(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...1,080 views
When I first read the news of Taslima being heckled at Hyderabad, I felt angry. Moreover, as the news was (not very unexpectedly) on the front page, I knew we are expected to deplore the incident (which many of us do); however, the news that we do hate it is not expected to reach front page (which it hasn’t).
It is indeed a Lajja(shame) the way some fanatic Muslims attacked Taslima Nasrin. These fanatics had no idea about what they were doing and what are the implications- both in terms of the message that goes out, and the resulting rapture of the islamophobes.
Such incidents, apart form sending wrong messages out, makes it very difficult to engage Taslima in a serious debate, in which she is bound to fare horribly, given her ignorance and mendaciousness. While freedom of expression is, without doubt, a virtue, freedom to lie is a vice.
It also makes it more difficult to build a case against her. The end result of the din is that Taslima starts becoming legitimate precisely because some fanatics hate her. This is deplorable.
India is a secular democracy that guarantees freedom of expression and prides itself in being so, but it seems we are very selective about applying the idea of freedom of expression. Al-Jazeera English, in my opinion the best TV news channel around, has remained banned for over six months in India. There was no outcry, no headlines.
Even the books Shivaji: A Hindu King in Muslim India and of course, the most famous of all Satanic Verses remain banned. All is quiet.
What freedom of expression are we celebrating?
{ 21 comments }
The first book to be banned in full public view was the Satanic Verses, that too after significant violence and a public outcry (irrespective of the cynicism of the rationale behind its banning by the then Government). The people who pose as the voice of Muslim liberals today were in the forefront of the campaign to ban it. People like Asghar Ali Engineer, Shahabuddin and so on.
As for Laine’s book, it was banned by a Congress Government of Maharashtra, despite calls by the then Prime Minister (incidentally of the BJP) that it should not be banned. At least one reason Laine’s book was banned by the Maharashtra Govt. is that the Congress wanted to be even handed in its cynical distortion of the principle of secularism – if a book that Muslims considered offensive was banned, so should one deemed offensive by Marathas! The same logic applied in the case of the banning of the Da Vinci code by another Congress Government.
Instead of railing against Taslima and pointing to prior examples of book-banning to justify action against her and/or banning of her book(s), people here would be better off campaigning for a reversion to the fundamental principle behind the freedom of expression – the idea that “I may disagree, even perhaps hate with what you say, but will fight for your right to say it”. We should fight for the revocation of the ban against the Satanic Verses, or Laine’s book, instead of using past precedent to justify mistakes today. Two wrongs do not make a right.
As for Al Jazeera, the last I knew there was no ban on the channel. Every channel has to adhere to certain downlinking regulations, that Al Jazeera has not complied with yet. The statement of the Government in Parliament was that if the did channel did comply with the downlinking norms (and the norms are the same for the BBC or CNN or NDTV), they would get the licence.
Girish, thanks for scratching the surface and digging deeper to explain the reasons behind these various incidents. As a Hindu, I may not like MF Hussain painting nude goddesses, but I would probably boycott him, and write to the newspapers why I would boycott him, but I wouldn’t ask for a ban on his artistic freedom or justify any violence against him.
Girish
Satanic Verses
————–
Asghar Ali Engineer is human and can make mistakes. Point is, he has accepted now that banning does no good.
Shivaji
————-
Maharashtra Congress banned it. They erred. Shiv Sena did not protest. It is a issue of being able to discuss history.
Even though I do not support the ban on Satanic Verses, A ban on Shivaji the book is on a entirely different plane. The first is a fiction- an imagination. The second is a book on research in history.
Germany can not claim today that discussion about Adolf Hitler hurts their national sentiment, so we should sweet talk about his pogroms. No.
But the Hindus CAN claim that their gods should not be drawn in a way that hurts their sentiments.
I hope I am clear.
Two wrongs do not make a right
—————-
Exactly. But how on earth did you get the impression that I was saying something different?
Al-Jazeera
—————
Well, the Hindu has reported that the reason behind refusing Al-Jazeera downlinking was ’security concern’ which is very phoney. They did not provide any proof supporting such a claim.
I am surprised at your assertion that Al-Jazeera does not comply with the donwlinking norms. Will you kindly specify which one?
[quote post="328"]But the Hindus CAN claim that their gods should not be drawn in a way that hurts their sentiments.[/quote]
Since when Shivaji became a Hindu god?
Except in Maharashtra, nowhere is he considered a ‘god’. He was a warlord who managed to get political legitimacy in a time when independent hindu king was a rarity. He started his life as a bandit, but by the end of his life was able to provide a much more humane rule than many of the legitimate kings of his times.
What is freedom of speech/expression? There is a difference between able to speak your mind, and able to talk hatefully. For example in some European countries, holocaust denial is a criminal offence, isnt this infrigment of free speech? No its not as it is trying to protect people to hurt sentiments of others. Similarly writers and artists should be reined so as not to depict or write offensive material, but this argument has its perls , the biggest – who should be given the power to decide whats offensive? Argubally it should lie with the state but then most of the state’s decisions are based on politics rather then sensibility.
Writers like Nasreen should think, by writing a book (read fiction) on plight of a miniority family would do more harm then good
“Such incidents, apart form sending wrong messages out, makes it very difficult to engage Taslima in a serious debate, in which she is bound to fare horribly, given her ignorance and mendaciousness.”
I don’t think so. The example given by Mansa as ’serious debate’ are technicalities. Taslima’s message goes beyond splitting hairs over the exact translation of the Koran, (which in any case opens up a whole new area of controversy). This is what threatens the Islamic scholars, whose main defence lies in merely selective quoting of the Koran. That does not work against a person like Taslima, so ’serious debate’ becomes increasingly a question of what the Koran ‘ actually meant’ to say. Strange.
Manas:
The moment one starts qualifying freedom of expression, one is on a slippery slope. Since you make a distinction between history and fiction, let me ask (just for the sake of illustrating the argument) – would it be ok as per your criteria for somebody to do a historical research piece that may be unpalatable to most Muslims? My answer is yes.
Not because I would find it palatable – in fact I might find it equally unpalatable. But because the moment one starts saying that this is ok and that is not, the definition of ‘this’ and ‘that’ start becoming discretionary. I would say the same about somebody asking if they have a right to publish something derogatory to Hindu Gods. Yes, they do.
Freedom of speech is absolute and should be so universally. However, that does not mean that one has immunity from the consequences of that speech. If somebody makes a speech that incites or threatens violence against others, the person is free to say it, but has to face the consequences of that speech. In this example, it is an offence since it violates others’ fundamental right to life and liberty.
If we get this principle – that freedom of expression is fundamental to all other rights and that it should be absolute with no qualifications whatsoever – then there will be no room for ambiguity or doubt. One will then oppose restrictions on anybody – from Rushdie to Taslima to Laine to Dan Brown to the Danish cartoonists. One can oppose them, protest against them (peacefully) or perhaps write a rebuttal. But it wrong to ask for banning or censoring their works.
P.S. Regarding Al Jazeera, I wrote based on reports I had read. I may be wrong. I remember reading a statement by the I&B minister in Parliament about this issue and that is what I was referring to.
“Except in Maharashtra, nowhere is he considered a ‘god’.”
Hmmm… I’m from Maharashtra, but shivaji, even though revered, is not considered a god. thats absolutely incorrect.
btw the laine book must not be banned, its phoney secularism and phoney democracy of congress that all these books were banned.
There is no difference between ban on shivaji book and satanic verses. pls, there can never be ‘historical study’ of religion. will revelations / miracles / God’s words etc etc ever stand trial in a historian’s lab? religion is belief and hence even fiction hurts it
Abhilash
I was not referring to Shivaji, I was referring to MF Hussain. As triple has pointed out, Shivaji is not considered god even in Maharashtra.
Problem is, whenever somebody will debate this, his works will be banned.
Asim
I share your concern, but she is an awful writer. Nobdoy will read her with any interest for her own ability. Banning her has resulted in her ‘popularity’ and thus more hurt feeling among Muslims.
Araranga
This is exactly what such incidents produce- the kind of argument you present. Without engaging in the real debate, but about it.
Not a matter of exact traslation. What she produced is no traslation at all. ‘Mujhe tu pasand hai’ does not translate into ‘I hate you’. She deliberately put forth erroneous traslation to suit her need.
Girish
I am open to any objective criticism of Muslim past. Only by accepting past errors that some future errors can be avoided. I can give you many examples of Muslims being guilty in history, and I myself study them.
What is reality is reality. Slandering is different.
Triple
While you have your right to believe in what you do, let it be said that what the Prophets teach are a question of History.
A fiction which distorts the tenets to make false claims is slandering.
Let us take the holocaust as an example. Will denying it make it unreal? No. Reason behind banning holocaust denial is that some people should not get the wrong idea about such a grisly yet important phase of history.
Manas,
There are many books that critically evaluate maratha history. many from Indian historians too. these books are not banned. and most of the opposition to these books comes from the fact that these come from historians from JNU who are openly leftist, hence the issue has become political.
Manas, you cite that some European countries have banned holocaust denial as an example. I’d also like to point out two things:
a. These laws were implemented based on open debate, and input from law-makers, people, experts etc. as to what’s best for the society. If tomorrow, the society finds that such laws are no longer required, they can be abolished. Happens all the time in democratic countries. Also please note that there are many prominent people who have argued against this law and oppose this restriction on free speech, including Noam Chomsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
b. Most of these European countries also guarantee equal rights for gays and lesbians and have homosexual acts decriminalized. I hope you cite their example too, next time someone tries to persecute gays and lesbians based on sharia law, as happens in Iran (that I know of). Or for that matter, other freedoms that European countries offer to their citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Europe
In my previous post, it should read:
I hope you cite their example too, next time someone tries to persecute gays and lesbians in India, or based on sharia law, as happens in Iran (that I know of).
triple
I didn’t read them, so I can’t really comment on them. But if there are books critical of Shivaji, what made this one so special?
Amit
1. Ban based on open debate? That sounds very interesting.
2. I agree with certain aspects of some people does not mean I agree with them in all matters.
Moreover, you should know that most European countries do not offer what you call `Gay Rights’. Rome will be a good example.
This is not directed at anyone in particular:
———-
It is funny to see some people when hawking against Islam claiming to be Atheist, and then elsewhere calling themselves Hindu.
I have seem some other people criticize Islam for not accepting gays as normal. They, in their private conversations, jokingly call their friends gay. Which means they do not approve of gay relationship.
A decision taken by discussing the issue, considering the pros and cons based on the current needs of the society, that can be modified if needed. I’d say that’s much more practical and interesting than making rules based on a book dictated by god. That’s how secular democracies work. I also pointed out that many scholars are against this ban.
Yup. I know. There’s work to be done everywhere.
I haven’t studied any vedas or such, but I’ll take a stab. Because based on my limited knowledge, there is nothing in Hinduism that forces me to believe in the concept of god. So, for me, being a Hindu and being an atheist is perfectly compatible.
If I were you, I’d call them on their hypocrisy. Basic human rights are basic human rights, above all religions and beliefs. The very god/allah you pray to also made those gays and lesbians.
Nobody blamed Hindus when the goons were burning our libraries in Poona. How many were killed by police bullets as were in Bombay on Rushdie. Sure, what Laine wrote was criminal calling the real secularism of Muslim rulers of India. The fight was political and if we use the current terminology, Shivaji has been a rebel (rebel if we feel ‘terrorist’ is a reserved word in dictionary for Muslims).
Manas Asghar Ali Engineer did condemned the banning of Satanic Verses and the book is surely to target the ‘Prophet’ and hurts. You may ask Dr Engineer what he feels. He is stating that there is right to speak but he has not been quoted what is the book about. Mere claim of having different plain (does this means abything other than Muslim/Islam) will not make the book a sweet read.Nobody, i mean any muslim appreaciated MF Husains paintings. You must have realised the bad side effects of painting, thats why man made images are restricted and not liked by Muslims. A camera (natural image) is permitted and is norm.
abhilash shastry is fairly healthy in his thoughts,
“Since when Shivaji became a Hindu god?
Except in Maharashtra, nowhere is he considered a ‘god’. He was a warlord who managed to get political legitimacy in a time when independent hindu king was a rarity. He started his life as a bandit, but by the end of his life was able to provide a much more humane rule than many of the legitimate kings of his times.”
Asim Qidwai too is fairly expressive. We would do well if we can buy peace by detaching the thorns in our flesh. “For example in some European countries, holocaust denial is a criminal offence, isnt this infrigment of free speech? No its not as it is trying to protect people to hurt sentiments of others. Similarly writers and artists should be reined”. What most of the commentators forgot is that there is not right for a Masjid or Temple (Hindu) in Europe and legislations like ‘not much population’ is sighted. This happens in India too, to the extent that people are told to have less just because you have few. Either you should apply same to Saudi Arabia where non-muslim are very few or allow proportionate place of worship. you cant ask Muslims to have less as they have few, which is frequent.
Araranga feels that the excuse of being unable to do something against TN is lame. It merely shows what we are willing to do, what we want to condone or even promote.
The history of Islam should not be seen through the apologist mindset of Europe who killed the happless Jews. We never say they killed the Jewry because they were Christians. How can we call the Islamic history to be so either in Armenia, Palestine, Iran or anyewhere else. If Russian did change the names, scripts and languages banning Msoques and allowing churches in the name of culture, the revival of mosques and local langauges in free and independent countries of Central Asia is seen with suspicion. So is not the case with the smaller states of erstwhile USSR because those coutries are christians. Why to that far, Croatia and Slovenia did not have any problems of birth where Germany and France were behind them. The people who went to help the hapless Bosnians are being forced and deported and we know what happened in Bosnia in the last decade of the so called enlightened 20th century. In any analysis of Shia-Sunni, hardlin-moderate Muslims, the common denominator which is not lost sight of is that all are Muslims. I have the examples of so called moderate muslims in Gujrat circa 2002 and Palestine too. What crusaders did cannot simply be detached from christian history. you can not blame any bloodshed during these conflicts on Islama and what is being done in the name of Democracy has been realised by the sufferers, whereas we sitting here far away feel what is being fed to us in our living rooms. It is fashionabe to be hunting with the hounds, but very difficult to be with the hunted. The bottomline is that you cannot blame all the wrongs on Islam because it is Islam.There was nothing religious as we tell in Kashmir or Russian talk in Chechnya. Dont be blind.
@Manas
[quote post="328"]I didn’t read them, so I can’t really comment on them. But if there are books critical of Shivaji, what made this one so special?[/quote]
Abraham Eraly’s “The Mughal Throne” is a prescribed text in several universities. Shivaji’s account in this would be highly unpalatable to hindutva brigade. Similarly, Philip Mason is also readily available in India.
Their portrayal of Maratha state is of a state sustained essentially by loot and plunder. Shivaji, himself had no qualms in ordering plunder of hindu population outside his dominion. However, inside his own dominion he worked hard to provide a just rule. Second thing that sets him apart from other rulers of his times is his religious tolerance and high regards for the dignity of women even during times of war.
Amit
But how do you decide what is good for the society? Where does the principles come from? Everybody differ in principle don’t they?
Where does this principles come from? How do you know that killing innocents is wrong? What is the logic behind it?
I have read a bit of Hinduism. Not very much, really, but I do know a bit, being from the land of Ramakrishna (I love that guy!) and Vivekanda(I’m not very fond of him).
In Hinduism, I have not come across a single idea that rejects God or gods. In fact the word `rejection’ is conspicuously absent in Samskrit, as Vivekanda noted.
Gita is emphatic in it’s claim about One God, but it accepts other demigods.
If you are an Atheist, you are closer to Buddhism. So far all Hindu scriptures I have read accept God (or gods).
Should we not then try to help the poor because it is He who has caused poverty?
He has given all of us weaknesses to overcome. We must try to overcome them.
Naqaad
Thanks for your inputs. Please avoid writing such longish posts. I read the whole post because I had to but I doubt anybody else did.
I did not know that Engineer condemned book burning during the Satanic Verses debate. Thanks for the info.
Nor do I know enough about Shivaji to become certain whether Shivaji should be called a rebel or a terrorist.
Agreed. That is because Christ did not preach such a thing.
Abhilash
Thanks for the input. I am not an expert on Maratha history. So I can not offer anything but thanks.
Are you asking me how a democracy (in those European countries that are being discussed) functions and how laws are made, or how each person decides what’s best for the society? One rule could be “do unto others what you want them to do unto you” but I’d guess that each person has their own idea as to what’s best for them and what’s best for the society based on their experience, common sense, beliefs etc. If you are asking some kind of leading question, maybe you should simply state the answer.
Regarding Hinduism, I think you mis-read my post. I didn’t say that there is no concept of god in Hinduism. I said, there’s nothing in Hinduism that forces me to accept the concept of god before I can call myself a Hindu. Very different. If today, I believe there’s no god, that’s fine with Hinduism. If tomorrow, I discover evidence of god and start believing in god, that’s fine with Hinduism too. Nothing is forced – it’s a personal journey of self-discovery. Again, I’m speaking from my experience growing up and what I imbibed – I do not claim to have read any theological books. Maybe someone who is more well-versed in Hindu theology can answer this for you.
Not sure what logic you’re using here. You help the gays and lesbians by giving them basic human rights, not by persecuting them, not by hating them. Similarly, you help the poor by doing what you can to help them and not hating them – sometimes it could be by giving them fish directly, other times it could be to teach them how to fish.
Atheism and Hinduism are not in conflict and have not been even in ancient times. Here is a reasonable explanation of atheism within Hinduism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism
This is a digression, but an interesting one.
Comments on this entry are closed.