M.F. Hussain accepts Qatar citizenship

[urbestfriend]

I agree to that. He was India's most famous painter but by no means was India's best painter. It was just because of all these controversies that he became a celebrated artist. Tyeb Mehta and Syad Haider Raza are/were leagues ahead of Hussain as painters.

I dont understand this form of art, but could you care to explain the basis of your blanket statement? Or you are saying this because you read this somewhere.

[EnterTheVoid]

Ganesh, would you be comfortable if you saw someone wearing that 'Jesus is a ****' tshirt - the one where the nun is masturbating with a crucifix - down the street? If you don't, you contradict all the freedom of expression stuff you've been so vigorously championing.

[yoda]

BB on a roll. Good post there. :two_thumbs_up:

[asterix]

Supreme court only let him go because of one count which came in his favour in this case of "repeat offense"..Supreme court asked him, "whether he did this repeat offense intentionally or not"..He claimed, "it was not intentional"..Supreme court quashed the case on that basis. If only Salman Rushdie, Dan Brown etc were given a chance and were asked, "whether their work was intentional or not"..Unnecessary got banned in India. I hope Indian Govt. confer whatever highest award possible to Indian origin Salman Rushdie for his contributions..Afterall Salman Rushdie has recieved so many awards Worldwide..Why not honour this son of Indian soil?

[urbestfriend]

Supreme court only let him go because of one count which came in his favour in this case of "repeat offense"..Supreme court asked him' date= "whether he did this repeat offense intentionally or not"..He claimed, "it was not intentional"..Supreme court quashed the case on that basis. If only Salman Rushdie, Dan Brown etc were given a chance and were asked, "whether their work was intentional or not"..Unnecessary got banned in India. I hope Indian Govt. confer whatever highest award possible to Indian origin Salman Rushdie for his contributions..Afterall Salman Rushdie has recieved so many awards Worldwide..Why not honour this son of Indian soil?

Source please. As far as I know, supreme court termed his Bharat mata as work of art. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-09-08/india/27907562_1_painting-m-f-husain-bharat-mata

[ganeshran]

Nice way to quietly relocate the goalpost once the uncomfortable facts have surfaced ehh ? In post # 468 you were shabashing and agreeing with the resident Chief of Fake Secularism and now that it turns out that most of those points were wrong you want to open up a different front ?. Bharat Mata is a symbolic mother of our Country. If you think painting her in the nude is ok ( after having been categorically told on previous occasions that it isn't in no uncertain manner ) then I'am pretty sure that you will find absolutely nothing wrong with anything whatsoever. Extending that logic you should be fine with him painting women in your family nude(Dont take it personally but there is no other way to explain when people pretend as though they are living in a nudist colony in B'luru ) . This is why it is futile to argue with fake Hindu's. You have a completely unique sense of morals.

So considering a nude painting a work of art is akin to living in a nudist colony? This is Da Vinci's madonna and child. Not only is Baby Jesus in the nude but also Mary is shown exposing her breast. I am sorry but I find your arguments eerily similar to right wing islamists who often use Zionism as an excuse to justify their own deep rooted religious hatred. Whenever their hatred is criticized they pull every perceived injustice from Palestine to Kashmir to Afghanistan to justify acts of terror. it is YOUR OWN opinion that people who don't toe your line on Islam or Hinduism are 'fake Hindus'. I hold my faith close to my heart and dont have to justify it to anyone.

Again its YOUR OWN opinion that it is a religion. Mine is a bit different and unlike you I will provide facts to back up my opinion and I don't set the bar for "Holiness" at ankle level to try and get the green guys in.

Lets agree to disagree on the "holiness" of Islam. I respect it just like every other religion in the world and will disagree with any attempt to paint all its followers in the same color for the acts of a few. But do you agree with the persecution of Taslima Nasreen and Rushdie? Right wing 'defender of the faith' Islamic groups thought they were saving a religion by forcing the critics into exile

[ganeshran]

Ganesh, would you be comfortable if you saw someone wearing that 'Jesus is a ****' tshirt - the one where the nun is masturbating with a crucifix - down the street? If you don't, you contradict all the freedom of expression stuff you've been so vigorously championing.

Of course Sree, the whole point of freedom of expression is that it transcends religious lines. If someone wears that tshirt (or for that matter an anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim one), I have absolutely no issues. Anything goes as long as it doesnt incite violence.

[EnterTheVoid]

Of course Sree, the whole point of freedom of expression is that it transcends religious lines. If someone wears that tshirt (or for that matter an anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim one), I have absolutely no issues. Anything goes as long as it doesnt incite violence.

The bottom line is that if anyone does something religiously provocative, they will get physically attacked and get sued from all ends to kingdom come. That's the reality. The remaining arguments are purely academic.

[ganeshran]

This is really frustrating and I'am going to have to ask you that question about painting your mother nude again because there is no other way to explain it to you . So pls answer. If not then kindly move on to the main issue which is of repeat offence.

You are deliberately mixing the private realm with the public one to provoke. My family is my sphere of influence. The Bharatmata is not, she belongs to the whole of India. Hussain has as much right over the Bharatmata as you and me. What you are saying is like - If you support legalizing of prostitution, you would be ok with your wife being a prostitute too.

Just because your moral standards are such that you see no wrong even when people are trampling you it doesn't mean that the rest have to tow the same line. Your arguments are nothing but an attempt to spin gutlessness as being actually some sort of a brave act. The real world calls it stupidity.

If the real world is comprised of only bigoted keyboard warriors, then i will be proud of my stupidity. Just because you see no wrong in hating on 2 billion people around the world, doesnt mean the rest have to tow the same line.

It is not my problem if you doggedly refuse to accept facts that are widely known. No sane person can call this ideology as being holy given the sort of damning voluminous information that I presented you in the many PM's. The only reason why you would do so is if your sense of right and wrong is just totally upside down. Otherwise I'am all ears to see you come up with logical reasons for having things like "Spoils of War, Booty" and what to do with "Right hand possessions " ( look it up ) in a holy book. And no there aren't just a few nutcases. Things like 1947 and 1989/90 aren't possible without the help of substantial no.of people. And there is not a single Islamic country that is even remotely anywhere near as tolerant as Hindus in India. Everybody knows this fact. Sometime back I had a poll where I asked a hypothetical question on whether India would remain secular if the demographics were to be such that Muslims were in a large number than Hindus. A large % voted for "No".

If no Islamic country is as tolerant as India, then it is something for India to be proud of. We dont need to emulate their intolerance just because their doing so makes it right. The "facts" which you present are verses from the quran which glorify violence. I still challenge you to prove how that translates an innocent person to be held guilty because of his following of Islam. And if the whole ideology is wrong, then what percentage of the 2 billion muslims are engaged in terrorist acts and violence?

No I obviously don't agree. But don't try to tell me this is same as what is happening to MFH.

Why is it not the same? Taslima Nasreen was persecuted for her views which you obviously agree with. Hussain was persecuted for his works of art which you obviously dont agree with. The moment you support Hussain's persecution, your criticism of Muslims as intolerant is completely hypocritic.

[ganeshran]

Nobody has any Rights over Bharatmata. certainly not to disrobe her. There is no precedent . They only have duties to serve her. And the cause is of Motherland. This is why she is positioned as a mother and infact at a higher level than anyones own mother. If you don't like disrobing your mother then kindly accord the same courtesy to her.

It is a work of art and there is certainly a precedent for unclothed paintings in art. Both in religious paintings as well as ancient Indian sculptures. The unclothed human form was never taboo for art and the endless sculptures on Kharjuraho are a timeless testament to it. If the BharatMata and other Hussain paintings are taboo then by that same standards, we should demolish any temple or scultptures in India that 'dares' to portray our religious symbols unclothed.

The problem here is again that of what is wrong and what is right and how we deal with the wrong. For instance if someone published a book containing the same verses that I PM'ed you earlier but aim them at say community "X" (for being disbelievers ) it will be banned pronto and you will be the first in the line to condemn that person. So by your own logic you are bigoted. Think about that for a moment. The thing is any civilized society worth its salt requires you to stand up and deal firmly with the wrong. You are doing the opposite. You cant position yourself on a moral high ground.

If any person posts just the verses of Quran you PMed me without calling for violence against any specific community, I will certainly support that person's right to be published. Why do you think Satanic Verses and Lajja/Shah Banu were banned? The same criticism of their faith that right wing islamists couldnt digest. I opposed the ban on books of both the authors and I will support any individual's right to freedom of expression as long he/she doesn't incite hatred and call for violence against innocent people.

How did all those Islamic countries become intolerant ? Are they a colony of some alien species that invaded them and rules them based on different laws against their wishes ? I don't think so. It is their own making and they are perfectly happy with that sort of setup. Yatha Praja thatha raja.

Most Islamic countries are ruled by despots who use religion as a state policy to keep people under control. If you think most rulers in the middle east are supported by the majority in their country, then you are wrong. That is why there are freedom movements popping all over the arab countries. In Pakistan both Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Zia ul Haq realised how useful a polarized population is in order to stay in power. They deliberately fuelled hatred among communities in the name of Islam and the whole country continues to battle with intolerance and hatred till date. I dont want to see India go that way. Intolerance goes against our core values and that is why we have been able to prosper inspite of so many different religions / castes/communities living here.

I already told you why. I don't consider this as a religion. If you want me to accord same respects to this ideology you need to prove to me that it is even remotely close to any of the Dharmic faiths in terms of holiness and that it has a reasonable track record in implementing those norms of holiness. And the standards of what constitutes holiness shall be defined upfront based on widely accepted norms and not from the handbook of Political correctness and pseudo secularism. I don't subscribe to that handbook. Let me know if you want to take that up and we can go ahead and put down these norms and see how Islam stacks up.

Religion is not the issue here. It is persecution for one's views. Hussain is being persecuted for his works of art. Rushdie and Nasrin were persecuted for their books. You cannot blame another community for being intolerant because they hold the things being questioned (their prophet, holy book etc) just as sacred as you hold Hindu goddesses. Regardless of the actual holiness of both of them, both sides are not able to digest when something sacred to them is rendered in an unacceptable way.

[ganeshran]

jeez lets do this a different way ... First of all do you acknowledge that people (other than you) hold Bharatmata in the same esteem as we hold our mothers if not more ? Straight answer yes/no ?

For me the public realm is different from the private one. I hold both the Bharatmata and my own mother in very high esteem in a sense they cannot be confused with each other. If you dont make this distinction, then you are entitled not to. As I quoted an analogy - If you support legalization of prostitution, that doesnt make you accept it if your wife is a prostitute. One straight question: Do you support Hussain's persecution for expressing what he believed in, yet dont support Taslima Nasreen or Rushdie's persecution for expressing what they believed in?

[ganeshran]

That does not answer my simple question at all. I just asked whether you recognize and acknowledge that other people hold her in a higher esteem than their own mother ? I'am not interested in knowing who and what YOU hold in high esteem.

Yes I do. I also acknoweldge that some people hold their religion, their holy books and their prophets in higher esteem than their own family.

Will get there shortly.

Hope to get a straight answer without you launching yet another tirade on the holiness of Islam or its Prophet.

[ganeshran]

Thanks. So who if you find me disrobing your mother objectionable than so do I. Fair ?.

The others I mentioned also hold their religion/prophet/holy book in higher esteem then their family. so if you find them insulting/name calling your wife or mother objectionable, then so do they. Fair?

absolutely so lets look at it right now here was your question : Religion is most definitely at the core of this issue. Rushdies book was banned after protests from religious organizations on grounds of it hurting religious sentiments. So from my POV if they want me to respect their religious sensitivities I need to know what their track record(and we know there is none) is on that same count. Unlike you I don't subscribe to this one-way business of maintaining sensitivities. The truth is that this ideology does not even pass rudimentary scrutiny of any sort of tolerance both in letter and spirit. I have already chronicled these in tedious detail in the many PMs that I sent you some of which you have accepted as being disturbing.

Rushdie's book banning was a vile act by the government. He has the right to express his criticism just like Hussain did. Just because banning of the book was wrong, doesnt mean we commit another wrong (persecuting Hussain) to set it right. In fact everyone should have argued for his right for the book to be published in India. I dont subscribe to any one way sensitivities. In fact it is you who are subscribing to a one way street of tolerance by criticising the intolerance in Muslim countries and at the same time justifying Hussain's persecution.

[ganeshran]

This makes no sense to me. Just to clarify : You earlier objected to disrobing your mother. Now that you recognize that others hold BharatMata in a similar if not higher esteem than your own mother what right do you have to disrobe BharatMata ?

Your argument justifies the sacredness of all religious and nationalistic symbols. By extension of your argument, A muslim holds his prophet and holy book in higher esteem than his own family. So if you object to him calling your wife unspeakable names, he does the same thing when his prophet and holy book are insulted. You are rationalizing violence done in the name of religion and nationalistic symbols. For e.g. If tomorrow you write a book criticising the Quran and it gets banned, I will still be arguing for your freedom of expression, but at the other end will be a right wing Islamist arguing for the sacredness of his symbols and his right to object violently or otherwise. The debate here is not the actual holiness which could vary, but the perceived holiness which cannot be argued with since its the preserve of the individual. I am calling for tolerance and the need to understand that others may interpret or render our symbols differently than what we consider in our realm of acceptability.

and this again goes back to my POV that don't consider this ideology to be worthy of being labelled as a religion.(Reasons have been explained in the PM). So the question of me requiring to be respectful of their sentiments doesn't arise. They don't even recognize idol worship for crying out loud. Why should I bend over and pretend otherwise ? Tolerance is a two-way street. I understand your need to convert it into a one-way street but I am perfectly aware of the reasons and motives.

I dont know about you, but no Muslim has ever objected to me worshiping idols. If he does, I will argue with him for my right to worship my god in my way and the need for him to be tolerant towards other faiths as well. My point is very simple - I have opposed Rushdie and Nasrin's persecution in the past and the numerous fatwas and violent protests against them. It would be totally hypocritic if I support Hussain's persecution just because I dont agree with his rendering of the symbols of my religion or nationality. That would be indirectly supporting all the nutters who burnt effigies and issued fatwas against Rusdhie and Nasrin. I am arguing only for the freedom of expression of an individual (as long as it doesnt incite violence), not trying to debate religion here.

[yoda]

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]

So, ganeshran, I take it that you don't like this law. You know what? Too bad, but that is the law. So the problem here seems to be inconsistent application of the law. The courts applied the law correctly in case of Rushdie, failed to do so in case of MFH, at least IMO.

[ganeshran]

So, ganeshran, I take it that you don't like this law. You know what? Too bad, but that is the law. So the problem here seems to be inconsistent application of the law. The courts applied the law correctly in case of Rushdie, failed to do so in case of MFH, at least IMO.

No I dont agree with the law. As I said, an individual has the right to his freedom of expression as long as he doesnt incite violence or hatred against a particular community. The courts applied a wrong law to Rusdhie's case and it goes against our ethos. This is Pakistan's version of the law, except that its tailored to protect Islam. More than 600 people have been charged with it and it is extensively used to settle personal disputes in the garb of religion. 50% of the charged people were minorities. And 20 of them have been murdered while being on trial.

§ 295 forbids damaging or defiling a place of worship or a sacred object. § 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings. § 295-B forbids defiling the Quran. § 295-C forbids defaming the prophet Muhammad. Except for § 295-C, the provisions of § 295 require that an offence be a consequence of the accused's intent. Defiling the Quran merits imprisonment for life. Defaming Muhammad merits death with or without a fine. (See below Sharia.) If a charge is laid under § 295-C, the trial must take place in a Court of Session with a Muslim judge presiding.[4] § 298 states: Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. § 298-A prohibits the use of any derogatory remark or representation in respect of Muslim holy personages. § 298-B and § 298-C prohibit the Ahmadiyya from behaving as Muslims behave, calling themselves Muslims, proselytizing, or "in any manner whatsoever" outraging the religious feelings of Muslims. Violation of any part of § 298 makes the violator liable to imprisonment for up to three years and liable also to a fine.

[ganeshran]

Dont try to convolute a very very simple matter .. imagine there are only 4 entities here : You ' date=' me, your mother and Bharatmata..there is no need to bring in any other parties here. Lets just pretend that there is no other religion in India to even further simplify this. So according to your logic you have the right to disrobe BharatMata but I dont have the right to do the same to your mother even though you recognize that I hold BharatMata in a higher esteem. Is this what you are trying to tell me ? Straight answer please.[/quote'] No one is convoluting a similar matter. I am presenting the same situation in a different perspective The four entities: 1) You 2) A Muslim 3) Your wife 4) Quran (Holy book) You can insult the Quran because you dont subscribe to political correctness. The Muslim can insult your wife and call her names because he holds the Quran is the same/higher esteem that you hold your wife. Is that what you are trying to say?

[yoda]

No I dont agree with the law.

Ok. Let's say for the sake of this discussion, you accept the law as is, cause typically in a civilized society, the laws of the land are what help us govern. Now if the SC banned Rushdie's book per the law, do you think they should have done the same with MFH's paintings?

[ganeshran]

Bad analogy and it is completely different from what I am trying to tell you. Because someone insulting my wife would fall under different category of law and order and not a religious offence. In my example the key difference is that you acknowledge and accept that I hold Bharatmata at a higher status than your own mother. So please respond to my question in my previous post.

Not a bad analogy, unless you want it to be. Personal Symbols : Your Wife . My Mother Religious/ Nationalist symbols: The Quran. The Bharat Mata Action by another person: Insulting the Quran, Painting the Bharatmata unclothed. You cannot digest another person disrobing the Bharatmata because you hold her in higher esteem than his mother and hence support his her persecution. by the same analogy a muslim cannot digest you insulting the quran because he holds it in higher esteem than your wife, hence any of his violent objections are rationalized.

[urbestfriend]

Ganesh :two_thumbs_up: