in 1996 it was a new generation of Indians. What was new about this generation? That they refused to understand that there is a Supreme Court that can be reached if there is a controversy? That getting violent is a no-no? Or are you suggesting the new generation of Indians were a non-tolerant, non-followers of laws who only understood the language of jiski laathi uski bhains?

How many people took part in the protests against Hussain. Maybe a couple of hundred Shiv Sainiks and Bajrang Dal cadre. But the vast majority of the people who were offended, IMO, did not take to violence. On the other hand it is definitely true that the parties like Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal gained (or did not lose much) by their protests. So definitely there some sympathy for their actions - that much I agree. And the causes have been listed earlier in the thread.

Thats a cop out. By most accounts Vajpayee and Advani are two of the most important figures in Indian Hindutva movement. If these gents did not see any issue really what are you, and every other follower babbling about?

I do not know if they had any reaction. Perhaps they were offended but did not think it was something to protest about. Or perhaps not. And I dont think that the entire right wing is a monolith controlled by Atal and Advani. This was never the case.

[seedhi]

Thats ironical. On one hand you judge an incident (SL) after the fact, on the other hand you prejudge Pakistan? Sirjee even America made a blunder in Afganistan, they are only too proud not to admit it. What makes you think we would be successful in Baluchistan?? xx

Because we did support them at one point to time in the 1970s.. Our policy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region does not generate any blowback at home anyway. For example we supported the Nothern Alliance against the Taliban. Secondly, its not as if we will send our soldiers into Balochistan. But it can definitely become a boiling pot for pakistan. And it should too. Its also low risk. Lets say pakistani army intensifies its actions against the Balochis and begins to subdue them very violently. Well, we would still be OK internally as there are no Balochis in India. On the other hand we saw how the passions were inflamed within India when the SL military launched its assault against the LTTE. That is the key difference.

[Lurker]

I do not know if they had any reaction. Perhaps they were offended but did not think it was something to protest about. Or perhaps not. And I dont think that the entire right wing is a monolith controlled by Atal and Advani. This was never the case.

To me there were 2 reasons why they chose not to: a) This was a non-issue for them. b) Vajpayee was a Statesman (I dont give much credit to Advani). Folks like Thackeray are complete tool who unfortunately set the agendas these days. As Triam has pointed out quite correctly that right wing Hindu brigade has realized its "might" and uses it to set agendas. Of course the silence of Vajpayee on MFH is not very different of silence of "pseudo-seculars" when it comes to criticizing Muslim appeasement. xxx

[yoda]

I present you this, so I am just asking where to draw the line? If someone kills 2 people for some protest, will the justification be, oh it was only 2, do you know how many people were killed in the Danish cartoon controversy?

so how many people were killed in the MF Hussain controversy?

[seedhi]

a) This was a non-issue for them.

Political non-issue. Personal non-issue, that I am not sure of.

[Lurker]

Because we did support them at one point to time in the 1970s.. Our policy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region does not generate any blowback at home anyway. For example we supported the Nothern Alliance against the Taliban.

Thats factually incorrect. India always had a good support amongst certain factions of Afganistan. Ahmed Shah Masood comes to mind immediately who was possibly the strongest leader of the rag tag country that was Afganistan in 90s. To quell the support of this group, and to take control of Afganistan, was why Taliban was created by Pakistan (and not actually other way around). I am simplifying this lot more than it is. Matter of fact 2 days before 911 Osama's team took out Ahmed Shah Masood. Intelligence Agencies around the world failed to pick this. Had Masood been alive Osama would have been hunted down lot earlier.

Secondly, its not as if we will send our soldiers into Balochistan. But it can definitely become a boiling pot for pakistan. And it should too.Its also low risk. Lets say pakistani army intensifies its actions against the Balochis and begins to subdue them very violently. Well, we would still be OK internally as there are no Balochis in India. On the other hand we saw how the passions were inflamed within India when the SL military launched its assault against the LTTE. That is the key difference.

We dont have to send our soldiers to Baluchistan but where do you train them?? You will have to bring them to India. Unlike CIA you do not have a staging area(Pakistan). And once these folks lands in India they can easily turn against it, history has proved that time and again. xxx

[seedhi]

Thats factually incorrect. India always had a good support amongst certain factions of Afganistan. Ahmed Shah Masood comes to mind immediately who was possibly the strongest leader of the rag tag country that was Afganistan in 90s. To quell the support of this group, and to take control of Afganistan, was why Taliban was created by Pakistan (and not actually other way around). I am simplifying this lot more than it is. Matter of fact 2 days before 911 Osama's team took out Ahmed Shah Masood. Intelligence Agencies around the world failed to pick this. Had Masood been alive Osama would have been hunted down lot earlier.

I dont see how what you have written contradicts the fact that India supported the Northern Alliance against the pakistani backed and Mullah Omar led Taliban. Northern Alliance was a collection of various tribes opposed to the Taliban. If fact Ahmed Shah Masood was leading the charge against the Taliban and was the leader of the Northern Alliance, which was supported by India.

We dont have to send our soldiers to Baluchistan but where do you train them??

Irrespective of India's support the Balochi fighters get supplied from Afghanistan where they are also trained IMO. My guess is that Iran is also playing a role in this.

[triam]

so how many people were killed in the MF Hussain controversy?

none, thats why I am asking the question, where do you draw the line? tell me and i will leave it aside instead of asking me something back? If you or someone else justifies with Islamist radicals then you or that someone else can keep on justifying as long as the number of people killed is less than that Islamic radicals, so either stop using that justification or tell me where you draw the line. Hope that makes it clear to you

[achilles]

Ok, this thread is going a bit too long and to be very frank, doesn't deserve 345 posts (this being 345th). The thing is- 1. We want MF Husain to be an Indian citizen. 2. But we want him to be an Indian citizen on OUR terms. 3. Democracy & Freedom applies ONLY to us in criticizing him. 4. But we feel it doesn't apply to him coz WE DON'T LIKE WHAT HE DOES. 5. Agreed his work is controversial but that doesn't mean we go around threatening him. 6. We feel disappointed to see him relinquish his Indian nationality for Qatari citizenship. 7. But we are too used to bashing him to show how thoughtful we are for the Indian cause, which we are NOT. 8. Agree to this or not, this move from MF is a big slap in the face for our communal image. Either let him come back or let him stay in Qatar. We can't have the cake and eat it too.

[yoda]

none, thats why I am asking the question, where do you draw the line? tell me and i will leave it aside instead of asking me something back? If you or someone else justifies with Islamist radicals then you or that someone else can keep on justifying as long as the number of people killed is less than that Islamic radicals, so either stop using that justification or tell me where you draw the line. Hope that makes it clear to you

none - so what exactly is your problem with whatever has happened so far in the MF Hussain case? that some posters said look our protests and handling of this case is not extreme as what some muslims did? that comparison itself is bad in your opinion? that we hindus can never say hey look don't jump on us, we are decent, and not going about killing people? the line drawn in whatever has happened legally in this case including filing of FIRs, public outrage in the form condemnation from various quarters, excluding the vandalism by sena, etc which is standard modus operandi for them. no we hindus don't issue fatwa, we don't declare jihad, we just want people to respect our religion and do it within the legal limits of our country which includes protests and legal recourse.

[straight.drive]

He is a great artist. He shouldn't have used it for some cheap publicity.

[Lurker]

I dont see how what you have written contradicts the fact that India supported the Northern Alliance against the pakistani backed and Mullah Omar led Taliban. Northern Alliance was a collection of various tribes opposed to the Taliban. If fact Ahmed Shah Masood was leading the charge against the Taliban and was the leader of the Northern Alliance' date=' which was supported by India.[/quote'] I suppose I got an impression that you were perhaps suggesting Northern Alliance was propped up to take on Taliban, while in reality it was actually the other way around. It was more a case of splitting hairs because if your assertion is India supported NA thats absolutely true.

Irrespective of India's support the Balochi fighters get supplied from Afghanistan where they are also trained IMO. My guess is that Iran is also playing a role in this.

Yep Iran is playing its role, and will always do so really. They are the only powerful Shia country in the world and would hate to be surrounded by powerful Sunni neighbours like Pakistan. However Iranians are lot smarter than Indians are, they support insurgency without any internal blowback, to quote your word, with India reality is lot different.