Desicritics Comments on The Right(Riot) to Write

Comment by Jawahara

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:45:39 EST

Two questions a+b: a) Why were you "amazed" by my article? There truly is nothing amazing about it, just a collection of my thoughts and observations about something that was happening in my country of birth...but thanks. b) How did you know that I was "proudly" stating anything? That is your perception. It's what you are reading into my statement, and part of the global thought process that people disavow their religion as some kind of badge of honor or (my personal favorite) to gain fame in the West by pandering to it. I was stating a fact. Period. No pride about it. There is nothing to be proud or not proud about that statement. It just is. And...oh yeah...thanks for saying my rage is "sophisticated." Ooooh la la. Tre chic, non?

Comment by (a+b)^2

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:08:23 EST

"several women in the Sub-continent are abused, ordered and compelled to obey, be it a Muslim, Hindu or any family. Women in our society (all religions included) are to "listen" or "obey" their father and then husband. There is not much freedom for most women in our society. Taslima is no exception. She is raging with anger, instead of directing her anger at her perpetrators; she is directing at her religion and wing-dinging the responses from a few of her fellow religionists." These lines are from the article on Ms. Nasreen written by Mike Ghouse. After I read this article by Ms Saidallah, amazingly I find a similar rage directed towards the religion but in a more sophisticated way. The level of anger has reached to such a level that the author states proudly says that she does not follow any religion although she hails from a Muslim origin.

Comment by neusinger

Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:48:52 EST

Jawahara, i completely agree, I think SR is aweful, but let the readers decide not some cabal. And for the record, I meant that SR is the Poseur : ) Nice article though and I hope your father is doing better.

Comment by Jawahara

Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:40:03 EST

Neusinger, it's been a while since this post. So, did you mean Taslima came across as a poseur? Or SR? Either way, even that is covered by freedom of speech..or should be. I think Nasrin is a rather awful writer BUT that does not mean she should be killed/threatened/exiled/tried/etc./etc. Let readers decide not to read something. Why do thoughts, ideas and writing only have to be combated with physical violence or threats of it? Why should those who want to be challenged by different ideas have to defer to the lowest common denominator and not allowed to make up our own minds? And why can't these easily offended folks just not read something that offends them?

Comment by neusinger

Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:17:31 EST

well, I sort of agree with T, but J let me bring up another point: I cant say that I care for SR's writing style or his manner either, but the difference between the two is that one spoke up on behalf the oppressed and the other comes across as a poseur looking for attention.

Comment by Jawahara

Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:20:27 EST

Ok, t. Looking forward to it. Hope it's soon since I'm all fired up :-)

Comment by kerty

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:27:13 EST

#17 I meant 'Aja Nachle' and not 'Naach Baliye'.

Comment by temporal

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:48:51 EST

jay: the response would be acoming in the form of a post :) ps: will read all the exchanges here and some i have had off line and respond in that post

Comment by Jawahara

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:47:31 EST

PH, great points...and insightful questions.

Comment by PH

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:30:11 EST

Temporal, I'm no fan of Rushdie. I liked Midnight's Children a lot half a decade ago, but that hypnotic pitch of magic realism is something I've grown out of...And that is the only Rushdie book I've read (I gather Moor's Last Sigh is good too) I cud never get beyond 2 pages of Fury But "exploiting" a subject-any subject-is a must inorder to write abt it. Would you say Philip Roth exlpoited anti-McCarthy-ism? Or Mark Twain "exlpoited" the goody two shoes-ness of the Southern States? Closer to home, did not Faiz "exploit" poverty in his kutte? Hell yeah, and thank goodness they did! This whole book banning is beautifully summed up by Faraaz hum log nawaa gar haiN, humeN i'zn-e-nawaa do

Comment by Jawahara

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:16:48 EST

I don't think I am being tangential. If you are referring merely to my use of I and me, they were used in the generic sense. Shall I re-phrase it like this: "Freedom of expression with caveats is not freedom of expression at all, whether or not we use the holocaust as an example. If a piece of writing offends people there are many other things methods of recourse except violence. There are parts of the Quran (or the Bible or any other book for that matter) that are offensive to others. The lack of acceptance of polytheistic religions, the fact that men can marry four wives, the fact that the word of a woman is equal to half that of a man, the fact that an adoptive child is not considered the actual child of a family, the fact that merely disagreeing with any aspect of the religion is considered apostasy and is punishable with death. The point is that the Quran like many other religious (and non-religious) books pushed plenty of historical triggers of the time. They cannot take advantage of that in a historical sense and then go on to quash others who practice what their own existence is based upon to a certain degree." There, I edited out the " I "since that was your objection. Now can we focus on the actual points raised? :-)

Comment by kerty

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:25:32 EST

While Taslima issue has hogged the limelight, another issue of banning a movie and forcing the movie-makers to delete scenes has gone unchalenged. Recently, several states banned "naach Baliye" because one song had a reference to 'Mochi' and 'Sunar' in its line. We don't know when dalit protests took place over the issue, but several states banned the movie which forced the director to delete the song from all prints and now some states have lifted the ban on that movie. It seems, religious people are not the only ones demanding not to be offended. What is troubling is government taking upon themselves to ban freedom of expression. 'Bhul Bhulleya' and OSO had faced charges of offending sentiments and directors were forced to delete songs, but no government had intervened to ban these movies or force deletion of songs. Taslima would not have agreed to delete the objectionable passage from her book had it not been government laying down preconditions that she can live but must not offend and she dutifully complied. Even during 'De Vinci' episode, it was ban by government that was troubling. And in most these cases, it is the government swearing by secularism that are at the forefront of banning and coercing. We all know what happened when some body in USA had parodied Gandhi-like person dancing on pole on You Tube. Again, secular Government of India had swung into action against that expression and had You Tube ban it. Are we moving into a new era where artistic community is asked to be responsible and sensitive in exercising freedom of expression?

Comment by temporal

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:36:33 EST

jay: i think we are going in a tangent you discuss specifics and i am discussing generals....me bad;) to me being 'selective' is an anathema

Comment by Jawahara

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:14:38 EST

Sorry, t, to me this argument is along the lines of "if she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt." If he didn't want a fatwa he shouldn't have called the prophet Mahound. Freedom of expression with caveats is not freedom of expression at all, whether or not we use the holocaust as an example. If a piece of writing offends people there are many other things to do besides violence. I mean really, there are parts of the Quran (or the Bible or any other book for that matter) that offend me. All religious books pushed plenty of historical triggers of the time. They cannot take advantage of that and then go on to quash others. I know we will always disagree about this, but I am tired of the rights of the crazy illiterates superseding those of mine and others like me. :-)

Comment by temporal

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:11:41 EST

jay: we could go on and on:) (btw i am against violence) freedom of expression is not a carte blanche....it has to be exercised diligently replace qur'an and muhammed with jews and holocaust and see how far a writer can go in the US or the west

Comment by Jawahara

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 04:41:26 EST

T, I'm sorry I don't get this argument at all and you're not the first person to bring it up. Writers and artists through the generations have (and I believe good ones should) looked at things from other perspectives, from other angles, and have even been deemed blasphemous because of it. Whether or not Rushdie knew about the triggers is immaterial. He wrote what he had to write and those who did not approve could have refused to read it, directed their sheep-like followers not to read it, protested, etc. But putting forward death threats? Hounding someone for years? I'm sorry, there is NO comparision. I mean for its time I am sure the Quran was pretty blasphemous, right? It also pushed at historical triggers I am sure. It invalidated the entire way of life and worship of that region. There are paens about the resistance of those blasphemers' courage against the supposed persecution of the idolators in Arabia because of that one book. Perhaps rightly so. Now Verses is no Quran but I think the reaction to was (and continues to be) totally out of proportion. This thin-skinned (mainly but not limited to) Muslim reaction to literature and art just pisses me off, and I find it quite hypocritical. There are no protests against real things that really matter (say a 19 year old gang-rape victim getting a higher sentence than her seven attackers because she did spent time with an un-related male in S.Arabia. In fact many are going blue in the face justifying this barbarism) but someone writes a book and they are offended. Arrghhhh! I, for one do not want to live in a bland world where we all make nice with each other (even as old sores fester under the surface) and read and write stories about unicorns and rainbows. It is the right of writers to write what they feel, imagine and experience. And it is the right of others to disapprove/not read/protest....but killing someone (like Theo Van Gogh for example) or trying to kill and/or physically threaten them like Rushdie and Nasrin are unconsionable acts.

Comment by Sumanth

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:38:13 EST

Deepti, You wrote: "Are we really barbaric?" Yes. All Indians today are barbaric. This includes the religious fundamentalists, the thugs and even the libertarians. We all have lost the sensitivity towards fellow human beings. We watch wars in the TV like an entertainment. We see hundreds of people being brutally gunned down in Movies and our brains accept this as real. The unsophisticated come to the streets to show their brutal behaviour and the sophisticated hide their brutal medieval behaviour behind logical and rational justifications. 1,18,000 people have committed suicide in year 2006. 52,000 people took their lives due to "Family Reasons or Illness". But, we indulge in endless debates on what media feeds us ie. Logical arguments and Debates lead no where.

Comment by temporal

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:05:36 EST

jay: how? sr was a student of history and he pushed certain 'trigger' buttons knowingly...he knew they will create a certain reaction...whether he calculated the intensity correctly or failed to do so is open to debate tn may well have started off in similar fashion but has ended up unwittingly as an exploitee in the hands of others

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:11:46 EST

I guess in the end all she'd want is to be left alone.

Comment by Jawahara

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:01:11 EST

Yes, Dee, you are right. However, despite what we say and/or write, because of her circumstances and her own thoughts and feelings, I am sure (can't be certain, of course) that she will be feeling shame. Unfortunately, there might be no one around her to help her with this. That is the ultimate cruel weapon that keeps on wounding.

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:55:51 EST

Jawahara like I said on your blog, the shame is ours not hers:(

Comment by Jawahara

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:05:52 EST

Thanks Dee. I can understand someone getting mad and cussing at me. But wishing violence on someone or threatening and/or actually carrying out those threats are another thing. At least Ms. Nasrin is getting protection. The poor Assamese girl has none of that but all the shame and trauma of her ordeal. It's sickening.

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:56:48 EST

Jawahara, I hope your dad is doing fine. Recently I had a dude on my site hoping my head got blown off by a bazooka for titling one of my old posts- Diwali, festival of fucking lights. I mailed him back and had a rather civil communication where he mentioned he was mad and hence the 'bad words' and later we agreed to disagree on the issue. But he did mention that I ran the risk of being beaten up by an irate mob for my offensive posts and that kind of threat should stop me from acting like a fool. The stripping of the Assamese Dalit girl and Taslima issue makes me feel as if we are living in medieval times. Are we really this barbaric?

Comment by Jawahara

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:13:13 EST

That's the point, Farhan. Politicians are more concerned with vote banks than they are with taking a strong stance on issues like these. It's shameful. It's also sad that we don't even expect politicians to be any different. In fact, we expect them to be that way.

Comment by free_kafir

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:39:05 EST

Why question Farooq Abdullah. He is one good liberal Indian Muslim.He is finally politician. Politicians speak poitics. What due you expect from them? So leave them alone and let them say what they want to talk. But when a nation is debating these type of issues we have to see the real issue AS IT IS and talk.I don't know when Indian Media learn this.