Apropos of Who’s Afraid of Nobodaddies? (Jan 30), the government’s ambivalence on Rushdie’s visit was unfortunate. Their vacillation over making the choice between upholding the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and appeasement of a religious community for votes was pathetic and unacceptable. The apex court has made it clear time and again that the likelihood of a law and order problem is no ground to deny freedom of movement to writers and artists in a free country like ours. I, for one, look forward to the display of The Satanic Verses on Indian bookshelves.
Apropos your cover story, Who’s Afraid of Nobodaddies (Jan 30), Muslims may not like Rushdie but are indifferent to his coming or going. Nor do they pay any notice to declarations and fatwas. So why does the media play it up? Political parties too have to stop thinking that the mullahs represent the community. I also cannot understand the need for Outlook to publish an outdated photo of protest against Rushdie. Till you read the caption, it seems like an ongoing protest, like tensions are simmering when there are hardly any. If a long shot of the gathering had been taken, I am sure it would show the presence of just a handful. The media is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Salim, Calcutta
You credit Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari, no less, with the suggestion of having Rushdie on video conference which, of course, was subsequently not allowed. It seems the Congress continues to suffer from lack of uniformity in thinking and consistency in approach. After the video link too was cancelled at the last minute, that quintessential Congress loose cannon Digvijay Singh, when asked for his comments, supported the cancellation saying religious sentiments of a section of people must be respected (and literary freedom be damned). One recalls the same Singh a few years ago deploring protests against M.F. Husain on grounds of creative freedom.
Sandip K. Pitty, on e-mail
A sensible piece, exposing Congress’s undeclared war on honesty and probity in public life in India.
Tushar Patel, Jamnagar
The issue is not of protests from Deoband. They are entitled to make fools of themselves. This is also not about the few intolerant bigots who take to violent action; they are numerically too inferior. The crime here is that a ruling party has delivered a death threat of sorts to a pio through its state government.
A. Abhi, Mumbai
Blame the government. An issue which could have been handled sensitively was blown out of all proportion and allowed to overshadow a fine literary event.
Shamael Jafri, Lakhimpur Kheri
Where were all the liberal writers when goons attacked M.F. Husain’s shows and drove him out of India? The truth is that India is divided right down the middle and there is really no liberal, non-partisan media or a liberal people as such.
Haruncts, on e-mail
First, they banned the book. Now, they have banned Rushdie under pressure from the votebanks. Election years!
A.K. Ghai, Mumbai
Instead of protesting M.F. Husain’s paintings of naked Hindu goddesses, people could have exercised their own right to artistic freedom and painted him naked (with a drawing board beside him)—like a certain person from Bihar did.
Sangeetha, Chennai
It’s inevitable that votebank politics will turn India into a Saudi Arabia-like Wahabi fundamentalist state, especially when the all-powerful Congress is at the wheel. In today’s India, the so-called communal Saffron Party paradoxically seems the most secular...comparatively, of course.
Narayan, Zurich
Preventing Rushdie’s appearance at the Jaipur Litfest was undoubtedly a shameless attempt by a nervous Congress regime in Rajasthan to appease the ‘mullah brigade’. The party is courting the Muslim vote in a key poll-bound state, by pandering to some dangerous Islamic segments. This unbridled appeasement of radical elements is more dangerous than the threats from Maoism.
K.V. Raghuram, Wayanad
If the government fails to provide proper security to a single PIO, how then can it vouch for the safety of the majority? It is only the cleric-politician axis that plays such dirty games. The average Muslim could not be bothered about protesting Rushdie’s visit.
Somasundaram, Chennai
There is something more than what meets the eye in the entire Rushdie affair. Ironic as it might sound, the presence of someone like Richard Dawkins at the Jaipur fest didn’t raise any eyebrows! Dawkins’s rational criticism of religion, though absolute, is of course different from Rushdie’s ridicule of Islam. But then India hosted someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali a year back. Her criticism of Prophet Mohammed in explicit terms regarding morality and personality pales Rushdie’s magical-realist exertions. It is not that Rushdie has faced protests every time he has visited India: he has come to the country five times since Khomeini’s fatwa. Blame it on the mini parliamentary elections but the bottomline is that religious fundamentalism in India is increasing. India is on the slow path to becoming a religious state, the theo-democracy of Maulana Maududi. The clash of civilisations with undertones of religious identities and shameless surrender by secular authority will make the democracy in India weaker. In Husain and Rushdie’s penchant for controversy lies the creative freedom of an artist. You cannot call them mere publicity-seekers. The Rushdie controversy started some seven years after he became the first Indian-born writer to win the Booker. He was also the first Indian-born writer to win the Prix du Meilleur Livre four years before the fatwa. Likewise, it took 26 years for Husain’s painting of Hindu goddesses in the nude to stir the fundamentalists; he had already become the Picasso of India and the first Indian national (by birth and right) to win the Golden Bear award.
Anonymous, on e-mail
Can anyone in India stand up and tell all those protesters that gods, saints and prophets of no religion require human intervention to protect them. However, the conduct of the government, at the Centre and in Rajasthan, in this case, was nothing short of shameful.
Navien K. Batta, Muscat
Wondering if the Mullahdom of Qatar will extend Rushdie the same hospitality (grant Qatari nationality, that is) it did to Husain?
Jaleel Khan, Lucknow
Is being deliberately abusive of someone else’s sensibilities really freedom of speech? That said, its compulsions in UP made the Congress capitulate to Muslim protesters, but methinks Rushdie will visit again, after the elections, and the Congress will welcome him with open arms, in the name of freedom of expression!
A.K. Bundi, on e-mail
Clearly, the author is comparing apples with oranges. While Salman Rushdie has made it amply clear that he has no particular fondness for any religion, MF Hussain was a different case altogether. While he refused to apologize for painting Hindu gods nude, he readily withdrew a song from his film (I forget the name of the film) that Muslim groups found objectionable. So much for art and freedom of expression! Having said that, the ruckus that Shiv Sena and other Hindu groups created over his nude paintings was a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot. It gave Hussain's mediocre paintings free publicity and exposed the stupidity of these Hindu groups. After all, Hinduism and the glorious traditions of tolerance and openness it represents isn't and cannot be demeaned by a few paintings, but can be injured by its own adherents' idiocy, as in this case.
could somebody explain the title.
what is the author trying to convey?
The issue is not about right or wrong.. The issue cannot be about daring or non daring leaders.. The issue can't be about freedom of speech.. The issue cannot be about politics...
The issue is ABOUT GOVERNANCE RELATED TO LAW AND ORDER..
There is NO INDIA.. Repeat there is NO INDIA.. It needs to be formed.. Just like minded people are staying next to each other.. Just look at it this way ...
1) There is no other country which GOVERNS ITSELF IN A LANGUAGE WHICH IT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.(ENGLISH).. Imagine you going to Russia and asking justice if the Russian police arrest you in Russia and imagine the trials in that language. You will be very much afraid... Now imagine in India an illeterate from a village comes to a near by CITY AND HE TRIES to get justice in ENGLISH... Especially in the High/Supreme Court.. R U kidding.. Can anybody provide justice in a foreign language ? Will the illeterate understnd the justice
2) The job of a policeman is to arrest a so called trouble maker who does vandalism.. Then he takes the suspect into the COURT OF LAW.. Then the judge has to analyze and then prosecute the suspect accordingly...
3) Does that ever happen to hooligan who belongs to a political party.
4) Now imagine the Police commissioner is supposed to represent a city. But many times he is an appointed person by the politician. In foreign countries Police Commissioners are elected by city local people..
5) Lastly imagine if a Police commissioner and the judge in India started implementing the constiution.. THE MASS PEOPLE WILL NOT LIKE IT. THEY WILL GO NUTS. Cos most people in India DO NOT UNDERSTAND LAWS NOR DO THEY OBEY THEM. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IMPLEMENT THEM. WHY BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT WRITTEN WITH THE PEOPLE INTO CONFIDENCE WHICH HAPPENS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
A country where there is no governance guess what the Police institution now has become A GUDA RAJ OF THE MAFIA. THE POLITICIANS HAVE BECOMED THE MAFIA. In India laws are used to threaten and extract money NOT TO PROVIDE JUSTICE...
THERE IS NO INDIA.. IT NEEDS TO BE FORMED...
To do the right thing sometimes requires stepping in the troubled waters. Nothing is gained by waiting at the shore
I was talking about the missionary stupidty when I commented on this, not MFH. Sorry
Sangeetha,
To do the right thing sometimes requires stepping in the troubled waters. Nothing is gained by waiting at the shore.
We banned the book in '88. Some say Babri Masjid was a logical fallout of submitting to the same elements. Look where it got us.
No one, and I mean no one is so holy that he/she cannot be criticized. To our brethren who lose no opportunity in calling him a coward: Prophet did scoot from Mecca when it got too hot. And, security didn't protect Kennedy. You may hate him but Rushdie is a brave soul.
B. Rao,
While the story behing linga puja is quite fantastic, Shiva purana was written much later. Linga worship follows an ancient tradition and it's quite wonderful that it has survived till now.
Mr.Amit,
Just a few remarks to make my stance clear
The art of lampooning gods and goddesses is as old as religion itself
I understand that ! But I feel there would be/could be should be limits too, particularly when the society is in little turbulent state !
Is it necessary to kill and burn the priests?
Sorry, I dont condone this or cutting of the limbs either. I made the remark abt Rushdie sarcatically (while responding to OatMeal). But I also dont think that becoz someone convereted or did something would provoke the ppl to commt such atrocity. Theres more to it. And plz, I'm not justifying that here again
Is the cultural difference between East and West so much so as to justify murder or chopping of hands of an innocent individual
I meant it in a different way, when I posted abt cultural diff
Sorry, but I don't buy into this sort of cultural relativism
We can agree to disagree here. And thank you for your polite response ! :)
BVG Rao,
Super post#D-40/68 ! :) Actually I was refering to the story of Shiva where, as a test for the seers, He wanders naked near ther habitats, when all the seers' wives, stung by cupid, follow the Person ! The seers unable to see who He was and fuming at their wives, get hold of Shiva and try to beat him up, upon which Shiva is said to have cut his organ and thrown away, wherefrom the ShivaLinga is born.
why she (her statute) twisted and turned etc
:)
Whats is this protest all about. Can somebody in India stand up and tell all those protesting that gods, saints and prophets of no religion require human intervention to protect them. What are we fighting for?
However the conduct of government at the Centre and State has been short of nothing but shameful.
People should also not forget that this was the same Congress whose machinations got India divided 54 years back on the grounds of religion. People have been fed with the wrong history of blaming Jinnah, who in reality was a secular but got disenchanted by Gandhiji and his blind love for everything Nehru.
The art of lampooning gods and goddesses is as old as religion itself. We didn't suddenly wake up and invented them due to goading of Britishers. In vernaculars, at least in the North, Tulsidas' epic exists side by side with really astonishing limericks about Ram, Lakshman, and co. Prophet is regularly hauled up for even more colorful satire. It's unimaginable that this was solely a product of modern age. Poor Kabir and Rahim couplets have been turned into farce beyond compare. No one calls for anyone's head for that. I have seen Hussain's paintings and except possibly one, I didn't find anything offensive about them.
You are right about the stupid antics of Missionaries but don't you think it can be settled in the court of law. Is it necessary to kill and burn the priests? In fact, there is nothing better than a few court cases to discourage such tactics. Politicians are to be blamed but there is definitely room for us to look in the mirror too.
Is the cultural difference between East and West so much so as to justify murder or chopping of hands of an innocent individual. Sorry, but I don't buy into this sort of cultural relativism.
Do you think by preventing Rushdie to speak to other people via net, the Prophet's honor has been restored?
@@Sangeetha Instead of feeling ashamed of naked goddess statues wherever there are, of Hindu religion, one should feel proud of it. As you mentioned there is nothing ashamed of it but one should understand why?
In one HINDU newspaper article one British art critic, ignorantly commented on a south Indian temple statute of Goddess Parvathi. He wrote that why Parvathi should have so much big breasts ,which were according to him, very unusual , and why she should have such a big hips and why she (her statute) twisted and turned etc.,
It is a "thribangima" position and it is a particular art school and I have no business to explain what is "thribangima" except to mention that even Lord Krishna also stands in thribhangima position.
But before that I want to write about big breasts of Parvathi. She is a mother Goddess and sculptors defined that ( they sing a song after taking a cold bath and they chant a sloka describing the Goddess , her body anatomy , and then start carving, and you would be amazed , become speechless when you look at them for example at Ellora ) , Parvathi should have big breasts in their carving. Why?
In recent researches, including scientists who were considered for Nobel Prize, like Ramachandran etc., give one instance of Canadian scientist experiments. He found a bird which looks like a crane, but it has red dot on its beak. This bird mother, like any other, feeds her children. When mother was shot down by a hunter, the chicks, her babies have refused to eat food offered in their nest.
So, the scientist took a stick akin to a beak and put a red dot on it and then with that he offered food which the chicks immediately accepted! The scientist simply increased the size of the dot and they were jumping up to eat. So, the scientist increased the size of the dot to much bigger size. The chicks jumped much higher and clamoured to gobble down the food. Now he increased the dot , to an unusual size and the birds almost flew up to eat the food.
This is enough to understand why Sanskrit slokas which the ancient sculptors chanted before they define the curves, breasts on Parvathi’s body, instruct clearly that a mother Goddess should have bigger breasts. Due to space problem I cannot explain in more detail but mystery of human mind is yet to be unraveled.
The British critic anyway did not understand the intricacies of "thribangima" position and a vulgar ,third rate wall poster painter turned “artist” called MF Hussain was far away from understanding or he had any interest in understanding such complexities of "art". He only knew how to make money and he made it. If only our ancient sculptors had any such ideas, at least they could have carved their name underneath their thousands of statues.
And as for "Shiva Purana", which I read, at least two times, I remember it was in 6th chapter in which a story of Lord Brahma and Lord Vishnu tries to find the begining and end of Shiva Linga in a bid to understand the nature of it.
But Lord Shiva , statues made of burnt clay , were also found in Indus Valley civilization(6500 years ago ). In this Lord Shiva sits in deep meditation,hold his erected penis, in his left hand. This clearly shows the "tantric" techniques of sublimating sexual energy, that too 6500 years ago !!! This form of Shiva we call it as "Pashupathi Natha" , wearing a crown of bulls horns. Why? A bull represents virility. A bull can mate up to 100 times in a single day and ejacultes high quantity of semen each time, a " Nandi" thus represents sexual powers which should have to be sublimated to reach superconcious states of mind (read Acharya Rajneesh lecture called "Perennial Path" of Hindu Tantra ) .
That said, to make it clear, I'm not in favour of any ban. Also, I've read Naipaul, but not Rushdie and so cannot comment on him either. I've limited myself to MF's paintings as I had a chance to see some of them and more on the internet
I think in the concluding chapters of Shiva PuraNa, theres the story of the origin of Shiva Linga, while Shiva was having a tussle with the seers. I dont think theres anything there that hindus should be ashamed of in any such legends/myths/stories. These liberals define a drum of freedom and liberty and try to fit in everyone into it. If one doesnt fit, one is a communalist and their arguments are infantile ! Theres a sea of difference between West and the East culturally. While we try defining the "drums" according to the Western cultural mores, perhaps we are lost on the count of the consideration of the sensibilities of the East ?!? To recount an incident during my engineering days - as a fresher, one of my classmates was asked by our seniors as to who was his favourite actress and why. This guy, being very innocent on what the next questions would be, answered "Savitri" and actress of 1950s-60s because she looked like his own mother. The senior asked lewdly "Oh, have you seen her breasts? Biiiig and ........". Should the guy react to it or leave it for the freedom of expression? Lets have a little shame ! Hindus do have their own personal gods and harbour according to their bhava, their own relation with their Gods. Some people consider Krishna to be their friend, Saint poets like Kshetrayya/Chaitanya Mahaprabhu thought themselves to be the gopis devoted to Him etc. When it comes to Mother Goddess, there are no variants in these personal bhavas. Hindus do tolerate mocking their religion, though they may not like it; but everything will have its limit. Missionaries have gone too far with their aggressive conversion agenda in AP and are seeing reactions from people now. While our AC room, arm chair intellectuals' opinions are utopian, the ground reality is something else, especially when it comes to rural and semi urban people. Everyone shows the boogey of RSS/VHP to bash hindus, but have they ever stepped in to the rural areas to see on what the feelings/sensibilities of person residing in there are and how its taking roots in there? Its not only the case of AP, its true for Karnataka, Kerala as well
Jackass,
The loud and obnoxious votaries for religion don't realize that by such infantile tactics, they bring lasting shame to religion. Of course, after all the drama, when I hear so and so religion is a religion of peace and all the attendant rubbish, I feel like frying the puppy next door. No religion is a religion of peace. It's the biggest farce played on the mankind.
@BVG
Hard to believe the mythology of Lingam than what it appears to be. The base of the Lingam might be something other than Yoni. My understanding of Linga Yoni underlines human fertility.
Granted what you have said, but most of the non Abrahamic religions, read heathen religions have fertility worship, whether it is the ancient pagan religion of Romans, goddess Bona Dea, Isis in Greek mythology or freyja in nordic mythology.
Even the so called penis worship is not unique to Hindus. Penis is worshipped in Mara Kannon Shrine Japan , Min the Egyptian god of fertility or the flaming thunderbolt in Bhutan.
The idea is that religion is not so sacrosant after enlightenment . All the religions have lost their pre-eminence after the onslaught of science in last 200 years or so.
Not a single book written by gods told humans that Ptolemy model is wrong. Galileo's persecution to state the contrary is well known. It is the same process that is underway where the anochrinistic religious beliefs are challenged.
Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses alluded to the verses in Quran about pre Islamic idols, Lat, Uzza and Manat. The Islamic religion with anti idol beleif and Muhammed as iconoclast are in jeopardy with presence of the verses. Even these verses were recanted but it shows that Islam was heavily influenced by Pagan religion of Arabia.
The presence of nude pictures of Hindu goddess in temples can't be denied. Moreover, Hussein's artistic work showed what it is already there in Hinduism.
If the religious sensibilities mean that no one has a right to say about religions, then there will be no end to a suicide bomber killing innocents for 72 virgins. Osama bin Laden is right if he wanted a return of caliphate. A hIndu women going for Sati is a pious women and her relatives encouraging her are doing the right. Take example of Boko Haram leader who says rain is creation of god and nothing to do with evaporation.
If someone believes that religion is better in explaining the natural phenomena than science, he or she must return to cave and live the life that their ancestors were living thousand years back. Religion is a fair game because a lie is to be ridiculed.
This government is a pimp.
It's just inevitable that Vote Bank Politics will take India to a Saudi like Wahabi Fundamentalist State, especially when all powerful Congress is neck deep into it.
In todays India, the so-called Communal Saffron Party comes on top as the Most Secular Party, comparitively ofcourse.
Saba Naquvi trying to give credit to Manish Tiwari and Manu Singhave. Now that it is open that Congress government created rumor about alleged SIMI terrorists trying to kill Rushdi and they have also banned the video conference now. Let us see if Mr Tiwari stands up for liberalism now.
First they banned the Book.Now they have banned Rushdie under pressure of Vote Banks .
Election Years !
Thank you for enlightening us about the origin of Linga and Yoni. I honestly am not knowledgeable about such things but I don't think my love for Shiva has changed either way. MF Hussain may have been wrong about Hinduism but who am I or you to question whether his love was genuine or spurious. A honest love is important. Whether it's correct ritually or not, is immaterial. That's like saying you can only admire the prophet if you were a Muslim and could recite the kalima.
Mira considered herself as Krishna's wife. Today, I am sure, there would be scores of VHP goons calling for her to be put in jail, etc.
As for your angst against the British, well, I am pretty sure they were responsible for the eradication of Sati. Let's give them their due. And I am glad you brought Nehru to the discussion. Today, he would be appalled at what his party is doing and he has to take some blame as well, when he put clauses to freedom of expression.
There are people who believe that Shiva's linga represent an erected penis of Shiva and some even believe that half of it is inside his wife Parvati's yoni or vagina!! . I found one among even Brahmin priests, who tried to “enlighten" me!!!
But this is very common commentary by missionaries and also among "seculars" who extend this argument to say that everything MF Hussain did was right! And MF Hussain, himself, in an interview claimed that he was in love with Hinduism and that there was a naked Saraswati in some ancient cave somewhere in India (I forgot the name of the cave he mentioned in this TV interview).
Someone should better read and understand "Shiva Purana" before they claim to understand the symbolism as represented by Linga.
In "Shiva Purana" right in the beginning, "Shiva Linga" was explained as the flame of super soul or "Parama Atma", in this story Lord Brahma going upward on a swan (Swan symbolizes purity strengthened by the knowledge of what is good or "vichakshana" ) and Lord Vishnu going downward taking the form of a tortoise (in Hindu myth tortoise symbolizes patience and "shraddha" or devotion ) and both the Gods finally return as they were unable to find either the beginning or the end of "Shiva Linga" describing it as an unending flame.
@@Amit
Britishers or Christians with their ridiculous blasphemy of Hindu Gods did not bring any laws to end some 'evil" customs of Hindus! . All social reformers were Hindus as everyone knows. I think it was Nehru, as PM, who brought a law to ban polygamy among Hindus.
BNG Rao,
"You are no body to write that a Satan sat on the shoulders to dictate , even if Rushdie felt it as symbolism, or an allegory to represent wrong interpretation of Quran by jihadist"
By the way, in case you didn't know, that is exactly what a lot of mainstram muslims, especially the deobandi idiots say about the Ahmedis' founder, that he was possessed of devil. I don't understand one simple thing: Why should I respect your parents? Why? and therefore, why should I be forced to respect every prophet, saint, etc. The most I will do is keep quiet about their less savory aspects. That's all.
Thank you for your extended response. I understand you disgust with MF's paintings and to be honest, some of them, I found quite offensive. Even then, would you grant me the chance to feel offended, at the very least. Some of us have had the misfortune of undergoing ragging during our college days and, in my case, in a school too. I remember my deep distress at being made to describe how I came into the world graphically (and yes, it meant drawing the act of copulation between my parents). Do I condone it? No, not even now, when I can laugh at it. Does that diminish my respect for my parents? Absolutely not. Does it mean that I should collect a group of people to ban and ask for the head of the student who did it? I hope I have made my point across. Please don't say that a Muslim's love for the prophet or your love for Sita is more or is in a higher plane, whatever that means.
With regard to Rushdie, would you allow me the right to interpret that allegory? Why should I be denied such a right?
As for mutual respect for each other religions, well, does that include respect for each other's diabolical aspects too? The 800 years or so of Muslim rule didn't rid us of Sati, or poygamy or anything horrendous that we mercifully we don't have to face. Is that the kind of respect you want?
Yes, there was no book commissioned to lampoon the gods and goddesses but weren't numerous reformers put on stake for suggesting radical ideas. Let's not forget that in his age, Dara was also distrubing the so-called peace and harmony and hurting feelings of the same idiots.
When you criticize Britishers or the West for our degradation, you miss the bigger picture. The superiority of the West was an offshoot of their strident protection of such rights, which gave space to such "heretics". When we put to sword people like Salman and MFH, we also make sure that we deny oxygen to even greater talent.
It's our obesession with such correctness that prevents us from calling the police when we hear our neighbor beating his wife.
@@Amit Tucson, United States
You seem to have misunderstood my comment on MF Hussain.
To put it extremely simply, there is no need to depict Sita in a vulgar manner. Most probably you have not seen a copy of the painting as I did. She was clinging to Hanuman's tail (escaping from Lanka!!!!), with hanuman's facial feelings terribly bad and please do not ask me to describe it.
There is indeed, perse, nothing wrong painting mother Parvathi naked, breast feeding Murugan, her son. In fact such a sculpture, I could very well have purchased myself, and kept it in my hall so that everybody would see it and I would see it all day. In fact, such a sculpture I have seen it in the home of my friend, a traditional priest family, right in the hall.
But at the same time, it does not make sense on a painting, with horses with erected long penis,on either side or Goddess Saraswati naked in a swing !!! and off course with a veena. Goddess Parvati's picture was much worse than that. A Muslim friend of mine, who was student of philosophy, told me it would not be acceptable to the whole world , if he( MF Hussain) were to do a painting of Sita. And indeed in course of time MF Hussain even did that !!! . And you have "seculars" like Sundeep Dougal and others who are mostly hypocrites who supported MF Hussain and his "ART" !!!.
Stupid people never understand the difference between what an art is and what is vulgar. If the beauty of a woman is shown in a sculpture ,even if it were naked , we call it art. The beauty of a woman is shown while breast feeding her baby sitting in a bath room completely naked, this is called art, because there is nothing vulgar in seeing big breasts of a woman or her big stomach while feeding her baby son.
If you have read even some of the pages of Satanic verses, you would feel it is disgusting. You are no body to write that a Satan sat on the shoulders to dictate , even if Rushdie felt it as symbolism, or an allegory to represent wrong interpretation of Quran by jihadist , mullahs or whoever they may be in his mind , if at all they were there.
My Muslim friend agreed with Rushdie and I felt it was disgusting. Every religion needs reforms and did not we Hindus got rid of Sati , child marriages, polygamy,purdha and many more evils ?? .
But I feel there should be a limit to insult an another belief system. One must remember ,in entire Muslim rule of about 800 years or at least 500 years of their supreme rule in India , no Muslim king or emperor , commissioned a single book against any Hindu god or goddess or any belief of Hindus while in 20th and 21 century many missionaries, western writers printed vulgar pamphlets, and even voluminous books depicting even Rama and Sita in the most vulgar manner for example ( just a tiny little example ) like Sita as born to a prostitute and Rama as sadist , sex addict and that too like his father !! and wife burner !! as well as racist !!
If you want you can read these books even now.
Do you accept them as freedom of expression ? or missionary activity of "harvesting souls" or commercial enterprise to make more money? I think they are commercial , just to make a few more bucks.
MFH is a pervert. Period. But I think instead of protesting , people could've used their own right to artistic freedom and a certain person from Bihar did the same and painted MF naked (with a drawing board beside him). But wait, there were secu protests against the painting !! Same liberty could've been taken with MF's mother too. I am sure, painting her per the tantric traditions (with added bestiality) would've gained widespread applause ! Sounds vulgar?? But this is exactly what was done when MF painted Goddesses copulating with tigers and elephants(!!!). If this is not mockery, one needs to clarify
Manish,
"Rushdie got what he wanted . A few days in the TV & continuous front pages."
I think you got it backwards. Did Rushdie invite himself to the event?
People have asked for a ban on Gita in certain parts of Russia.
Geet Wilders has asked for a ban on Quran because it hurts his sentiments.
Would you support that ban?
To claim that The Satanic Verses aims to reform Islam is not only silly but it stretches the realms of credulity. It has no such aims. Salman Rushdie had no need for such propaganda to gain a few dollars. If he hadn't written anything after Midnight Children, his fame was assured. In fact, one can argue that on the account of The Satanic Verses, he has lost millions of readers in the Muslim world and their precious dirhams. Ditto for Hussain. Here I have a query for you:
If the mere sight of your goddess in nude corrupts your mind, then who has a dirty mind: Hussain or you? He was not the first one to attempt such a thing. Raja Ravi Verma was famously castigated for the same offence, if I am correct.
I saute Rushdie for taking the bold& voluntary decision of not attendeng Jaipur literature festival.It shows his greatness.
Rushdie got what he wanted . A few days in the TV & continuous front pages. The season is silly. UP election is same old caste , religeon , elephant , bicycle ,satues , statuattes, prince , princlings, guns, gunmen , touts ., hookers, & money -loads of it. Oh, the crass & crude woman & the greedy wrestling champion !. Rushdie did it , provided the spice & grist for a few days in otherwise an event disgustingly repetative. Media is still at it - squeazinng the last ounce of juice out of Rushdie for the nth time. Temperature in Jaipur is hovering around 5°C. But in London snow stopped falling. Things are looking up , spring is at hand. So look for other suckers. Plenty of them are around, born every second.
So why bother. With a parting shot about intrigue at Rajsthan police ( CIA again came up with a bloomer ; could'nt foretell ) look for the next episode in an endless soap.
NB: For those TV dolts. If the season is silly, it used to be child in a hole ,Kashmir , Pakistan & that idiot ,kya nam hai uska?. China sometimes - but little tough to crack. So get Rushdie invited to some culture show - one or the other & tip off the mullahs at Deobandh. You may find a comprensive list culture events elsewhere in this very issue of OUTLOOK.
I saute Rushdie for taking the bold& voluntary decision of not attendeng Jaipur literature festival.It shows his greatness. He took the decision for the sake of Literature,a truth undermined by all.
Mullas' Fatwa has made hero of Rushdie and Muslims have put themselves in a corner.They should have just ignored his vist. No one would have bothered or learnt .
Where was the need for such a book called "Satanic verses" ?
If Islam is need of some reforms and re-introduction,review , understanding or whatever of their revelations ,religion and God etc., the way is not for a book like "satanic verses". I did not read complete book, at the time Rajiv govt. banned the book but Saddam Hussain did not ban the book. In any case the intentions of Rushdie has been to make more money. So, was the case with that rogue painter called M.F.Hussain,who was disowned by Muslim community. I do not know much about Lajja novel.
But the fact remains. It is not the question of freedom of expression at stake etc., The question had always been as to how much money was at stake.
M.F.Hussain was terribly greedy and whatever the paintings he did depicting Sita of Ramayana, none of thousands of versions of Ramayana has any background for it. Neither MF Hussian was an authority on Ramayana nor he had any ability to understand the role of Sita or the symbolism,allegory of the story. What he wanted was money and BMW cars! And indeed he paid for his actions.
Finally, a sensible piece from Ms Naqvi, pointing at Congresss' undeclared war on honesty and probity on public life in India. You will be rememberd more for being a balanced professional than for being an apologist for Congress and the Mullahs.
Amit,
>> Rushdie has suffered a far worse fate as compared with Hussain.
I had started this thread with, "Those who try to draw big distinctions between the reaction to Rushdie and the reaction to Husain are not as sagacious as they think." I was nor comparing the two artists but the reaction of Muslims to Rushdie and the reaction of Hindus to Husain. While neither of those two communal reactions was an example of India's finest hour, the tendency here and elsewhere still is to say, "Well we are both bad, but we are not as bad as they are!"
Manish, The problem with an "absolute" right to freedom of expression arises from the lack of protection from the powers to be. There is nothing inherently flawed with the absoluteness of that right. If the govt. had held firm on providing protection for Rushdie, I am damn sure, these rent-a-day Mullahs would be hiding in their cubbyholes instead of creating such an embarrassing ruckus. With regard to your objections or supposed intentions of Rushdie and Hussain, Jackass has written a correct response. Rushdie didn't need The Satanic Verses to be famous. And you don't have to indulge in guesswork. All you have to do is just read the offending passage, which is freely available, to form your conclusions. I requires a leap of imagination to think that an author would construct a highly complex imagery to offend some morons in order to get attention, especially when the repercussions are so severe. That a two-pence writer like Taslima Nasreen can go on and on about castigating him for the lack of courage, is just bizarre. Which of us can willingly undergo 20 years of leading a life in hiding for such attention! Isn't that courage? So your remark about attention seeking behavior of Rushdie and Hussain doesn't cut much ice. I mean, most prominent writers and artists have been accused of that charge at some point in their lives. Manto was fined for obscenity--now he is hailed as the most accomplished short story writer in Urdu in the 20th century. Writers do cultivate an image. I don't see anything wrong in that. I remember reading somewhere in which the author quite convincingly argued that had Tagore shaved off his beard, he would have lost 3/4th(or half) of his popularity in the West. As for writers fulfilling some social obligation, I don't know what that is. Writers are supposed to push the envelope, not "manage" social obligations. That is a job of a managing consultant, which is what Chetan bhagat is, or a babu such as Pavan Kr. Verma. You take your pick.
Anwaar,
I didn't imply congruence or that lack of it, but for any unbiased observer, it's hard not to conclude that Rushdie has suffered a far worse fate as compared with Hussain, political correctness be damned.
On the whole, a reasonable article from Saba. It's not often that she writes honestly. This is probably amongst her better ones.
Here too, by design or oversight, she has focused on the acts of censorship/vandalism by Congress/BJP govts/groups. There are minor references to BSP or Left. However, the laundry list of such actions is much longer. Some samples
1. Several state govts banned Da Vinci code.
2. Left banned a Taslima book (Dwikhandito).
3. SP led attacks on Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagaran in UP.
There are likely many more, and more serious violations.
However, these are not even the main issues. The main issue is the violence or support for violence, bans and muzzling of free speech by main political parties, instead of fringe groups. One can understand if Deobandis talk crap against Rushdie and Taslima. However, when elected representatives start banning their work, attacking them physically, announcing Supari on them, things become much worse.
For all the hate spewed upon BJP for these issues, the "liberal" parties have been much much more guilty on this. Most bans have originated from supposedly secular/liberal parties and violence has often been led directly by their leaders. Even senior leaders like CM (Gehlot, please take bow), and home minister (your turn, PC) have played filthy gutter level politics of inventing death threats and criticizing free speech instead of violence.
Till Saba and the rest of the sicko crowd continue to try and find a balance, instead of finding the honesty to target the real issue, we shall continue to ban works of art. In fact, after the latest episode, things shall get worse, since everyone shall use this as a precedent.
India is a model Islamic country - the first to ban Rushdie ahead of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Shariat law is in place in Kashmir.
Reservations for minorities (Muslims) are being introduced.
Inshaallah the whole of this old land will be green soon. The incomplete project of Jinnah of only being able to take 1/3 of the land will soon be changed to taking over the whole of this land.
>> The similar trajectories of their career cannot extend to similarities of their ideological moorings.
No two artists are exactly alike. They both had talent, met success and were threatened necessitating their taking shelter. They do not have to be same in every detail. The threat posed by Khomeini's fatwa and by Bajrang Dal/Shiv Sena too were not exactly similar but were serious enough to be taken into account. Analogies do not imply congruence.
>>>> They both faced threats and they both found shelter abroad. >> Rushdie was a British citizen when he attained fame or notoreity Nitpicking!
The whole Rushdie affair is going from sublime to ridiculous. There is something more than what meets the eye.
Ironical it might sound but the presence of someone like Richard Dawkins in Jaipur Fest hasn't raised the eyebrows. Dawkins' rational criticism of religion might be different from Rushdie's ridicule of Islam. But then India hosted some one like Ayaan Hirsi Ali a year back. Her criticism of Muhammed in explicit terms regarding morality and personality pales the Rushdie's ridicule in disguise of magical realism.
It is not that Salman Rushdie has faced the protests everytime he visited India. He has visited India 5 times since the Fatwa by Khoemeni and none of his visits attracted this much controversy. Blame it on mini parliamentary elections but the bottom line is that religious fundamentalism in India is increasing.
There is some truism in Hussain and Rushdie's penchant for controversy. One can better call call it creative freedom of an artist . Rushdie's controversy started some 7 years after he became the first Indian born writer to win Booker Prize. He became the first India born writer to win Prix du Meilleur Livre some 4 years before the fatwa. In the same vein, MF Hussain nude painting of Hindoo goddess took 26 years to create the controversy. By the time of controversy, Hussain had already become the Picasso of India and the first Indian national (by birth and right) to win Golden Bear award. So the criticism of either one being publicity seeker doesn't hold good.
For the Hindu bigots who have problem with a Muslim Hussain painting the nudes of Hindu godess, it is a bit ironical for the followers who pray in front of phallus. The linga rests of Yoni( in colloquial terms it is called pussy). By the religious standards, I think Chandramohan had a right to paint the Goddess Durga painting.
The bottom line of the issue is the artistic freedom. Art ignores most of the people as most of the people ignore art. If some one is not a connoisseur of art, he/she better ignore the art.
Having said that, I think India is on the slow path to become a religious state, a theo democracy of Abu Maududi. The clash of civilizations with undertones of religious identities and shameless surrender by secular authority will make the democracy in India weaker. If India has to become a religious state, India will become a Hindu country. Not because I said so, but also because the beer is overflowing.
I said that without an absolute right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of religion is meaningless.
That's the fundametal difference. I am of the opinion no right is 'absolute' - be it freedom of religeon , freedom of expression , artistic freedom - you name it. Nobody ever excrises absolute freedom in an organised soceity.
But we seem to have been talking at cross-purposes.
I felt that when Rushdie smeared the prophet ( please do not assume what I read or did not read ) in somewhat out of way from the story line ( allegory as you would say ) he knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to put his fiction on top of the best-seller list. He is welcome to do it & I have right to hold the opinion that's what his motive was. You are welcome to hold it to be great piece art.
Similarly when Husain painted hindu godesses the way he did I think more than art, selling pictures at astronomical prices was working in his mind. He well could have foresaken a few lacks on prices if he did chose any other good looking young lady with ample assets which incidentally would have been no less aesthetically charming.
Both of them knew they would create a lot of hot wind amongst religeous fundamentalists ( both mullahs & temple builders) , politicians, critics, newspapers, TV & sundry fringe malcontents.
Btw, I have taken to heart your advice about thinking & reading before writing . I thought I usually do that. Thank you none the less since your adivice came free.
Four wives behind him, Salman is unlikely to get any help from the feminists either - not unless he has paid them all 'adequately'. LOL
Before writing stuff, I urge you to think and construct your arguments.
"So a prophet or a messiah or a swami has social obligations of maintaining peace or harmony but a an artist or a writwer is free of such obligations ? Reality is some people find a selfish oppurtunity in being outrageous."
I said that without an absolute right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of religion is meaningless. Muhammad when he was proclaiming his prophethood was, in some sense, disturbing the peace and harmony. Why should a writer be held to a different set of standard. I find it offensive when the random churches go on Hindu bashing. Does it give me a right to ban them? No. They are exercising their inalienable right to free expression.
As I said, it's a good idea to leave you high school style of arguments and I request you to read his works, especially, Midnight Children.
And, a writer job is not to run the gauntlet everytime he speaks something. It's the govt. job and if the govt cannot do its job, it should be kicked out. Simple.
The similar trajectories of their career cannot extend to similarities of their ideological moorings. I think it was distasteful that Hussain was hounded with legal cases. However, there are two issues here:
If we expect the artists to be some kind of social reformers or commentators which a lot of people here think so, then we have to agree that Hussain was on a more slippery ground.
If Hussain felt that he was not allowed to express his freedom of expression then Qatar is hardly a beacon of hope for exercise of such rights. In fact, by doing so, he has opened himself to the charge that his artistic leanings have a unique bias.
Even then, he was given some sort of assurance by the Govt. No such thing has been provided to Rushdie. Forget about security, the poor guy has been made to look like a fool.
Having said this, artists do need an environment where they can exercise their creative talents without fear of legal and physical threats. The lot of artist is hard in our country. Let's not add to that burden.
They both faced threats and they both found shelter abroad.
Rushdie was a British citizen when he attained fame or notoreity - depending on you belong to which group of bigots. He surrendered his freedom which is being talked so loudly now & took shelter under british police. Threat to Husain was not that serous. In any case he moved around in London - home of every kind of fanatic looney- freely & voluntarily took citizenship of country which not famous for religeous , expression or artistc freedom.
His nude paintings had a lot of artistic merit
If it's nude it must have lot of merit or rather USP , artistc or not. Ask any of the soap salesmen.
why should he be banned from attending?
Why really ? Who justified his banning ? Who at all banned him from coming? Only this little is fact that some busybodies who make a living out bigotry demanded he be prevented from coming. And Rushdie thought discretion is better of valour & said he would not come.
Maybe, next time you go on an nonsensical troll, try reading his writings.
Nonsensical troll ? Why this kolavery?
His ability as a speaker is an extension of his literary genius
I grant you that you are not the one for 'nonsensical troll' though some may think ability as a speaker has something to do with 'literary genius' is utter nonsense.
For the record, Jon Stewart is admired for different set of reasons when compared to Bill Clinton.
You are great at putting records straight even it does not make sense in the context.
Who is going to stuff reason in a crowd of bozos.
Don't. Best be reasonable yourself instead of getting carried away by language of the bozos.
What social obligations? Unless social obligations involve treating general populace as a bunch of idiots who can't take an allegorical work for what it is.
That's a strange deduction . Its the politicians who treats general populace as a bunch of idiots & for them people like Rushdie comes handy. At least that is what I said in my post.
He is a writer not a social reformer.
Neither he is an island.
And why the hell should he not offend Prophet or Swami or whoever?
Why the hell he should ?
Why don't these barbaric mullahs understand this simple issue that without the freedom of expression their religion itself would not exist.
Some mullah are barbaric so are some moustache Petes who would give fatwa against Husain.
Every time a prophet or a messiah or a swami announces that he has divine guidance, he is, in a sense, not fulfilling his social obligation of maintaining peace and harmony.
So a prophet or a messiah or a swami has social obligations of maintaining peace or harmony but a an artist or a writwer is free of such obligations ? Reality is some people find a selfish oppurtunity in being outrageous.
They both faced threats and they both found shelter abroad. They both found fame in their field of work, but their fields are different. So I don't know what your point is.
Guru,
His nude paintings had a lot of artistic merit. If it didn't have artistic merit, then maybe we should pull down all the statues that depict our goddesses in nude.
Don't be a blockhead.
>>>> Those who try to draw big distinctions between the reaction to Rushdie and the reaction to Husain are not as sagacious as they think. Both Rushdie and Husain have creative talent.
There is a major difference. Husain was a fugitive while Rashdi is not.
>>> One offended Muslims, the other offended Hindus, but both have become beacons of freedom of expression and artistic freedom.
Drawing other religions' Gods and Goddessess in nude has nothing to do with freedom of expression and artistic freedom. It is sadist mentality. If it were freedom of expression and artistic freedom, why the hell he painted only Hindu Gods/Goddesses in nude sparing his own religion? There is no doubt that Husain was a sadist and hypocrite moron. >>> The unspoken implication is, "We would not have minded so much if he was a Hindu."
From where you dreamed this? Even if the painter was a Hindu, Hindus would have protested with the same anger. This was clear from the protest against Hindu painters in Gujrat.
>>> By contrast Muslims are out protesting with equal intensity against both Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists. They are equal opportunity protesters who make no distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim provokers ;-)
Never heard that any muslim protested against sadist Husain.
Manish, "I have not commented on the literary value of Rushdie writings. In fact I said I am no judge of such things." So, what's your point? This is a literary festival and for a host of us who value Rushdie as a writer of outstanding merit, why should he be banned from attending? Maybe, next time you go on an nonsensical troll, try reading his writings. His ability as a speaker is an extension of his literary genius. Not every writer is a wonderful speaker. For the record, Jon Stewart is admired for different set of reasons when compared to Bill Clinton. I guess, it's useless to argue. Who is going to stuff reason in a crowd of bozos. "Only caveat is that these freedoms must be moderated by social obligations." What social obligations? Unless social obligations involve treating general populace as a bunch of idiots who can't take an allegorical work for what it is. He is a writer not a social reformer. I really don't understand one simple fact: when Rushdie has gone on record to elucidate his stance at least 50 times, why is he being hounded for what other people interpret? And why the hell should he not offend Prophet or Swami or whoever? Why don't these barbaric mullahs understand this simple issue that without the freedom of expression their religion itself wouldn't exist. Every time a prophet or a messiah or a swami announces that he has divine guidance, he is, in a sense, not fulfilling his social obligation of maintaining peace and harmony.
At least Hussain got a guarantee from the govt. that he would be protected and all the legal cases against him filed in different parts of the country would be heard at one place. For a bunch of us, the trouble with Hussain was not that he painted Godesses in nude but when he tried to cross the red line of our Mullahs, one small threat, and he was willing to withdraw his work. And to be honest, I am not quite sure if Qatar is the repository of artistic freedom. Rushdie, on the other hand, has been a consistent crusader against obscurantism of all types.
Wrt 24/D-46, I see that Charan Dewry has made the point already in #16/D-20, more effectively.
" .... is considered to be worse because he offended people of a community other than his own, that does not reflect well on the offended community."
Ask a boy/girl if he/she treats his/her father slapping her and somebody else slapping him/her the same way.
The most important thing to be noticed is that, there has been no reaction to Satanic Verses, in any other Muslim countriy like Indonesia,Turkey,Iraq,Morocco etc.This behaviour is peculiar to the Muslims of India,who behave as if they are the sole presentatives of the Muslim world.When the Caliphate was abolished by the British in 1920s,there were no riots within Turkey itself .But,here in India,the Muslims of Malabar,called Moplas,reacted not by protesting against the British,but murdering hundreds of innocent Hindus who were in no way connected with that decision.The British rulers who were fair in their judgement hanged 60 Moplas after trials.Compare this with not hanging just one Afzal Guru.This curse on the nation called the Congress party should be annhilated from existence or the country will face far worse behaviour from the Muslims.
Rushdie didn't win a Booker Prize for The Satanic Verses.
If that is so I stand corrected. My difftculty is that Iam not a literary type.
He is credited with bringing a new genre of creative writing
May be. That did not shake the earth.
I don't know how you have such a strong opinion about The Satanic Verses controversy without even reading the book
You have made an assumption & surmise - which may or may not be true. I said it's difficult to read text & you agreed.
The real question if of artistic freedom that Salman Rushdie deserves just like MF Hussain.
Artist or not everybody must have freedom of expression , freedom to travel whereever he likes & make money. Only caveat is that these freedoms must be moderated by social obligations.
It would be a good idea to run a spell check before commenting on literary value of Rushdie's writings.
I have not commented on the literary value of Rushdie writings. In fact I said I am no judge of such things.In any case literary value is such an amporphous issue & matter of individual perception.
few can deny that he is a witty and wonderfully engaging speaker.
What has being witty & engaging speaker to do with literary value ? If you are looking for wit see Jon Stewart Show, if you are looking for engaging speaker listen to Bill Clinton. In any case high end salesmen are glib talkers & engageing blokes.
It's a shame that our countrymen have been denied an audience with such a person.
Yes, its true our countryman cannot shamed easily , politicians more so. Weare so very thick skinned lot & unashamed braggers.
I wish prominent Muslims who foam at mouth at mere mention of Modi and RSS bigots would come out openly in support of the author.
Prominent Muslims has very valid reasons to foam at the mouth at mention of Modi & RSS. RSS institutionalised Muslim baiting & Modi made it official. They as a community do not have any reason to come out in support or oppose Rushdie. It should be left to individual inclination.
>> Those who try to draw big distinctions between the reaction to Rushdie and the reaction to Husain are not as sagacious as they think
And those who think that the secular response to the two has been similar, are closet jehadis who are more stupid than they think they think.
Just witness the support Husain has received from "liberal" quarters. Contrast this with the treatment meted out to Taslima and Rushdie. Their books have been banned and their entry/stay in the country denied or threatened. Official members of supposedly liberal political parties have threatened violence against them, or announced rewards supporting the same.
Has any of this happened to Husain?
I am wondering if Mulladom of Qatar will shower shower the same favours on Rushdie too as they did with MF H.
Those who try to draw big distinctions between the reaction to Rushdie and the reaction to Husain are not as sagacious as they think. Both Rushdie and Husain have creative talent. One offended Muslims, the other offended Hindus, but both have become beacons of freedom of expression and artistic freedom. If Husain is considered to be worse because he offended people of a community other than his own, that does not reflect well on the offended community. The unspoken implication is, "We would not have minded so much if he was a Hindu." By contrast Muslims are out protesting with equal intensity against both Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists. They are equal opportunity protesters who make no distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim provokers ;-)
Reading Charans Blog ,If at all anybody has to be blamed for hurting the feelings of Muslims it is Salman Rushdie and Tasleema.
Honestly find his views correct.U cant have people of other faiths joining you in condemning someone else problem.
Yes if a Danish cartoonist drew a cartoon of the Prophet ,the Muslims had all the reasons to blame others for hurting there feelings.
Yeh this way of looking at it is also OK.
Were as the Indian Media is debating a Issue of Rushdie"s no visit as National tragedy.
It is for the Islamic World to fix this problem of there own indulging in Blasphemy ,Muslims in India cant expect the Majority to stand up for them as its not there problem.
MF HUSSAIN??? He painted others gods- Hindu gods- nude while Rushdie wrote about his own. If someone abuses "HIS FATHER" it is their problem but if someone abuse "MY FATHER" it is different. Had MF HUSSAIN painted Ayesha nude Hindus wouldn't have reacted. Himmat tha- abhi bhi kisi ko bhi himmat he????
MANISH BANERJEE
I won't deny that the chutnification of language and magical realism makes Salman Rushdie difficult to read. BTW, Rushdie didn't win a Booker Prize for The Satanic Verses. Yes, he happens to be the first Indian born author to win Booker Prize for Midnight's Children. He is credited with bringing a new genre of creative writing and the Booker Prize was won some 17 years before the Satanic Verses controversy
I don't know how you have such a strong opinion about The Satanic Verses controversy without even reading the book. I know you are not going to read the book anyways. www.danielpipes.org/186/the-ayatollah-the-novelist-and-the-west
It would be a good idea to run a spell check before commenting on literary value of Rushdie's writings. I had the good fortune to attend one of his talks in my university. There can be two views about his writings but few can deny that he is a witty and wonderfully engaging speaker. It's a shame that our countrymen have been denied an audience with such a person. Well we deserve it: to salt the wounds further, we have the cultural philistine Chetan Bhagat taking pot shot at Rushdie.
I wish prominent Muslims who foam at mouth at mere mention of Modi and RSS bigots would come out openly in support of the author. Instead, all we hear is half-hearted explanations and scurrilous justification of such goondaism on the quality of his writings!
In the beginning of the article, Saba has painstakingly listed all the events resulting from mob frenzy of religious fanatics. But she has conveniently forgotten the most dreadful ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits undertaken by a minority group of muslim fundamentalists in the Kashmir valley. This mass exodus resulted in a migration of 3.5 lakh Hindus but evinces no interest to Ms Saba and the magazine which she writes for.
Wonder when all Indians have become liberal,if thats the case why was Hussain driven out of India and why was the chapter which made references to Shivaji removed.
Were did all these liberal writers go ,when goons attacked Hussain and the VC of the University.If this is not hypocrasy and open expression of indignity against the feelings of a particular fate then what is it.
What will be the position of these liberals ,if a Paki were to write a book like the one Rushdie wrote and sought permission to publish it in India as well on Hindus and Geeta.
Ban the book,thats what has been done with Rushdie"s.No book which abuses freedom of expression by hurting any religious belief is violation of the very freedom of free speech.
From all this one thing is clear that the Majority are fed up with the Minority who never devloped with the way the Nation and the rest of its Citizens.
The Muslims and there leadership are to be blamed.
India and its Media have been furiously debating Rushdie and his no visit,But the Media has willfully ignored the case in the High Court on the very status of Supriya Sule (Pawar) as a Indian.
The fact that Supriya"s allegiance to India has been Questioned in a High Court is no news and Rushdie"s is a shame and exposes how things are in India.
The truth is India is divided right down the Middle and there is really no Liberal and nonpartisan Media or Liberals as such.
By the the twelve episodes of liberal masks slipping in the prologue , cases of Salman Rusdie, Taslima Nasreen & that of M.F. Husain are wel-known. Irrespective of their talent & quality of their works - of which I am no judge - each of these persons are incorrigible lovers of public attention. They have carefully crafted contentious issues to cultivate constant media attention.
Rushdies Satanic Verses is a unreadable piece of work & possibly written for reading only by literary critics. I have absolutely no doubt that most of the mavens who decide Booker prize or such prizes or awards have not read the book. If at all , they read only the portion where Rushdie unnecessarily, avoidably brings in & culamnise the prophet probably with an eye on the political climate of the times & its effect on his purse. The man is constantly in the media not for literay reasons. I am pretty sure organisers of the Jaipur Lit Fest will not be able to name any other book by Rushdie except for Satanic Verses.
M. F. Husain might have been a good painter ; but since the time I heard of him he was in the media not for artistic reasons but for his ability get the goat of uncouth philistines. Maduri Dixit & pachydermatous posteriors are o.k. But bringing in godesses is an deliberate act of vulgar provocation with an eye for a few more millions. He died in a adpoted country of his own choice not before giving a bad name to his motherland.
Least said about Tasleema Nasreen is better. She is a fortune-seeker plain & simple, without an iota of skill or talent in any subject under the sky except vulgur bengali swear words .
These kind will always be there. The problem are the politicians. They find these people handy to raise a uncalled for ruckus to gain political milage by exploiting ignorance & bigotry of the average malnourished Indian. In each of the instances listed at the top , it is the politicians that are at work. The muslim seminaries , hindu temples or the churches are nothing if not hot-bed of politics.
So no point crying hoarse over right to freedom of expression , shedding of liberal mask , or denial right of way. Politicians will be politicians & delighted with such people at hand , media knows these inconsequential things are hot sell. An emancipated , educated , liberal populace who do not get instigated by politicians & versed in ignoring gimmics by fortune seekers is wanted . In wealthier places with more spread education such happenings few & far between. In our country these things happen with monotonous regularity.
Is it democracy or 'fatwacraZy'? If the Govt. fails to give proper security to a single individual of Indian Origin, then how will it vouchsafe for the majority of the citizens? What is said in this article is cent per cent correct. It is only the clerics and the politicians (esp. Congress) who play such dirty games to their advtantages and none of the real Muslims living here are bothered about Rushdie's visit. Does any religion avocate fanatism, radicalism, non-tolerance and non-accommodation? Tolerance and forbearance is the basic foundation of the humanity and esp. any religion. Will not the day of judgment take care of Rushdie? Why this unwarranted and undesirable drama now? India has failed to make use of the literacy of scholars. With all this, will Congress survive UP polls? Will the electorates of UP act wise?
More important than what has been stated by GURUJEE, Hindus are just reacting to the actions of minorities. A cartoon in DANISH NEWSPAPER is adequate to spread violence on Indian streets. (which made every one GOOGLED and see the cartoons also). When minorities can be offended by minutest of incidents anywhere in the world to disrupt peace on Indian streets why can NOT Hindus feel offended about activities in India??? It is just that Hindus have commenced to react and react strongly.
I ask simple question to Rushdie he is living from many years in western countries .Why not he wrote a book on western people or their civilization?Rushdie always writing on Indians and showing their drawback I request to him please write on western people they have also many drawback .Let see how white people react on your book /?You had wrote too much on Indians now write on white people
Why Rushdie afraid so much intelligence agencies report?Rushdie is cowardly so he was hided many years.If he have bit of courage he must attendant Jaipur festival.There must be some truth he had insulted faith of Muslim community.otherwise why he hiding himself.?Rushdie is hypocrite
Saba like Arundhato - all females. And they write pretty well too. Much better communication skills than males.
“Salman Rushdie is like a ‘Dummy Doll’ who has been purposely hanged over the ‘Crib’ of the ‘Cribbing People of India’ to divert their attention from the larger issues like ‘Corruption’.”
>>> Dies abroad in self-imposed exile after Centre does nothing to ensure his safe return.
M F Husain did not imposed exile on himself. He cleverly fled India to avoid punishment by courts. He was an absconding suspect in many court cases. Those, who opposed his nude paintings, had rightly filed suit against him in court. Instead of fighting court cases and defending his so-called "Freedom of Expression", he cowardly ran away from Indian judicial system and pretended to be an oppressee.
>>> December 2003 Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune vandalised by NCP-based Sambhaji Brigade. Reason: ORI helped writer James Laine with translations of old manuscripts for his book Shivaji, Hindu King in Islamic India. Shrikant Bahulkar, a scholar who assisted Laine, is also attacked.
Attacking BORI was definitely a wrong move. But, the rubbish that James Laine wrote, is not at all excusable. BORI did not help James Laine for the translation of his book. His book is written in English and yet to be translated. He used to visit BORI every year to study Indian history. When he wrote the rubbish, he acknowledged BORI. It was enough to attack BORI by Sambhaji Brigade (a bunch of casteiset Maratha youth). There is a differnt angle to this attack. Majority of the historians in BORI are brahmins. That is why, using the excuse of James Laine's rubbish book, Sambhaji Brigade's hoodlums attacked BORI.
But, the main problem is Indian judicial system. In all such cases (including M F Husain's nude paintings), the courts have not delivered verdict in time. The court proceedings go on for years. At one stage, the hurted group loses its patience and ghen it tries to deliver the verdict in its own way.
>>> October 2006 Shiv Sena threatens to disrupt cricket matches of ICC tournament if Pakistan is allowed to play in India. In 1991, Sena dug up Wankhede pitch ahead of an Indo-Pak match. Similar vandalism was carried out in 1999 at Delhi's Ferozeshah Kotla.
Pakistan has banned Indian artists. Indian movies are banned in Pakistan. Pakistan is India's enemy. Pakistan is actively supporting terrorism in India. Why the hell we should entertain Pakistanis on Indian soil? It was a right move to block Pakistani players in India.
>>> May 2007 Hindutva activists attack Chandramohan, a student artist at MS University, Baroda, for “vulgar” depiction of gods.
Why should these artists draw nude pictures of Hindu gods? What kind of art and freedom of expression is this? Will these artists dare drawing obscene pictures of alla,mohammad,jesus,guru nanak,gautam buddha or gods of any other religion?
>>> October 2010 Indian-born Canadian writer Rohinton Mistry's Such a Long Journey dropped by Bombay University after Uddhav Thackeray's son Aditya alleges the book hurt Marathi sentiments by insulting his grandfather, Bal Thackeray.
Rohinton Mistry, not only wrote bad about Shiv Sena, but he used extremely bad words about Indira Gandhi and Dabewala's in Mumbai. What is wrong in dropping such dirty book from the syllabus?
>>>> October 2011 Protests by Sangh parivar among students and faculty prompt Delhi varsity to drop A.K. Ramanujan's essay Three Hundred Ramayanas... from history syllabus.
When someone rewrites history in totally sadist manner, what should Hindus do? Will A K Ramanujan dare write similar books on islam, christainity or sikhs? Why the hell all these so-called artists and authors targetting Hindus in the name of "Freedom Of Expression"?
This article is so muddled that one wonders if it was pushed out in a hurry. Clearly, the issue is not of Deoband's protests? They are entitled to make a fool of themselves. This is also not about the few intolerant bigots who take to violent action; they are numerically inferior.
The crime here is that a ruling party has delivered a death threat of sorts to a PIO through it's state governments.
Muslims may not like Rushdie but are indifferent to his coming and going. Muslims hardly give any notice to declarations/fatwas - so why does the media play it up? And political parties should stop thinking mullahs represent the community. And what was the need for Outlook to publish an outdated photo of protest against Rushdie? At first sight one considers it to be a current picture (till you read the SMALL print) and re-affirms the impression that tension is simmering (which is really just non-existent). And if a long shot of the gathering had been taken, I am sure it would show just a handful present. Media is raking up an issue where there is nothing.
Congress should stop kowtowing to clerics. There is no reason for senior ministers to go to Deoband to pay respects to the maulanas there. Congress should cultivate links with moderate and secular Muslim and non-Muslim groups.