asterix Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 I think the Hindu hardline groups wanted to assert themselves by protesting in that way after seeing the examples set by Muslim hardline groups protesting, issuing Fatwas, burning the book (in case of Salman Rushdie case). The Govt. too banned that book in India. Not sure Supreme court intervened or not for that "work of art".. So the precedent was already set and if Hindu groups wouldn't had acted (according to their perception) in the way earlier Muslim groups had successfully acted in case of Salman Rushdie, the Hindu hardline groups could've lost lots of ground (according to their perception). You cannot have different sets of "freedom of expression" for different sets of people in the same country. It should be same for all the sections irrespective of whether Hindu gods/godesses were dipicted nude in various temples or not in ancient times.. 1988 September 26, 1988: The novel is published in the UK. Khushwant Singh, while reviewing the book in Illustrated Weekly, proposed a ban on "Satanic Verses", apprehending the reaction it may evoke among people. October 5, 1988: India bans the novel's importation, after Indian parliamentarian and editor of the monthly magazine "Muslim India" Syed Shahabuddin petitioned the government of Rajiv Gandhi to ban the book.[108][109][110] In 1993 Syed Shahabuddin tried unsuccessfully to ban another book (Ram Swarup's "Hindu View of Christianity and Islam").[111][112] October 1988: Death threats against Rushdie compel him to cancel trips and sometimes take a bodyguard. Letter writing campaign to Viking Press in America brings "tens of thousands of menacing letters."[113] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy
Mariyam Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 I think the Hindu hardline groups wanted to assert themselves by protesting in that way after seeing the examples set by Muslim hardline groups protesting, issuing Fatwas, burning the book (in case of Salman Rushdie case). The Govt. too banned that book in India. Not sure Supreme court intervened or not for that "work of art".. So the precedent was already set and if Hindu groups wouldn't had acted (according to their perception) in the way earlier Muslim groups had successfully acted in case of Salman Rushdie, the Hindu hardline groups could've lost lots of ground (according to their perception). I agree with all this. The way the government handled the Rushdie episode was a shame. We ( a secular country) were the first to ban the Satanic verses. Even Saudi, Pakistan, Iran and the others banned the book only after we did. The sad part is that the book got a lot of mileage due to the controversy. It apparently, is a very average book, like all of Rushdie's other works. I haven't read this particular book, but those who did said that nothing really offensive stems from it. Other than the fact that it is an extremely boring book, they didn't find much wrong/offensive in it. Just some characterization in poor taste. You cannot have different sets of "freedom of expression" for different sets of people in the same country. It should be same for all the sections irrespective of whether Hindu gods/godesses were dipicted nude in various temples or not in ancient times.. Who is the "you" that you are referring to here???
Sachinism Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Well said. The thing here is not about religion or what a fragile old man created with his paint brush. Its about how we reacted ( and generally react in situations like these) as a society. So if someone creates something that a few people find offensive, is vandalism the right way ahead? On the grounds of inciting hatred and thus contravening the constitution, they should challenge MF, As they much later did. The funny thing is that most of the vandals wouldn't even have seen MF's paintings. People are very gullible. :(( Related anecdote: Many years ago, in jr. college and just after that, I used to be a part of an NGO that focused on teaching slum kids, runaway kids etc. My task was to teach the kids spoken English and teach them to read a bit. One of the kids (12-14 yrs old then)came to class and was boasting about the thousands of people who were at Azad Maidan protesting the Danish Cartoons. " Hum sab naare laga rahe thay" etc etc. So I asked him, what exactly was he protesting. And he replied that he was against George Bush who painted the cartoons of the Prophet. :omg: :--D George Bush was on an India visit at that time. Can someone get offended about something he/she isn't completely aware of? Thats something to ponder. Yes people start believing its their 'duty' to protest. Many of them may not understand the protest, but supposedly there has been injustice against 'my people' and I must protest as it makes me a better ......... :blink:
Prakat Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Good point. If we are to mature as a society and a democracy we have to hold Freedom of Expression above the things we believe are sacred. I have a signed copy of the book. :winky:
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Well said. The thing here is not about religion or what a fragile old man created with his paint brush. Its about how we reacted ( and generally react in situations like these) as a society. So if someone creates something that a few people find offensive, is vandalism the right way ahead? On the grounds of inciting hatred and thus contravening the constitution, they should challenge MF, As they much later did. The funny thing is that most of the vandals wouldn't even have seen MF's paintings. People are very gullible. :(( Related anecdote: Many years ago, in jr. college and just after that, I used to be a part of an NGO that focused on teaching slum kids, runaway kids etc. My task was to teach the kids spoken English and teach them to read a bit. One of the kids (12-14 yrs old then)came to class and was boasting about the thousands of people who were at Azad Maidan protesting the Danish Cartoons. " Hum sab naare laga rahe thay" etc etc. So I asked him, what exactly was he protesting. And he replied that he was against George Bush who painted the cartoons of the Prophet. :omg: :--D George Bush was on an India visit at that time. Can someone get offended about something he/she isn't completely aware of? Thats something to ponder. Exactly. The same thing with Salman Rushdie -' the guardians of the faith' portray him as a talentless writer who used his controversial views to gain publicity. Most of them havent read even a single line in his book but somehow feel they have to come out and protest because A, B or C told them its insulting. :facepalm: The truth is - he is one of the most gifted authors to emerge from the subcontinent. The movie "Da Vinci code" of all countries was banned in India (I think TN alone), Iran and Pakistan. The most populus catholic nation - Italy didnt ban it. the vatican didnt like it, but there was no call for violence against the writer.
saneindian Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 It's funny how this entire 'freedom of speech' jargon is tossed around conveniently , especially by political parties. UPA banned The Da Vinci Code- did not consider freedom of speech Gujrat banned a recent book on Mahatma Gandhi- Congress cried foul calling it against "freedom of speech" Congress was dead against the play "Mi Nathuram Godsay Boltoy" no consideration for freedom of speech A movie about Soinia Gandhi by Jug Mundra was forced to shut down by Congress, again where was the freedom of speech? Taslima Nasreen gets attacked that too by a group led by one of our MPs, BJP supports her, Congress says people's relgiious sentiments need to be respected Maybe the lesson lies there for the artists (including writers and film makers) to stay away such controversial subjects which lead to inciting of emotions and them becoming a tool in the hands of the political parties.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Yes it can. Did Christians come out and protest in hoardes? Did they destroy public property because of these things? no. Yea they did, a simple search of 'Andres Serrano' or 'Slayer' returns a bucket load of results in Google. The following would be a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Serrano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayer#Controversy -------- You seem to prescribe to the notion nothing is sacred. So this is OK in the name of art? The story behind the shirt is on wiki. http://mazedlx.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/cradle_shirt425.jpg
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Yea they did, a simple search of 'Andres Serrano' or 'Slayer' returns a bucket load of results in Google. The following would be a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Serrano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayer#Controversy -------- You seem to prescribe to the notion nothing is sacred. So this is OK in the name of art? The story behind the short is on wiki. http://mazedlx.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/cradle_shirt425.jpg By protest, do you mean they came out and peacefully registered their disagreement, or did they go out burning flags, destroying public property and killing people like what happened in the Cartoon issue? Every individual has the right to opinion and expression. As long as he doesnt incite violence/hatred against others, I fully support this fundamental right. M.F Hussain did no such thing. He was an artist - he expressed his thought on paper. If someone felt offended by that, they had the avenues for democratic protest. Instead they chose to vandalize the studios exhibiting his paintings - which is intimidation, not protest.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 By protest, do you mean they came out and peacefully registered their disagreement, or did they go out burning flags, destroying public property and killing people like what happened in the Cartoon issue? Every individual has the right to opinion and expression. As long as he doesnt incite violence/hatred against others, I fully support this fundamental right. M.F Hussain did no such thing. He was an artist - he expressed his thought on paper. You contradict yourself. His paintings incited violence and hatred. He should have thought twice about the ramifications of his paintings before playing the victim card and fleeing the country. Did he seriously not expect a violent protest after painting such filth? Probably not.
Guest Gunner Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 The trouble in India is that most constitutional rights and duties are not enforced with a level playing field. Governments use it to divide people by specifically behaving as if they support certain sections of the minority over others. The idea is to incense the majority and divide the public. India has been divided along these lines for over 300 years. Nothing has changed. If we really want to enjoy true freedom of speech and expression then we must begin to support and protect eachothers rights. My two cents.
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 You contradict yourself. His paintings incited violence and hatred. He should have thought twice about the ramifications of his paintings before playing the victim card and fleeing the country. Did he seriously not expect a violent protest after painting such filth? Probably not. Can you show me the filth that he painted in 1970s realizing the ramifications they would cause in the mid 90s?
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Can you show me the filth that he painted in 1970s realizing the ramifications they would cause in the mid 90s? So he painted these without any foresight of how the community would respond to it? So he's either naive or stupid or probably both.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Btw Ganesh, any comments on the 'Jesus is a ****' t shirt?. I am guessing that's OK under freedom of speech and artistic expression :hmmm: To their credit, the mob that made the shirt didn't flee the country and play the victim card. They copped all the criticism on the chin.
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Btw Ganesh, any comments on the 'Jesus is a ****' t shirt?. I am guessing that's OK under freedom of speech and artistic expression :hmmm: To their credit, the mob that made the shirt didn't flee the country and play the victim card. They copped all the criticism on the chin. I am sure if the criticism was measured, Hussain wouldnt have had to go into exile either. It was because of the actual threat of violence and vandalism against his paintings that he left. Not to mention intimidation through the endless court cases the Sangh opened against him. If we cannot give the freedom of expression to even eminent personalities, then by what right do we have to call ourself the largest democracy in the world?
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 You're the missing the point Ganesh. Freedom of speech has its limits, not just in India, but everywhere. People should recognize their limits.
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 You're the missing the point Ganesh. Freedom of speech has its limits, not just in India, but everywhere. People should recognize their limits. I totally agree that it has its limits. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not freedom of speech. Calling for someone's head is not freedom of speech. Making incendiary speeches against any particular community or inciting violence doesnt come under freedom of speech. But Hussain didnt do any of the above. He painted (among many other paintings) nude portraits of Hindu goddesses. Has it not been done before, on walls of temples, caves of khajuraho. Men and Women engaging in sexual intercourse has been portrayed many times in India in the past. Saying that suddenly our sentiment is hurt is strange. Another argument is would the muslim world have tolerated painting of the Prophet Mohammed by Hussain? The answer is NO. Overall, There would have been a huge violent response from them. Killing innocents, effigy burning, fatwa issuing would have been the norm of the day. But the question is, do we really want to emulate that?
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 I totally agree that it has its limits. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not freedom of speech. Calling for someone's head is not freedom of speech. Making incendiary speeches against any particular community or inciting violence doesnt come under freedom of speech. But Hussain didnt do any of the above. He painted (among many other paintings) nude portraits of Hindu goddesses. Has it not been done before, on walls of temples, caves of khajuraho. Men and Women engaging in sexual intercourse has been portrayed many times in India in the past. Saying that suddenly our sentiment is hurt is strange. Another argument is would the muslim world have tolerated painting of the Prophet Mohammed by Hussain? The answer is NO. Overall, There would have been a huge violent response from them. Killing innocents, effigy burning, fatwa issuing would have been the norm of the day. But the question is, do we really want to emulate that? Where do we draw the line Ganesh? Tomorrow, some MF Hussain wannabe will do something more extreme -- not to showcase his artistic talent but because he knows that targeting taboo subjects will gain him instant notoriety and the fame to go with it -- in that case, do we sit back and let it pass under freedom of expression? I can't prove/disprove his intentions but it begs the question, who in their right mind would paint gods/goddess in sexual positions with animals? And this guy got the padma vibushan for that? Seriously?
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Where do we draw the line Ganesh? Tomorrow, some MF Hussain wannabe will do something more extreme -- not to showcase his artistic talent but because he knows that targeting taboo subjects will gain him instant notoriety and the fame to go with it -- in that case, do we sit back and let it pass under freedom of expression? I can't prove/disprove his intentions but it begs the question, who in their right mind would paint gods/goddess in sexual positions with animals? And this guy got the padma vibushan for that? Seriously? Exactly. So we dont afford them either the fame or the notoriety gained by it. We ignore it if we disagree. And its not like people are helpless to protest against something they perceive as unfair. Non violent forms of protest are always welcome.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 That's not so easy, is it? The wannabe will know what buttons to press and will keep pressing them until we tip over the edge. How long will we continue to ignore him or pretend that we don't care?
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 That's not so easy, is it? The wannabe will know what buttons to press and will keep pressing them until we tip over the edge. How long will we continue to ignore him or pretend that we don't care? Till he realizes that its of no use and we just dont care. in Hussain's case, I dont think he was either looking for notoriety or fame by the painting. His painting talent was enough to bring him fame. I still want to see the paintings that caused so much furore. Maybe after I go home I'll google and try to find them out.
Recommended Posts