Subscribe to Desicritics
Salman Rushdie and Freedom of Speech
Somik Raha
Noted and controversial writer Salman Rushdie gave a talk at Stanford University recently. The Stanford Daily report covers important parts of his talk but misses out on the ending. Rushdie, towards the end, pointed to the fundamentalism displayed by the Hindu right toward M. F. Hussain. He said that M. F. Hussain had painted goddesses in the nude, who had "always been depicted that way," and, Hussain had been hounded out of India for committing this transgression as a Muslim. Now, Hussain lives in London and Dubai, and is about to open an art museum in Dubai. India will lose the art works of its greatest artist.
Rushdie's support for free speech is well-known. I spoke to some close Muslim friends and tried explaining how much I liked Rushdie's talk. To highlight Rushdie's support for a Muslim artist, I mentioned M. F. Hussain. Immediately, my Muslim friends (who are not from India) quizzed me on what Hussain had done. When I mentioned the painting of Indian goddesses in the nude, the reaction was of immediate disgust, and I could not get my Muslim friends to support M. F. Hussain. They felt that Hussain had been highly insensitive and should never have done something like this.
I tried hard to explain that I wouldn't send my kids to Hussain's art gallery, but I would defend his right to paint whatever he liked as long as he didn't use taxpayer money. In the end, my friends reluctantly agreed that Hussain should not have been kicked out of India, but that was because both my friends don't like government interference in public life, like me.
This conversation was remarkable in many respects. While discussing Rushdie, one friend pointed out that Muslims ought not to waste their time with such things, for the Prophet had clearly asked his followers to ignore those who abused his teachings - it was better to do good in the world than waste one's energy to counter such people. Somehow, I find all my Muslim friends to have such an open and liberal attitude, and this isn't just at Stanford.
Moving on, I think freedom of speech by itself does not pass scrutiny. I wouldn't like someone to come into my home and talk about topics that were uninteresting or disgusting to me. I do have the right to ask people to get off my property. Then, freedom of speech is the prerogative of the property owner. In this context, it becomes much easier to tackle situations that seem like violations by examining the property rights of the individuals concerned. In Hussain's case, whose property was he on when he made and displayed the paintings? As long as the property owner is fine with it, no one else's opinions can have legal standing.
Finally, as Indians, we would do well to recognize that our forefathers really meant "freedom" when they fought for freedom. This means that people have a right to be jerks in their own homes or outside as long as they don't physically hurt or defraud anyone else. Those that get offended have the option of shutting their eyes, not buying books, turning off the television, etc. We need to attach ourselves to a much higher ideal of freedom. I would like to end with a reminder of such an ideal, from Tagore's immortal poem on the subject.
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high,
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action–
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father,
Let my country awake.
Salman Rushdie and Freedom of Speech
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Culture
- » Culture: Arts
- » Culture: Books
- » Culture: Religion
- » Culture: Social Issues
- » Culture: Society
- » Culture: The Writing Life
- » Politics: Asia
- » Politics: South Asia
- » Desicritics.org articles by Somik Raha
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
temporal
URL
May 10, 2008
03:43 PM
somik the country is awake
some minds are not!
K. M.
URL
May 10, 2008
03:51 PM
"Moving on, I think freedom of speech by itself does not pass scrutiny."
"Then, freedom of speech is the prerogative of the property owner."
That is a good observation. No rights can have any meaning without the right to property.
Man Singh
URL
May 10, 2008
05:06 PM
This article will remain incoplete without mentioning plight of Tasleema Nasreen who was forced to quit India by a super secular government in which a Roman catholic is supereme leader, Sikh is Prime Minister, Hindu Home Minsiter and government is supporetd by Athiest communists.
This super secular team was terrorised by jehadis and this poor lady was forced to leave the country.
Hussein's case is not as bad as he is simply hiding from law suits against him. Filing a lawsuit against assumed unethical acts of hussein is pretty legitimate and democratic way to deal with one's frustration.
In Tasleema case is worst as she was physically attacked by MLA's Three MLAs of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen who are elected by the people.
At least Hussein case was not as bad. he was thretened by some non entities. His main fear are lawsuits against him. He seems to be doing more drama then level of threats on his head. How come a secular government supported by commies can'nt protect him?
temporal
URL
May 10, 2008
05:33 PM
ms:
google " Indian painter work 'not obscene' "
and related stories
:)
as for taslima ... "crocodile tears"
;)
Man Singh
URL
May 10, 2008
07:02 PM
Bhai temp # 4
I never questioned if they were obscene or not.
I simply highlighted the plight of a women harrased and terrorised by super secural establishment of India (including big mouthed communists) under terror of Jehadis. these jehadis included even elected MLA's.
Did any MLA threatened Hussein? None.
But you have raised the issue of obscenety I would like you to visit
http://www.apparaoart.com/auctions/index.php?start=20&end=4# ( see image no 23)
http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/campaigns/national/mfhussain-campaign/
and then visit Hussein's webiste and archived including those removed from sale somewhere to cross verify the facts given in the refered webpage.
then you decide yourself if Hussein is sick minded person or not.
The difference in selection of dress naked for Indian and fully clothed for Muslims tell the whole story.
1. Goddess Durga in sexual union with Tiger
Prophet's Daughter Fatima fully clothed
2. Goddess Lakshmi naked on Shree Ganesh's head M.F. Husain's Mother fully clothed
3. Naked Saraswati Mother Teresa fully clothed
4. Naked Shri Parvati Husain's Daughter well clothed
5. Naked Draupadi. Well clothed Muslim Lady.
6. Naked Lord Hanuman and Goddess Sita sitting on thigh of Ravana
7. Muslim poets Faiz, Galib are shown well-clothed
8. Full Clad Muslim King and naked Hindu Brahmin.
The above painting clearly indicates Husain's tendency to paint any Hindu as naked and thus his hatred.
Naked Bharatmata - Husain has shown naked woman with names of states written on different parts of her body.
In another painting the four leaders M. Gandhi is decapitated and Hitler is naked. Husain hates Hitler and has said in an interview 8 years ago that he has depicted Hitler naked to humiliate him and as he deserves it ! How come Hitler's nudity cause humiliation when in Husain's own statement nudity in art depicts purity and is in fact an honour ! This shows Husain's perversion and hypocrisy.
Conclusion M.F. Husain depicts the deity or person he hates as naked. He shows Prophet's Mother, his own mother, daughter, all the Muslim personalities fully clothed, but at the same time Hindus and Hindu deities along with Hitler are shown naked. This proves his hatred for the Hindus.
I request you please visit these links before commenting any further abd be judge yourself is your mother, sister or wife is painted like this will you tolerate?
Hussein is free to paint himslef nude.
he is free to paint his mother nude
He is free to paint his sister or wife as nude and sell their pictures in teh market. I would not like even that. But can'nt stop him.
But humiliating my symbols of respect like this is totally unacceptable and all right thinking people should condemn such crooked mentality.
he makes museum in Dubai or London very nice. Hope he will use his art and freedom of expression in Dubai and will paint Mohammed and his wives and daughters in nude.
Let's see he has courage to do that?
I do not want to earn money by selling nude pictures of my mothers sisters and daughters my freinds. Will you do or any reader will do or tolerate if somebody else prepares a porn on our mothers sisters or wife and sells in market of Dubai or anywhere?
Just think with a cool mind and respond?
temporal
URL
May 10, 2008
07:14 PM
ms:
reference to hussain and taslima was (only) in "legal" context - a point you harped on in #3!
as for Obscenity - check out "khajuraho" scupltures
it is in viewer's /reader's mind mostly
:)
commonsense
May 10, 2008
10:11 PM
not sure how this works: if MS demands freedom of speech for Nasreen and Rushdie, as indeed all right thinking persons should and I do, why is he upset at Hussein? The same principle applies. If you don't like their work, read something else, look at something else. He is upset that Nasreen was hounded out, but is mad as hell at Hussein. Double-standards anyone?
commonsense
May 10, 2008
10:14 PM
Difference between nudity and porn. Interview with Hussein below:
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main37.asp?filename=Ne020208in_hindu_culture.asp
commonsense
May 10, 2008
10:16 PM
MS:
""This proves his (Hussein) hatred for the Hindus.""
As per MS's definitions of:
1. Proof
2. Hatred
3. Hindus (thekedaari)
commonsense
May 10, 2008
10:19 PM
MS:
""Hussein is free to paint himslef nude.
he is free to paint his mother nude
He is free to paint his sister or wife as nude and sell their pictures in teh market. I would not like even that. But can'nt stop him.
But humiliating my symbols of respect like this is totally unacceptable and all right thinking people should condemn such crooked mentality.""
Last time I checked, MS had not been awarded the thekedaari for protecting any Hindu sentiments, just as the mullahs have not been awarded the same for protecting Islamic sentiments. Regardless, self-appointed thekedaars are a dime a dozen.
Morris
May 10, 2008
11:37 PM
Man Singh, the way you described Hussein's paintings, he seems a bit out of line. But who cares? If he has broken any law then he should be charged. But I see your point about Taslima. There is no diageement with the author. The only thing I like to say is that the freedom of speech should not be selective. It should be applied equally to all. Hussein and Taslima both should be free to express what they wish.
Guido
May 11, 2008
05:45 AM
Somik,
I think I can sum up your premise in one word; "tolerance". Unfortunately that abstract (like truth) seems to be lacking at the fringes of the spectrum...political, religious, or otherwise. In there lies the problem.
Ciao, Guido
Somik Raha
URL
May 11, 2008
11:39 AM
MS wrote:
But humiliating my symbols of respect like this is totally unacceptable and all right thinking people should condemn such crooked mentality.
I think you will find many people agreeing with you on this. The question is, will "right thinking people" think right and avoid violence/legal coercion? In the recent past, that does not seem to be the case in India.
Rushdie told us how a film was made on him in Pakistan, titled "International Guerillas," where he is portrayed in a negative light. At the end of the film, he is punished by God. Britain banned the film initially. Rushdie got that reversed, as he didn't want his freedom of speech protected selectively. The movie opened in Britain and bombed. The reviews were so bad that people didn't want to waste their hard-earned money on it.
This is very instructive. I wonder how many people would have read The Satanic Verses or Lajja or even clicked on the links MS sent out if there hadn't been such a brouhaha over it. Banning something is the best way to increase its value. The people who are upset with insensitive writers/artists indirectly end up helping them.
On a more general note, laws on libel, defamation and religious sentiments make little sense and are a waste of taxpayer money. Were they to be withdrawn, we would develop a healthy distrust of the media, versus thinking, "if it came in the paper, it must be true, else they'd be sued."
commonsense
May 11, 2008
11:49 AM
Somik and Morris,
Both of you have hit the nail on the head on this one!
1. One cannot be selective when it comes to freedom of speech. One cannot and should not, in good faith say, look the mullahs are after Nasreen and Rushdie, THEREFORE we have a right to go after Hussein. Or vice versa. Where is the logic in this?
2. Somik: true, the more one puts such things in the law and suppresses them, the more problems we create. Within certain very broad limits, treat people as adults and let them decide to read/watch something or not.
3. A good criterion about so-called "insults" and "humiliation" etc. is intention. Did Rushdie "intend" to insult anyone? Did Hussein "intend" to hurt anyone? It is very hard to argue that they had or have that intention. In the case of Hussein, he is clearly appalled at the suggestion, having grown up in an atmposphere where is intimately familiar with the Hindu ethos, and he explains in the interview above, how he began painting Hindu themes. Had he INTENDED to humiliate anyone, he would be gloating in it or adding fuel to the fire. Instead he is not (read the detailed interview of him in # 8).
commonsense
May 11, 2008
11:56 AM
an view on hussein by shashi tharoor in an issue of _The Hindu_ newspaper
http://www.hindu.com/mag/2006/11/26/stories/2006112600090300.htm
This piece also has a lot of the thekedaars up in arms, now against Tharoor who is labeled as anti-Hindu and of course anti-India. Once again, the issue of "subjective, conscious intentions" is the key when it comes to "humiliation". Is it intended or unintended?
Chandra
May 11, 2008
05:50 PM
I think MS H painted the nudes for some cheap publicity (a la Madhuri love) except that it backfired. I think people have a right to protest, fundamentally because these paintings were displayed in the public domain and not in the privacy of his property. Therefore, the arguments made above about the paintings made on a private property are invalid.
As far as the paintings themselves are concerned, i cannot comment on them because I haven't seen them. On the other hand, just because Goddesses were painted in the nude in the medieval times, there is no natural argument that the can be done now.
To summarise, let us not forget that while the constitution allows us freedom of expression, it also allows us to protest within the boundaries of law
Somik Raha
URL
May 11, 2008
06:10 PM
Chandra wrote: I think people have a right to protest, fundamentally because these paintings were displayed in the public domain and not in the privacy of his property.
Even if they were on Husain's private property, people can protest all they like as long as they don't threaten him with violence or use violence or any legal coercion.
Now, what do you mean by public domain? Were the paintings displayed on a public street, or in a government art gallery? And when you say people have a right to protest, can you be more specific about the boundaries of "protest?" What kind of protest should be legal and what kind of protest should be illegal?
Also, do you have a personal preference on how much freedom you should be given as far as artistic expression is concerend? Or is that something you would like to decide for yourself?
Morris
May 11, 2008
06:41 PM
I think Hussein should be able to paint and display what he wants to. No one has a right NOT to be offended. Getting offended is subjective is'nt it? The question should be. Is he spreading hatred? And that too is hard to determine. Therefore, if in doubt I am leaning towards freedom of expresion.
Right to protest is there for anything so long as it is done within the legal bounds. I don't think that is very hard to decide. It is the fear of violence that becomes the determining factor. And that I think is absolutely wrong. Those who become violent should be harshly dealt with. If not all our discussion is meaningless.
Chandra
May 12, 2008
01:06 AM
Somik
The boundaries of protest are a little vague. However, one thing all of us agree is that anything illegal should e unaccapetable and this would include violence, threat of violence or other forms of blackmail.
'Public domain' according to me is anything that is outside the four walls of your home and includes exhibitions that are organised by private parties but can be visited through buying tickets etc.
I think everybody should value freedom of expression but i donot understand why legitimate protests should me muffled with 'freedom of expression' arguments. The freedom of expressing protest is as important as other forms of freedom of expression.
Personally, i think MF is a cheapo and a nutcase who should ideally be ignored. But then others donot seem to agree.
Somik Raha
URL
May 12, 2008
01:35 PM
Chandra wrote:
I think everybody should value freedom of expression but i donot understand why legitimate protests should me muffled with 'freedom of expression' arguments. The freedom of expressing protest is as important as other forms of freedom of expression.
Thank you for clarifying what you mean. I agree with you. In this one too, I agree - as you have already clarified that violence or threats are illegitimate. I would add that there is no role for the law in protesting against Husain (govt should not sue him). People should be free to express their anger all they want in newspapers, television channels, etc.
Man Singh
URL
May 12, 2008
04:52 PM
Bhai temp # 6
Yes I have seen Kajuraho which depicts the whole universe in pictorial form.
It describes Devtas, it describes Humans and it decribes gandharvas it decribes homosexuals , it decribes siddhas and it describes people doing s'x with animals.
This represents totality. Nature culture and torture togather.
Just like number system is complete only when positives, negatives, fractions, decimals , real and imagnary all types of numbers togather, so is Khajuraho.
Exactly opposite to it Hussein depics symbols associated with Hindus naked and rest of his paintings fully clothed and proves his crooked mind.
More over as mentioned by Bhai Chandra, that if our frofathers during tribal days used to live naked we should not do so today. Or somebody shpuld not be allowed to do so based on this logic.
Soumik and Morris, I do not have much to disagree with you other then my opinion to include case of Tasleema and Muhammed's cartoon drawer swidish cartoonist to make the article more complete and free from any bias.
Bhai Commonsense you should change your name to nonsnese now. Enough of you.
You never showed any courahe to refute any of my argument. You have only one weapon : just ridicule the writer that's it?
I know people do this when get exhauseted of all logic and arguments.
Rushdie never agreed that he wrote satanic verses to hum,iliate Muslims.
But Hussein agreed that he paints people naked to whom he hates and wants to humiliate.
Like Hitler Gandhi and Hindus Devas and Devis.
commonsense
May 12, 2008
04:56 PM
MS:
""But Hussein agreed that he paints people naked to whom he hates and wants to humiliate""
???
Agree with Chandra and Morris. Of course people have write to protest, just as I have the right to protest Man Singhs' protestation....
commonsense
May 12, 2008
04:56 PM
MS:
""But Hussein agreed that he paints people naked to whom he hates and wants to humiliate""
???
Agree with Chandra and Morris. Of course people have write to protest, just as I have the right to protest Man Singhs' protestation....
Morris
May 12, 2008
06:15 PM
I have no problem with Hussein's paintings. And if he knowingly wants to insult Hinduism then that tells us more about him than about his art. So what? World is full of his kind.
What bothers me more is the reaction by the authorities. They arbitrarily decide what is acceptable as free expression and what is not depending upon the nature of protest they are willing to tolerate. That means violent protesters win and they become the ultimate authority on freedom of expression. Is Rushdie's Satanic Verses available in India? Once it was banned was'nt it? And if it is still banned, then we are simply wasting our time dicussing the issue. There is absolutely no reason why that book should be so in a democratic country like India.
commonsense
May 12, 2008
06:19 PM
Morris,
Totally agree with you. I am not sure of the situation, but if Rushdie's _Satanic Verses_ is banned in India, it's more than shameful.
commonsense
May 12, 2008
06:29 PM
MS:
""Bhai Commonsense you should change your name to nonsnese now. Enough of you."'
Man Singh, to be called "nonsense" by you is a distinctive badge of honour for me! If you've had enough of me, I will accept the badge and will badger you no more.
commonsense
May 12, 2008
06:35 PM
Morris,
Apparently it is still banned in India. Not only that, but India was the FIRST country to ban it! Excerpts from a piece in _Indian Express_
""India was the first country to ban the book, much before Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa on February 14, 1989, and there are no moves to lift the ban.
``It will simply never happen,'' says a senior official in the Ministry of External Affairs who claims that Iran's move is only meant to open up trade with the West.""
commonsense
May 12, 2008
06:39 PM
Morris,
The strange thing is that apparently the BJP govt. could have lifted the ban, but apparently it pointedly chose not to. Could other readers confirm this, since I am not sure of my facts here.
Morris
May 12, 2008
09:42 PM
Well, I guess all this discussion about freedom of press, speech etc. is just academic. In practice, it is all political. Any thing that creates terbulence or friction is considered not acceptable. I think peace achieved by paying such a high price cannot be genuine and durable. It will always remain fragile.
commonsense
May 12, 2008
10:11 PM
morris,
well put!
Morris
May 12, 2008
10:16 PM
Thank you CS
commonsense
May 12, 2008
10:32 PM
MS:
""Husain hates Hitler and has said in an interview 8 years ago that he has depicted Hitler naked to humiliate him and as he deserves it ! How come Hitler's nudity cause humiliation when in Husain's own statement nudity in art depicts purity and is in fact an honour !""
I may be wrong, but I think most artists and photographers would agree that there is a difference between "naked" and "nude". Not to defend Hussein or anyone, but "naked" conveys vulnerability while "nude" conveys a sense of agency. No hard line between the two, but most people, artists or not, understand when they view "pornography" vs. nudity in art/photography. Once again, I am not defending Hussein or anyone, and I even agree that perhaps Hussein did it for cheap gimmicks. But methinks MS is (perhaps unintentionally) conflating "naked" with "nude" and there IS a difference between images in Hustler and an art gallery/photography gallery full of nude images.
Man Singh
URL
May 13, 2008
06:24 PM
I put an open challenge to all supporters of freedom of `Nudity' ( they dun like it to be called naked).
Can they display themselves nude along with their family in any art gallery open to public?
If yes. Then they should support Hussein.
If not why this hypocrisy only to pretend to be `liberal' and `modern' and `artist'.
Come on guys be realistic and honest and share your limits ?
If u support nudity of Gods and Goddeses in public art galaries, will any one of readres whould like the auction of `Nude' paintings of their onw family members by Hussein or any body else?
commonsense
May 13, 2008
06:51 PM
MS:
""I put an open challenge to all supporters of freedom of `Nudity' ""
I suppose it would have to be an "open" challenge rather than a "closed" one when it comes to nudity....
temporal
URL
May 13, 2008
06:52 PM
khajurao is a public place
should they be 'dressed' up?
commonsense
May 13, 2008
07:05 PM
Khajuraho is really a conspiracy by the dacoits to put the naive, innocent villagers in a bad light.
commonsense
May 13, 2008
07:13 PM
Actually, if you examine Khajuraho carefully, as Man Singh and Sri P.N.Oak have, you will notice that the stone used in its construction is not at all from India. Chemo-analysis of the soil and rock samples decisively establish the fact that the whole structure was constructed in jihadi-land and then transported through India with the help of local dacoits who need to be exposed. Now, please don't respond to my message unless you have real logical and rational evidence to dispute my claim.
Man Singh
URL
May 13, 2008
08:34 PM
[BLATHERING]
Morris
May 13, 2008
11:10 PM
Man Singh
I can understand why you feel so strongly about this issue. You are entitled to protest and if enough people protest against such paintings authority may ban the public display. And if your proest is likely to get violent then they will certainly ban the display. But I am against that kind of censorship in principle. You see the danger here. It is becoming selective depending upon the whims of the authority. They ban Rushdi's Satanic verses but they may not ban Hussein's paintings. Why rely on their whims. Just have no censorship. Censorship is wrong unless it is breaking a law.
As far as our family being displayed in nude, indeed that can happen. But that happens to the public celebrity only. And it does happen. If you are a public person sometimes you have to put up with that. We have all kind of examples.
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/7688)