Desicritics Comments on Salman Rushdie and Freedom of Speech

Comment by Morris

Tue, 13 May 2008 23:10:43 EDT

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.

Comment by Man Singh

Tue, 13 May 2008 20:34:47 EDT

[BLATHERING]

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 13 May 2008 19:13:40 EDT

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.

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 13 May 2008 19:05:07 EDT

Khajuraho is really a conspiracy by the dacoits to put the naive, innocent villagers in a bad light.

Comment by temporal

Tue, 13 May 2008 18:52:31 EDT

khajurao is a public place should they be 'dressed' up?

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 13 May 2008 18:51:44 EDT

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....

Comment by Man Singh

Tue, 13 May 2008 18:24:10 EDT

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?

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:45 EDT

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.

Comment by Morris

Mon, 12 May 2008 22:16:22 EDT

Thank you CS

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 12 May 2008 22:11:28 EDT

morris, well put!

Comment by Morris

Mon, 12 May 2008 21:42:00 EDT

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.

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 12 May 2008 18:39:43 EDT

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.

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 12 May 2008 18:35:05 EDT

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.""

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 12 May 2008 18:29:34 EDT

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.

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 12 May 2008 18:19:01 EDT

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.

Comment by Morris

Mon, 12 May 2008 18:15:30 EDT

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.

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:56:31 EDT

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....

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:56:27 EDT

Comment by Man Singh

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:52:55 EDT

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.

Comment by Somik Raha

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:35:55 EDT

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.

Comment by Chandra

Mon, 12 May 2008 01:06:44 EDT

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.

Comment by Morris

Sun, 11 May 2008 18:41:22 EDT

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.

Comment by Somik Raha

Sun, 11 May 2008 18:10:28 EDT

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?

Comment by Chandra

Sun, 11 May 2008 17:50:48 EDT

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

Comment by commonsense

Sun, 11 May 2008 11:56:47 EDT

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?