EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Maybe you or I won't care as we know vandalizing property or burning flags in retaliation achieves nothing and reflects badly on us. Can the same be said for brainwashed religious fanatics? Probably not.
asterix Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 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. Gannu, the pics had already been posted and discussed in this topic.
yoda Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Section 153A of the penal code says, inter alia: Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.[3] Enacted in 1927, section 295A says: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.[4] Can someone explain to me how Rushdie's book falls under this law (which IMO it does) and why Hussain's Paintings do not? All this BS about religion is between you and your GOD and you must be strong enough to ignore anything anyone may or may not say about it is irrelevant. That's why we have laws. I would like to know how the courts determined that there was no malicious intent in his case. Also, it seems to me that the law itself is flawed. Intent should not come into picture when determining if a crime was committed, may be in sentencing. I killed someone with intent vs I killed someone without intent. Do you get away without intent in this case?
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Asterix, do the paintings appear distasteful to you, apart from the religious perspective? Btw when did he give this interview on Hitler 8 years back? I have searched google for some time and all I am getting are the supposed comments on his interview but not the original link itself. Here are some other paintings from him . They appear nice to me, and I am seeing Hussain's work for the first time. King and Queen Lord Ganesh Holi Festival
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Can someone explain to me how Rushdie's book falls under this law (which IMO it does) and why Hussain's Paintings do not? All this BS about religion is between you and your GOD and you must be strong enough to ignore anything anyone may or may not say about it is irrelevant. That's why we have laws. I would like to know how the courts determined that there was no malicious intent in his case. Also, it seems to me that the law itself is flawed. Intent should not come into picture when determining if a crime was committed, may be in sentencing. I killed someone with intent vs I killed someone without intent. Do you get away without intent in this case? What Rushdie did wasnt much different from what Hussain did. Why is it irrelevant? What tangible harm did Hussain cause to Hinduism by those paintings, and what harm did Rushdie did to Islam by writing Satanic Verses?
asterix Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Gannu..The comments on those pics are not mine.. Gannu, whatever might be your threshold of getting offended might not be the same for many others..Don't expect the everybody to have same thinking like you..It take a bunch of people to react voilently.. Personally, I found many of Hussain's painting distaseful..Maybe I don't understand art. But that doesn't means I'm not a "boradminded Hindu"..
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Gannu..The comments on those pics are not mine.. Gannu, whatever might be your threshold of getting offended might not be the same for many others..Don't expect the everybody to have same thinking like you..It take a bunch of people to react voilently.. Personally, I found many of Hussain's painting distaseful..Maybe I don't understand art. But that doesn't means I'm not a "boradminded Hindu".. Asterix Paaji, I totally agree that everyone has different thresholds of getting offended about religion. That is why peaceful protest is there. People can register their disagreement in peaceful ways. What irks me is the violent response, the 'compulsion' in some people to exhibit their disagreement violently in order to convince themselves of being a better Hindu or Muslim.
yoda Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 What Rushdie did wasnt much different from what Hussain did. Why is it irrelevant? What tangible harm did Hussain cause to Hinduism by those paintings, and what harm did Rushdie did to Islam by writing Satanic Verses? The law doesn't talk about tangible harm. Please re-read the highlighted parts in my post. The only relevant issues here are: a) outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India] b) insults or attempts to insult the religion c) with deliberate and malicious intention there is no question about a) or b). You don't need the entire population to be outraged for this, and if it were a requirement, it would be impossible to determine without a vote. c) is questionable, which is probably why he got away. Anyways, in India we have selective application of laws. If it actions affect the minority, hell breaks loose. If it is the majority, then we are anyway supposed to be a tolerant bunch, so no big deal. Oh BTW Rushdie and Hussain did not get the same treatment, when they should have. Hussain got away. I don't care much about the vandalism (I mean I do, but no one is going to argue for them, so it is irrelevant), more interested in how the laws were applied in the two cases.
asterix Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Asterix Paaji, I totally agree that everyone has different thresholds of getting offended about religion. That is why peaceful protest is there. People can register their disagreement in peaceful ways. What irks me is the violent response, the 'compulsion' in some people to exhibit their disagreement violently in order to convince themselves of being a better Hindu or Muslim. The voilent response is due to Govt. inaction..or shall I say Govts selective actions. You might not know the chronology of events and hence are implying that certain sections were just up in arms and went on rampage.. It's not like that.. When a section of people see that the Govt. is applying different sets of rules for different sections then people tend to take law in their own hands. And its nothing to do with religion. It's actually the frustration of watching the double standards which might prompt people to act voilently..Nothing could've happened had the Govt. acted as it has acted in case of Rushdie's book or Taslima Nasseen's book.. Somebody gets National award for his artwork. Has the Govt. got guts to give any awards to Salman Rushdie or Tasleema Nasreen?
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 The law doesn't talk about tangible harm. Please re-read the highlighted parts in my post. The only relevant issues here are: a) outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India] b) insults or attempts to insult the religion c) with deliberate and malicious intention there is no question about a) or b). You don't need the entire population to be outraged for this, and if it were a requirement, it would be impossible to determine without a vote. c) is questionable, which is probably why he got away. Anyways, in India we have selective application of laws. If it actions affect the minority, hell breaks loose. If it is the majority, then we are anyway supposed to be a tolerant bunch, so no big deal. Then the law shouldnt be so ambiguously worded. Laws shouldnt be selectively applied, thats why I find the RSS's view on Hussain so contradictory. They condemn any targeting of Taslima Nasreen while happily vandalizing Hussain's paintings. Same with Congress, they keep Afzal Guru alive for minority appeasment and then call BJP and RSS as communal and divisive.
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 The voilent response is due to Govt. inaction..or shall I say Govts selective actions. You might not know the chronology of events and hence are implying that certain sections were just up in arms and went on rampage.. It's not like that.. When a section of people see that the Govt. is applying different sets of rules for different sections then people tend to take law in their own hands. And its nothing to do with religion. It's actually the frustration of watching the double standards which might prompt people to act voilently..Nothing could've happened had the Govt. acted as it has acted in case of Rushdie's book or Taslima Nasseen's book.. Somebody gets National award for his artwork. Has the Govt. got guts to give any awards to Salman Rushdie or Tasleema Nasreen? Taslima Nasreen is a Bangladeshi national - India gave her exile to protect her from persecution by fundamentalist elements in her country. Even in India fundamentalist Muslim organizations keep trying to target her - the latest was violence at one of her gatherings. Regarding state awards, Hussain was given the Padma Vibhushan in 1991, much before all this controversy erupted. And he got his award for his artistic talent, not as selective application of policies.
asterix Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Then the law shouldnt be so ambiguously worded. Laws shouldnt be selectively applied, thats why I find the RSS's view on Hussain so contradictory. They condemn any targeting of Taslima Nasreen while happily vandalizing Hussain's paintings. Same with Congress, they keep Afzal Guru alive for minority appeasment and then call BJP and RSS as communal and divisive. What do you know about Tasleema Nasreen? Why she is getting targetted? Do you know? Her book is banned in India..
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 What do you know about Tasleema Nasreen? Why she is getting targetted? Do you know? Her book is banned in India.. Because of Lajja, her novel. Plus she has severly criticised gender inequalities and rigid Islamic tenets. She is also an atheist and a radical feminist. She is living in India since 2004 for the most part. Continuously hounded by fundamentalist groups.
asterix Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Because of Lajja, her novel. Plus she has severly criticised gender inequalities and rigid Islamic tenets. She is also an atheist and a radical feminist. She is living in India since 2004 for the most part. Continuously hounded by fundamentalist groups. Lajja, or Shame, in which a Hindu family is persecuted by Muslims. This publication changed her life and career dramatically. House arrest in New Delhi Current situation (2009)Nasrin is currently working as a research scholar at New York University, but frequently talks about her desire to return to her country.[33] Since, as she claims, "her soul lived in India," she also pledged her body to that country, by awarding it for posthumous medical use to Gana Darpan, a Kolkata-based NGO, in 2005.[34] In June 2009 she sent a petition to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh for return to Bangladesh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taslima_Nasrin The RSS only supported her because she wrote about plight of Hindu families in Bangladesh in her book, Lajja..
The Outsider Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 I've already written a lot on the topic earlier, but just wanted to get a few points through which are being misrepresented : 1. Hussain did apologize. 2. There are precedents of Hindu Gods and Goddesses being represented nude. 3. These paintings are from the 1970s and no one bothered about raising the issue then. It is absolutely ridiculous to punish someone for 'hurting sentiments' two decades down the line. Mariyam might know what the statute of limitations is in such cases, but if retrospective morality can be applied in a society then the day is not far that we will destroy temples depicting nude Gods just like Taliban destroyed the Buddha statues. If the act was offensive, people should have protested and brought the issue to court when the first painting came out and he might not have even painted the next one. In any case, he stopped this genre in the mid 70s itself. 4. To file 1200 court cases against a 90 year old artist for something which was accepted by the society 20 years after the fact is nothing but victimization, not to mention the death threats and vandalism. 5. Yes, he did not make nude paintings of Muslim figures, but he did cause a furor amongst Muslims as well by using a verse from the Quran in a qawwali in Meenaxi. There were protests and court cases, but he did not edit the song - simply took down the movie from theatres. It is absolutely dumb to expect a like for like Hindu - Muslim painting. This the creation of an artist, not an equal opportunity job fair.
Sachin=GOD Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 I think people are over reacting in this issue. He made a few paintings which were objectionable to some people so that means they'll just go and kill him or disallow him to enter the country :WTF:
Guest Gunner Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 3. These paintings are from the 1970s and no one bothered about raising the issue then. It is absolutely ridiculous to punish someone for 'hurting sentiments' two decades down the line. Mariyam might know what the statute of limitations is in such cases' date=' [b']but if retrospective morality can be applied in a society then the day is not far that we will destroy temples depicting nude Gods just like Taliban destroyed the Buddha statues. If the act was offensive, people should have protested and brought the issue to court when the first painting came out and he might not have even painted the next one. In any case, he stopped this genre in the mid 70s itself. Brilliant. That is exactly the point.
yoda Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 So looks like Statute of limitations is the issue here. Yes, would be interesting to know what that is in this case.
achilles Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 My country has taught me not to play politics and bad mouth someone on his death. My county has taught me to forgive and forget, for someone must be magnanimous.
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 I've already written a lot on the topic earlier, but just wanted to get a few points through which are being misrepresented : 1. Hussain did apologize. 2. There are precedents of Hindu Gods and Goddesses being represented nude. 3. These paintings are from the 1970s and no one bothered about raising the issue then. It is absolutely ridiculous to punish someone for 'hurting sentiments' two decades down the line. Mariyam might know what the statute of limitations is in such cases, but if retrospective morality can be applied in a society then the day is not far that we will destroy temples depicting nude Gods just like Taliban destroyed the Buddha statues. If the act was offensive, people should have protested and brought the issue to court when the first painting came out and he might not have even painted the next one. In any case, he stopped this genre in the mid 70s itself. 4. To file 1200 court cases against a 90 year old artist for something which was accepted by the society 20 years after the fact is nothing but victimization, not to mention the death threats and vandalism. 5. Yes, he did not make nude paintings of Muslim figures, but he did cause a furor amongst Muslims as well by using a verse from the Quran in a qawwali in Meenaxi. There were protests and court cases, but he did not edit the song - simply took down the movie from theatres. It is absolutely dumb to expect a like for like Hindu - Muslim painting. This the creation of an artist, not an equal opportunity job fair. Top Post :two_thumbs_up:
Recommended Posts