Desicritics Category: Politics: Censorship

Thekedaars of the Middle-Class?

commonsense — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:49:39 EST

We have all heard of the “my sentiments are hurt” claim to push for a ban on topics that we cannot handle. The long list of such political maneuvers includes but is not limited to Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, the artist M. F. Hussain, Taslima Nasreen etc. Such claims by the thekedaars of so-called religious, regional, linguistic communities are quite obviously irrational and appeal to the lowest common denominator in all of us.

The Gujarat government has gone step ahead by claiming that the sentiments of the state and of its middle-class are “hurt” by the loose canon scholar Ashish Nandy’s op-ed piece published last summer in the Times of India.

Stung by the acerbic piece by penned by Nandy (who by the way, received his PhD from Gujarat), the Gujarat state government has apparently lodged a case against the scholar for apparently implying the middle-class’s addiction to development at any cost, is to blame for Modi’s re-election. Nandy of course, is a self-styled provocateur who passes sweeping, frequently quite off the mark pronouncements in the prophetic mode. He is taken more seriously outside rather than within India. Once in a while he does provide quite interesting insights about Indian society. More often than not, he lashes out at any hint of the term “development” and indeed considers himself as the “thekedaar” of the “real” India and Indians.

The point however is not whether one agrees or disagrees with him as far as his takes on Indian society are concerned.

What is ominous is the government taking a writer to court for imagined injuries to the sentiments of the state and its middle-class. Are we slipping backwards to the era when any critique of state policies was labeled as “treason” and the pressure to conform was enforced by intepreting the law in particular ways? This time around, the Supreme Court of India not only dismissed the case against Nandy but also issued a stern rebuke to those who wanted to prosecute the author.

Where exactly are we headed in the future as far as freedom of critical commentary is concerned? If we disagree with any critical commentary, there is always the option of criticising the critic. If established media outlets won't publish our critiques of critics, there is always the world-wide blogosphere. The proliferation of self-appointed of thekedaars of who seek to address real or imagined injuries, is, at least from a non-sectarian point of view, indeed ominous.

Freedom of Speech

K. M. — Sat, 4 Oct 2008 08:51:48 EDT

Paul McKeever has a post on Freedom and the Proper Regulation of Speech in which he claims that it is the role of government to outlaw speech that denies individuals control over their life, liberty and property. The object of this post is to argue that freedom of speech is indeed absolute.

The right to freedom of speech is a special case of the right to freedom of action - the only right that man has (Look at the first five paragraphs of this post for a detailed argument on why man has the right to freedom of action). It is considered specially by most constitutions because of its importance in maintaining a free society. Given this importance, it is worth considering the concepts underlying the right to free speech.

Speech as a form of action:
Speech is just a form of action. There is nothing about speech that does not apply to other actions. Speech may involve the initiation of physical force. Shouting “Fire!” in a theatre is just as much of an initiation of force as is the breaking of a chair in the same theatre. Both are actions that are not permitted by the owner of the theatre and thus are an initiation of force.

Initiation of force:
Initiation of physical force is the only thing that can curtail man’s freedom of action, and consequently, the only thing that a government must protect. Any “regulation” of speech that does not involve the initiation of force is a violation of the right to freedom of action.

Responsibility of judgement:
Judging the statements or claims made by others is a necessary part of living in a society. Since no one can think for another person, this judgement and its consequences are the sole responsibility of the individual. A liar is morally responsible for his lies but that does not absolve his victims from the responsibility of judgements. Nor does the fact that man is infallible absolve him of that responsibility. It is a fact of nature that man must think, judge and act even though he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Fraud as distinct from lies:
Fraud is the violation of a contract and thus an initiation of force. Not every statement is made within the context of a contract. In fact the vast majority of conversations do not involve any contract at all.

Role of government:
The proper role of government is limited to protecting the right to freedom of action. Ensuring any other form of justice is not its role. Notably, ensuring that rational men do not suffer because of the wrong judgements of others is not the role of government. Governments are instituted because of the necessity of placing the retalliatory use of force under objective control. Any other function that a government performs necessarily involves the initiation of force and is a perversion of the concept of a government.

Impossibility of outlawing lies:
The initiation of physical force (whether direct or the violation of a contract) is an objective standard. There can be no honest disagreement about whether a particular case involves the initiation of physical force in the presence of witnesses or evidence. Truth is often not an objective standard legally nor does it apply to all statements. A statement such as “X is incompetent to complete project Y on time.” is a matter of individual judgement and a prediction about the future. Truth does not apply to it. A statement such as “Candidate X believes in sorcery” cannot be judged objectively as there is no way to either prove or disprove it. A legal system that allows laws without objective standards will soon disintegrate into an arbitrary rule of men.

It should be clear from the above points that freedom of speech is an absolute right just like the right to life and the right to property and may not be violated by a proper government. For the sake of completeness however, I will analyze the flaw in McKeever’s argument and consider his examples.

McKeever writes:

Freedom is control. Specifically, it is control over ones own liberty and property; over the pursuit of ones own survival and happiness. The role of government is to ensure that no other person causes you to lose that control; that no other person deprives you of your freedom.

This is the primary flaw in his argument. Freedom is not control. Man is free by nature. He does not control his own life in the same sense. For example, I do not control whether I get to keep my job. If my employer decides to fire me, is he causing me to lose my control? I do not control my immediate emotions. If a stranger abuses me verbally and I get angry, is he causing me to lose my control? In both these cases I retain my freedom but do I lose my control or did I never have it?

Consider his examples:

By selling you a can of highly corrosive acid labeled “Soda Pop”, a person can deprive you of your life.

This is fraud and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

By framing you for a crime you did not commit, or by bearing false witness against you, you can be deprived of your liberty.

If he frames me for a crime I did not commit and escapes detection completely so that he is not even required to testify, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If he bears false witness, he is lying intentionally on oath, which is a violation of an explicit contract with the legal system itself. Again it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

By selling you an ineffective substance as “a new, 100% effective cure for strep throat”, you can be deprived of your property (i.e., the money you paid for the substance).

Fraud again.

Common to each example is the making of false or arbitrary assertions upon which you or others found decisions concerning your life, liberty, or property.

No. Common to each example is the initiation of force.

Racist Web Game Muslim Massacre Taken Down By Developer

Aaman Lamba — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:38:07 EDT

The limits of free speech are tested more sorely on the Internet. While protecting the space where wrongs can be criticized freely, and truth can be spoken to power is essential, there are obvious limits to what is appropriate and what needs to be held to account.

Freelance developer Sigvatr found this out the hard way when he released an online game Muslim Massacre in which the protagonist is an "American hero" who lands in the Middle East with the mission of 'wiping out the entire Muslim race', training his guns on Muslim civilians and terrorists, "the Muslim leader Osama bin Laden, their radical cult leader Muhammad and finally Allah" . He went on to defend his actions, saying,

"Ultimately it's just a game where you blow the gently caress out of Arabs...I don't even know how to interpret it myself any more. The bottom line is that I enjoyed making it and it's fun to play.

The Muslims represented in the game aren't meant to be based on actual Muslims. If I was to try and come up with a meaning for the game at this moment, it would probably be something along the lines of metaphorically destroying the stereotypical depiction of a Muslim.

The initial reaction of gamers ranged from "love the audio" and "can you fix the spawn points" to "why would you do this?". Other quarters were less forgiving, calling for the game to be taken down. The developer finally took the game down and cleared the website, posting an apology.

I would like to make a public apology for any offense that I might have caused through releasing this game, and to Muslims in particular. My intentions when releasing this project were to mock the foreign policy of the United States and the commonly held belief in the United States that Muslims are a hostile people to be held with suspicion. I would like to make it clear that I have never shared such a belief and my intention was to mock those who actually do believe these things.

It quickly became obvious to me that releasing this game did not achieve its intended effect and instead only caused hurt to hospitable, innocent people. I believe removing this game and website will do much more to attain my desired effect than leaving it on the internet, so I am doing just that.

I would like to ask for the forgiveness of Muslims around the world and to make it clear that I did not release this game with ill intent. So without further ado, I would like to say that I am truly apologetic for what I have done and will take full responsibility for all offense that has been caused. I can only hope that any further misgivings can be laid to rest.

While there can be no doubt as to the offensive nature of the game, and self-censorship was the right step in this case, it is likely there will be renewed calls for blanket censorship on games and the like, a policy which is difficult to enforce, and which prefers to err on the side of caution, and thereby limiting potentially important creative efforts.

Islamophobia - Organisation of Islamic Countries Report

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:21:02 EDT

Islamophobia exists and is steadily getting worse. A phobia is a strong irrational or powerful fear and dislikes of something, in this case, the religion of Islam. This phobia has attained such strong levels, that the Organisation of Islamic Countries has commissioned and recently released an Annual Report on Islamophobia. On reading the report, I was torn between two feelings; the first was serious concern about Islamophobia in the world and second was sheer bewilderment at the OIC as to how they help propagate the very Islamophobia that they want to eliminate.

I have spoken about Islamophobia before and have been warning about its prevalence for some time now. And regretfully, the situation is far from improving; instead it is getting worse. One can see that just looking at the rise in terrorist attacks and hate crimes, lurid headlines, anti-Semitic attacks in Europe in retaliation, etc. And the more this happens; the less the space becomes for moderates on both sides.

As I warned before, the world knows about the demonisation of a minority and knows what happens if that monster is let loose. We have seen that behaviour against Jews, Muslims, Christians, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Hindus, Irish, English, Tutsi, you name it, it has happened. If there is a minority, the chances are that phobias, discrimination, genocide etc. against them have been in play.

So if you look at the report, the worry is clear. Muslims around the world are definitely in the cross-hairs of a variety of people. And you can very well see that in the pronouncements of some of the wilder variety of some politicians across the world; the subtle demonisation of Muslims in the mainstream, tabloid, and online media; and the increase in attacks on Muslims (or even Sikhs who these attackers thought that they looked like Muslims).

So yes, that definitely needs to be sorted out. From what I understand, the OIC asked for an annual report on Islamophobia to be tabled at the annual sessions of the OIC. The authors of this report are not clear nor are the terms of reference of this report.

But first the good points in the document. Yes, there are some good points in there. For example, the authors have collected a good selection of Islamophobia research sources. A reasonably good selection of political Islamophobic statements has also been collected in Section 2.1 and they have also done a good survey on what people have done to combat Islamophobia from a governmental, NGO and individual perspectives in section 1.6.

They also talk about how inter-faith initiatives have been established, which can at best improve inter-faith relations and at worst, not do any harm. The majority of the recommendations in the conclusion of Part I that they made to combat Islamophobia are quite bang on target and make pretty good sense. They should be read by anybody who is interested in this rather dreadful phenomenon. Section 1.5 specially is a very good overview of the situation of Muslims in Europe and USA, although some inconsistencies should have been addressed in a better way, such as praising Pope Benedict XVI in Section 3.5, but fulminating against him on page 3.

Looking at the document, I would conclude that this was done by some under-graduates from a 3rd grade university hidden in a country-side somewhere, who have no idea about modern life and have suddenly stumbled upon the internet with their first lesson being Google search. As a result, this document starts off with the best of intentions and ends up rather fanning Islamophobia instead of helping to reduce it. It suffers from the following major defects:

Total misunderstanding of the basic principle of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to irritate and upset others. Freedom of speech does not include the right to discriminate against others though. For example, I can take the mickey out of suicide bombers wanting virgins and ending up with raisins. Or you can call me an infidel and say your religion is better than mine. These are completely acceptable, I have no issues. But you cannot tell others to kill me nor can I tell others to kill you. That is incitement to violence. The author seems to have deep intellectual issues in understanding this basic matter.
Confusing racism with Islamophobia. Race belongs to a genetic category generally exhibited on the basis of a physical appearance. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Two totally different things. While in certain cases (such as black Muslims), they might blow over into being the same, but to confuse both of them as one shows muddled thinking. Muslims are not a race, and they do include a variety of different races and ethnic groups.
Methodological and terminological confusion, which emerges from seriously flawed selection of incidents and coverage of incidents. Almost 50% of the incidents noted in the Appendix are not Islamophobic in nature, but belong to the category of freedom of speech or simple crime category. Islamophobia exists already without trying to add to it.
A totally wrong emphasis on legal protections. They try to go deep into legal aspects of various conventions and institutions. But you see, those are already established, anti-discrimination laws exist, anti-violence laws exist anti-incitement laws exist and they are sufficient. For example, they are talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and completely forget that they themselves have repudiated it and have come up with a Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Here’s an idea! How about the OIC signing up to and transcribing to domestic law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as most of the rest of the world has done?
Be very careful about complaining about being a victim, because it only stands up when you yourself have not victimised someone else. Now if you look at the OIC minorities, one can come up with many examples of victimisation that they themselves have done. And we are talking about Muslims victimising Muslims here, forget about non-Muslims. Ranging from Shia, Sunni, Ahmadi, Baha’i, Ismaili, Darfurians and then all the way to the other side like Jews, Christians, Hindus Buddhists, etc. have been victimised in OIC countries. Now, consider the reaction if such a report on anti-Baha'i or anti-Shia or anti-Semitic discrimination is presented at the OIC? How about considering the fact that many if not most current anti-Semitic attacks in Europe are carried out by European Muslims?
A totally imbalanced view of history. This entire report was so imbalanced in terms of its historical coverage that one does not even know where to start. What about the entry of Islam into the Caucasian world? Or the Chinese area? How about how it managed the entry and existence in South Asia and Africa? Islam has perhaps victimised more in many countries and regions than had been victimised against. Perhaps this is why their geographical scope of the report is so muddled (to avoid any facts which destroy their argument?)
Significant challenges in the identification of the causes of Islamophobia. First of all, there is not one form of Islam; it is not a single view, sect or a monolith. More importantly it is not the role of the state to define it. So if you are an Ahmadi or a Shia or a Sunni or what have you, we simply do not care! If you have religious differences, then by all means, discuss them, but do not kill for those differences. For example, the list of seven points raised by the Runnymede Trust defining Islamophobia can, unfortunately be equally applied to anti-Semitism, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Shia… in OIC countries, where they will be totally applicable. Consequently, ALL root causes of Islamophobia as identified in section 1.4.1 are completely wrong and misallocated.
A clear misunderstanding of the role of the media and the level of control people can actually exert over them. Most - if not all - of the OIC have no or very little press freedom. On top of that, the Arab League, a subset of the OIC, has decided to take fuller control over their TV Media since February 2008. That is not how the media works in other countries. Do check out independent organisations such as Reporters without Borders.
Israel – Palestine conflict. This is something that I can never understand. Curiously, more than 3/4th of all dead Palestinians have been killed by their fellow Arabs compared to the numbers killed by Israelis, but besides that breathtaking hypocrisy, I still cannot understand why they would include it in here. Or exclude say something like Bangladesh and Sudan? Pretty bizarre and intellectually vacuous.

Islamophobia exists, hate crimes have seriously stated happening in many countries and that is something to be worried about. All parts of civil society have to take part in ensuring that this canker of Islamophobia does not emerge from the dark evil corners of our souls. This includes you and me, the media, NGOs, churches and mosques, the government and international organisations, etc. But this has to happen for the right reasons, not for the spectacularly wrong and intellectually vapid reasons as stated in this report. All this will end up doing (and has already done) is to provide ammunition to the right wing that the OIC, as the premier Islamic organisation, takes decisions based upon policy papers which a zoned out undergraduate would hesitate to submit. And by the way, try to understand the concept of free speech. People who are out there trying to control free speech are basically engaging in Neanderthal behaviour and should not be upset if their speech is ignored, unheard or even mis-understood.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Technorati Tags: Organisation of Islamic Countries, Islam, Islamophobia, Israel, Palestine, Bangladesh, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Anti-Semitism

Art + History = Police Action in Tamil Nadu

Amrita Rajan — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:36:27 EDT

Here's a bit of shocking information: remember Aurangzeb? That jolly old Mughal who imprisoned various family members including his dad and his son, killed his brothers and generally went about making himself pleasant to his populace through the means of banning things like music and killing Sikh gurus? Yeah, that one. Turns out, according to his own records, he wasn’t a nice person to know.

You know what’s even more shocking? If you mention his dastardly nature (oh, come on! Even Stalin laid off his own family!) in Tamil Nadu, the police will come and shut you down.

That's right, Tamilians, this is how your tax money is being spent - on closing art exhibits.

To rewind a bit, if you're like me and have never heard of Francois Gautier before today (for some reason - like a lack of French - I don’t read Le Figaro or pretty much any of the publications he’s written for apparently), he’s an Indophile French journalist who founded this organization called the Foundation Against Continuing Terrorism. According to its website, “FACT seeks to bring attention to forgotten or neglected crises and to pressure governments and international organizations to help and protect refugees, displaced people and other victims of terror based conflicts.” Currently, it seems to be concentrating its efforts on Kashmiri Pandits and the minority Hindus, Christians and Buddhists in Bangladesh.

To highlight its work and the plight of the people it champions, FACT periodically holds exhibitions and other events around the world. For its latest exhibition, FACT came to the conclusion that the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who died in 1707, was pretty much the poster boy of Islamic terror as we know it today because he was a Sunni fundamentalist whose favorite hobby was temple demolition.

Personally, I think that’s a simplistic and rather contrived view of a fascinating character whose psychosis has never been adequately explored to my satisfaction… but that’s not the point here. FACT claims they dug through official Government archives, most notably in Rajasthan, and came up with original court documents including imperial edicts that beautifully illustrated just what it was like to live under the crazed eyes of a fanatically religious, all-powerful Emperor. They then commissioned Rajasthani artists who specialized in miniatures to translate those events into watercolor works and drawings in the Mughal style. The result of all this was an exhibit titled “Aurangzeb, as he was, according to Moghul records” which premiered in Delhi in February of this year.

Whatever my opinion of the tenor of some of Gautier’s writings, not to mention his naivete in imagining that Indo-Muslim relations on the subcontinent is comparable to Franco-German relations after the Second World War, I think this is a fascinating concept. I’m all for the marriage of art, history and politics. An intellectual menage a trois! But not everybody would agree with me - take the Nawab of Arcot, for instance. In Gautier’s words:

[He] visited the exhibition and lashed out at FACT volunteers accusing them of “misrepresenting facts.” He was particularly enraged by two miniatures — the first depicted Aurangzeb’s army destroying the Somnath temple and the second showed the destruction of the Kesava Rai temple in Mathura. We are told that he has direct access to the CM’s office and that orders to the police to clamp down on exhibition came down from there. Otherwise, Mr Murali [ed note: Asst. Commissioner of Police] would not have dared to go so far, so brazenly.

Soon, the nawab sent a group of goons, allegedly from TMMK (Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam) and MNP (Manitha Neethi Paasarai) to pick up arguments with the volunteers, most of them elderly women from decent family backgrounds.

They came back again on 7th afternoon when I was there, screaming on, top of their voices in Tamil and in English that this exhibition was absolutely false and that unless it was closed immediately they would come back in force the next day (Friday) to break it down.

I didn’t even know Arcot had a Nawab or that he was such an authority on history and a vociferous art critic to boot. As it turns out, there’s not only a Nawab of Arcot but his feelings for Aurangzeb might well be personal:

More than 300 years ago, his ancestor Zulfikar Ali Khan was summoned from Mecca by Emperor Aurangazeb in order to fight against the Marathas. In the 17th Century when the Marathas were holding sway in the Southern Carnatic from their stronghold at Gingee, Zulfikar Ali Khan came down and inflicted a crushing defeat on the ruler Rajaram.

The delighted Mughal emperor made him the Nawab of the Carnatic under the suzerainty of the Nizam of Hyderabad and thus were sown the beginnings of the House of Arcot. Later holders of the title identified closely with their area of domicile. The cordial interaction between the Nawabs of Arcot and the Hindu inhabitants of the Tamil country generated a climate of mutual tolerance and secularism that is proudly being carried on to this day.

Hmmm, I guess that does present a problem. But what, precisely, has the Nawab achieved through his actions? He’s pulled his strings and played his cards to such remarkable effect that an art exhibition that apparently only appealed Chennai grandmas suddenly turned controversial. And in the process he has managed to gain a reputation far removed from all that “tolerance and secularism” discussed in that article. Well done, sir!

It might be a cliche but it bears repeating: tolerance is an easy virtue to preach when it’s somebody else’s problem. It becomes a lot harder when you’re the one that has to do the tolerating.

From time to time I come across people who think Aurangzeb’s misdeeds are some sort of deep dark secret that secular India refuses to acknowledge. As I attended school in India (not that long ago either) and distinctly remember a litany of crimes set down next to Aurangzeb’s name in my government-approved history textbook, I honestly have no clue what these people are talking about. Maybe they went to school and slept through seventh grade history (or was it eighth?) but I was wide awake and taking it all in, thanks. Now I wonder if they were perhaps talking about people like the Nawab who apparently live in their own state of denial.

Pssst… Nawab sahib! Guess what? The secret’s out! We know all about ol’ Grandpappy Aurangzeb.

But the Nawab is not alone. Of late, it has become the fashion all over India to criticize art for having a political or historical viewpoint. And with increasing frequency, it isn't enough to merely protest a piece of art - it becomes "necessary" to vandalize and destroy that which one does not appreciate. Ironic, isn't it, that an exhibit on a long dead emperor commonly reviled for his illiberality has now been suspended by illiberal forces under the guise of liberalism?

On another note, when on earth do we stop obsessing about things that happened centuries ago and start obsessing even half as much about present day India? I love history but I can make a distinction between past and present - why is it that so many people refuse to do the same? Talking to some folks, it’s as if Mahmud of Ghazni marched through their homes just yesterday or else he was their BFF. What’s the deal here? Do you have something against reality in general or do you feel your life lacks drama? Because, you know, there is no dearth of things to get upset/upbeat about in the present.

Gautier talks about sparking “a healthy debate among the right thinking people” - it seems to me the right thinking people in India never get a chance to debate anything because all the wrong thinking people jump in feet first with fists flying.

More: The Aurangzeb Exhibition

Indian Secularism and Free Speech: Not for the Hindu

Vivek Bharat — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:11:49 EDT

FACT is an acronym for Foundation Against Continuing Terrorism, an organization founded by Francois Gautier, a French journalist based in India who shares a deep empathy for the sufferings of the Hindu, both past and present. This compassion stems not from a blind fascination but is an informed considered judgment derived from a close reading of Indian history. Troubled by the inexplicable apathy of the Hindus vis-à-vis their own past torment, this Frenchman has taken upon himself the duty to educate Indians, through a series of exhibitions, about the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits, the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and more recently the fiend, Aurangzeb.

‘Aurangzeb as he was, according to Moghul records” is the title of a collection of paintings highlighting the atrocities of this tyrant and has been exhibited to much acclaim in the cities of Delhi, Pune and Bangalore. FACT-sponsored exhibitions are not crude street shows but sophisticated exercises in true history telling anointed by the likes of Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, KPS Gill, N. Vittal and B. Raman. Whether we agree with their views or not we must admit that these individuals are upright citizens of our country who would think twice before associating themselves with dubious ventures.

The same exhibition was hosted in Chennai at the prestigious Lalit Kala Akademi, and was scheduled to run from March 3- March 9. But on March 5, a group of Islamic fundamentalists barged into the exhibition, objected to the show, created a ruckus and threatened to storm the place with hundreds of supporters after Friday prayers from the mosque nearby. A day later, the Prince of Arcot, Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali visited the exhibition and claimed that FACT was misrepresenting history. In the words of Kanchan Gupta (Artistic freedom yes, but not with Aurangzeb, Daily Pioneer, March 9, 2008):

"He was particularly enraged by two miniatures -- the first depicted Aurangzeb's army destroying the Somnath temple and the second showed the destruction of the Kesava Rai temple in Mathura.

By Thursday, March 7, "higher authorities" in Tamil Nadu Government had issued instructions to the police to shut down the exhibition. Murali, (Asst Commissioner of Police) along with his men, stormed into the exhibition hall on Thursday evening and began taking down the paintings. "He was looking for the paintings showing the destruction of Somnath and Kesava Rai temples. He threw them to the floor," said a FACT volunteer."

This sequence of events raises the disturbing specter of how Islamic fundamentalists in concert with vested interests can suppress the dissemination of authentic history and thwart a basic tenet of democracy: the principle of free speech.

Aurangzeb was a confirmed bigot vetted by historians of every hue and persuasion. There is not a shred of evidence to proclaim his innocence or any shadow of doubt about the religious oppression that he unleashed against his Hindu subjects. But yet we have a Muslim community taking up cudgels on his behalf. This only serves to give you a glimpse into the mindset of certain sections of India’s Muslim population who remain in a time wrap of past Muslim glory which was marked by the destruction of hundreds of Hindu temples and massacre of thousands of innocent Hindus and who continue to revere religious despots like Aurangazeb.

The two miniatures referred to above are hardly controversial; the events depicted having been corroborated by Aurangzeb’s own words and the works of his own sanctioned chroniclers. As proof of the same:

a) "... The Temple of Somnath was demolished early in my reign and idol worship(there) put down. It is not known what the state of things there is at present. If the idolators have again taken to the worship of images at the place, then destroy the temple in such a way that no trace of the building maybe left, and also expel them (the worshippers) from the place. ..." (From "Kalimat-i-Tayyibat" by 'Inayatullah, a collection of letters and orders of Aurangzeb compiled by 'Inayatullah in AD 1719 and covering the years 1699-1704 of Aurangzeb's reign.)

b) “During this month of Ramzan abounding in miracles, the Emperor as the promoter of justice and overthrower of mischief, as the knower of truth and destroyer of oppression, as the zephyr of the garden of victory and the reviver of the faith of the Prophet,issued orders for the demolition of the temple situated in Mathura, famous as the Dehra of Kesho Rai. In the short time by the great exertions of his officers the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum..." ( from "Mas'ir-i-'Alamgiri" by Saqi Must'ad Khan. This work was completed in 1710 at the behest of Inayatu''llah Khan Kashmiri, Aurangzeb's last secretary and the materials which Must'ad Khan used in this history of Aurangzeb's reign came mostly from the State archive)

The Tamil Nadu government, by succumbing to the pressure of Islamic fundamentalists without ascertaining the facts has not only shown poor judgment but exhibited an eagerness to appease fundamentalists. More importantly, this brings to the fore the anti-Hindu agenda of the DMK run Tamil Nadu government that has repeatedly trampled on Hindu sentiments. Just a few months ago, the DMK supremo Karunanidhi let loose a vituperative tirade against the Hindu deity Shri Ram in the context of the Ramsethu controversy and the manner in which the assistant commissioner of police responded to his ‘call of duty’ in this matter is another example of the deep seated antipathy towards Hindus and Hinduism that some in this state harbor.

What was even more striking was the total blackout of this incident from the mainstream English media. Except for the Daily Pioneer, none of the major Indian newspapers including the Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and Times of India thought it fit to report the event. The Hindu did print a few lines but that was to commend the closure of the exhibition: so much for these so- called bastions of free speech.

Compare this with the quantum of newsprint and number of editorials that followed when Hindu groups disrupted an exhibition at Baroda University last year: the contrast is striking and double standards all too obvious.

And what about those self-appointed champions of human rights like Teesta Setalvad and Shabana Azmi? Surprisingly I do not hear even a murmur of protest from them: another testimony to the fact that their activism is not a fair effort to promote human values but a devious conspiracy to target Hindus.

I cannot but infer that Indian secularism is warped. Indian secularism is discriminatory. Indian secularism is nothing but a tool to muzzle the practicing Hindu. It is a synonym for minority appeasement and Hindu bashing. Until we change this attitude and apply the same yardstick to one and all we cannot hope for a truly civilized democracy in India.

References:
1) Destruction of Hindu Temples by Rajiv Verma
2) Kanchan Gupta: "Artistic freedom yes, but not with Aurangzeb", Daily Pioneer, March 9, 2008

YouTube, Idol Worship and Fanaticism

Desh — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:32:13 EST

Pakistan's government does not want its people to watch Youtube. Why? Because it has some videos on the Prophet cartoon story. So, they think their youngsters shouldn't be seeing anything on thevideo site including some of the most wonderful videos that can be informative.

The madness in closing your mind seems empowering in immediate term but is debilitating thereafter.

I am not sure why the Muslims over the centuries do not want to see an image of their Prophet or their God, but I assume its genesis would have been in the negatives of idol worship. And that, in turn, would be in the principle that if you start "capturing" a God in an idol you are basically negating the boundless-ness of God-consciousness.

However, who ever came up with this Islamic formulation did not understand another side of the idol worship story: form and name are immaterial - characteristics that you associate with the form or name are more important.

Another way to look at it: Name and Form are NOT different either. If you have a name for something.. you have already created a form in your mind. Description preceeds a name. Description is the verbal FORM of a physical representation. So if someone has a name for God and asserts that he does not want to have a "physical form" is, politely putting, hallucinating!

Then, does form - idol, painting or just a name or description matter? Our thoughts have already restricted the "God" in any case.

In fact, a person who creates an Idol and worships the deity by nevertheless saying that notwithstanding the restrictions of my small mind - You are boundless and Infinite - is probably more honest in his acceptance of an Infinite God than a person who tries his best to restrict that Infinite Entity by ascribing motives to "His" actions and extrapolating to "Him" the weaknesses of a human mind and still seeking to destroy the idols with a vengeance!

At least the Idol Worshipper who - mindfully - interacts with his God by ascribing Infiniteness is pointing to the obvious problem that human existence brings along - we cannot possibly "imagine" Infinity" in the real sense. He is admitting it to start off with but has found a "workaround".

Of course, the issue occurs when this workaround becomes the sine qua non of holiness and God realization.

But this is the problem with religion, priests, prophets and saints. They come up with "Philosophies for Dummies" series by trying to come up with simplified stuff and that simplification, instead of being "cues" becomes THE reality for the followers. So, while the beginnings of "not recommending" Idol Worship were probably more spiritual in intent, banning it and being fanatic about such a ban took on a decidedly superstitious route.

Similarly on the other hand, using an idol for a concentrated session of meditation may be extremely helpful, while you chant - knowingfully - verses describing the infiniteness of the entity's reality; but restricting the same entity to just that idol can be very debilitating and another route to superstition.

Therefore, in my book, both are superstitions - unmindful Idol Worship and Fanatical opposition to it.

A fanatical and a restless mind can never be at peace with itself or be one with the infinite. A mind that has an ideal or a belief to live upto has to constantly measure itself against the pole of an arbitrary prescription as opposed to the boundless-ness of the Infinite. That noise of constant, restrictive and useless evaluation creates fanaticism and restlessness taking the person FAR away from where the Truth really lies.

China Wants to Repress Olympic Athletes

arZan — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:53:53 EST

China is asking all athletes of all nations to sign a contract that bans them from making political statements against China, or they will not be allowed to travel to China this summer.

The Daily Mail reports…

British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China’s appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing.

The move – which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest.

In short, China is forcing athletes to sign a contract barring them from speaking against the country or else they won’t be allowed to Beijing and thus able to compete in the Olympics.

“The move – which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest.”

This is chilling sinister stuff the likes of which the world has not seen in the sporting arena, since the Hitler Games of 1936. China has been a nation thriving on human rights violation, repressions of freedom, illegal occupation of Tibet and now this.

I have always maintained that it is one of the worst diplomatic decisions to award the Olympics to a country like China.

I wonder what India's stand will be with its athletes who represent the country at various sports. I hope that India does not force its athletes to do what the British are asking theirs.

The Illusion of Freedom of Speech

Ledzius — Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:02:02 EST

A 23-year old software engineer from Bangalore, Lakshmana Kailash K was picked up from Bangalore last August, taken all the way to Pune, and put behind bars on charges of having posted on Orkut insulting images of Chhatrapati Shivaji. Despite protesting that he did not know anything about it, he was taken to Pune and thrown into jail, where he spent 50 days with over 200 undertrial prisoners for an offence he did not commit. He was charged under Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code ('deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings'), and Section 67 of the IT Act (publishing 'lascivious material on the Internet'). As it turned out, the IP address was not his, but by the time the police confirmed this and acted on it, he had already spent 50 harrowing days in Yerwada Jail with hardened criminals, lathi beatings, and a bowl which he had to eat out of and use in the toilet as well. Lakshmana, who is currently with his family in Tamil Nadu, says his fight is not over yet. He has slapped a legal notice demanding Rs 20 crore (Rs 200 million) from Bharti Airtel and the Pune police. He said his arrest was based on the Internet Protocol address provided by the telecom service provider Bharti.

Lakshmana says that Bharti Airtel’s CEO in Bangalore, Prem Pradeep, did meet him once after the case was splashed in the media. Pradeep, while empathising with him, insisted that the police were to blame; however, Bharti wished to make amends by offering him a job at Airtel and psychological counselling to help him get over the experience. Lakshmana, turned down both offers and asked if there was any monetary input, to which Pradeep allegedly replied that “financical compensation was a different dimension altogether’’.

If what Lakshmana alleges is true, I have no respect for Airtel's management. Obviously for Airtel honcho, billionaire Sunil Mittal, paying out reparative financial compensation to a customer who had to endure beatings and degrading conditions due to the company's fault is too much of a corporate expense. This only characterizes Mittal as a complete jerk. I sincerely wish Sunil Mittal and Prem Pradeep undergo the same kind of treatment that Lakshmana underwent, if only for a day. And yes, let them be offered some "psychological counselling" at the end of it. But more importantly, I hope Lakshmana receives due compensation for his torment.

But there is a deeper issue here regarding freedom of expression which many people seem to have missed, and not highlighted enough even in many blogs. The whole controversy seemed to revolve around the wrong IP address provided by Airtel and Pune police's negligence in not making sure it was indeed Lakshmana's. In this debate, the nature of the "crime" itself had taken a backseat and hadn't been debated enough.

It seems that the Orkut posting of Chhatrapati Shivaji had caused a minor riot in Pune. So, instead of trying to quell the riot, the Pune police found a scapegoat in some kid in another state and charged him under Section 295A which deals with "deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs". Now, wait a second, how does insulting Chhatrapati Shivaji become "outraging religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs"? Shivaji was a Maratha emperor in recent history. He was a Hindu for sure, but does insulting him then make one guilty of "insulting religious beliefs"? Of course, he was a pride of Marathas and all that, but then doesn't some community or the other hold every king in reverence? If some people over-react to some silly profile on Orkut and start rioting, it is the duty of the police to deal with them and them alone. Even if it means a few deaths in police firing. Those bastards deserve to die anyway, and that would probably teach other goons a lesson that they cannot indiscriminately riot on the slightest pretext of some "hurt sentiments" and get away with it. (Look what's happening now with this Marati versus "North Indian" nonsense going on in Mumbai. Such lawbreakers should be dealt with in the most severe manner, a la Singapore. Instead we have the police harassing innocent people.)

It is plain disappointing that this aspect of the incident got entirely overlooked. Also I haven't heard anything in press reports about what happened to the other three kids who got picked up instead. Were they subjected to the same treatment as Lakshmana? Did they have access to a lawyer? Did they get released on bail? If we ignore these issues, we are party to this sorry state of affairs. Instead of filing PILs over "hurt sentiments", I think someone should file a PIL defending our freedom of speech and sue the Pune police department on behalf of Lakshmana as well as these three kids.

If we let the state get away with this outrage, then be prepared if your own kid gets arrested and gets beaten up in police custody because he had caricatured Shah Rukh Khan wearing a bra, and posted it on some social networking site, and which caused some of his fans to riot in Mumbai. Then you will realise the ramifications of not speaking out against this kind of state coercion today.

Is The Guardian Seeing Pink Elephants?

Aditi Nadkarni — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:20:13 EST

Raised in one of the most liberal environments that a child could ask for, I grew up not being overtly conscious of my religious sensitivities and consider myself quite open to cultural critique. Even now as an immigrant, faced with intensely curious examination, I have always been able to address some of the more blatantly ignorant questions about Hinduism with a calm front, a straight face and the kind of dignity which only tolerance can bestow. Despite my allowances, there are times, I admit, when my undisturbed exterior of leniency leaves me seething from within. In recent times I have finally come to realize when and how my usually libertarian stance towards religious scrutiny takes a sudden curb towards a rigid and unforgiving disposition.

A recent encounter over the internet has caused me to conclude that my own intolerance towards ignorance and disregard for other religions boils over when it is a popular media form that is propagating the balmy inaccuracies and misinformation. Those in media, I firmly believe, should have the sense of responsibility to know the extent of their outreach. Ignorance is bliss for only those who indulge in it. Which makes it inexcusable when a media form chooses to propagate ignorance.

I come out of my two-month hiatus from DC today and step out from under the tightening noose of work schedule to vehemently criticize "an excerpt" by Chris Madigan that appeared in this month's Guardian Unlimited. Following is the discussed abstract that may leave the culturally savvy readers, completely incredulous and the religiously sensitive ones among us foaming at the mouth:

"Ganesh has always been non-Hindus' favourite Hindu deity, as he is most commonly represented in the incarnation of a jolly rotund elephant boy. He is particularly revered by the gay community in Mumbai during his festival in September, because he represents the removal of obstacles – and it's an occasion for them to express themselves as idols are plunged into the sea at Chowpatty beach. Self-expression for gay Mumbai usually comes – as it does at Mardi Gras and Pride parades worldwide - in the form of outrageous outfits and pounding disco. Only here, the pink pop songs are given a Bollywood cover version treatment."

Mr.Madigan has somehow managed to find a connection between Ganesh Chaturthi and get this, homosexuality. Why, you ask? Apparently, Mr.Madigan, inspite of his credentials and extensive travel history, has a relatively narrow outlook when it comes to the use of the color pink. A picture of Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations accompanies this journalistic piece and is titled "The Pink Parade". Now if this casual connection were to be made in context of lets say films such as Pink Panther or Pink Cadillac, we could've all mustered at least a reluctant laugh at the sickeningly stereotypical humor in this association. However, Mr.Madigan chooses to make this far-fetched connection within the context of a Hindu god merely because the deity in question wears colorful garments and a pink crown. Literacy and even education, I now sadly infer, do not confer cultural sensibility. Mind you, I make this statement not against the alleged homosexuality association but in objection to the false and utterly misleading information being peddled in a unnecessary attempt to sell Mumbai's travel potential.

Picking September as the month to travel to Mumbai (Bombay), India, Mr.Madigan, explains how Ganesh Chaturthi is comparable to Mardi Gras and Gay Pride Parades. And yet, apart from the pink turbans and dhotis worn by the beloved Hindu diety, nothing about the religious festivities of Ganesh Chaturthi even remotely approaches the ambiance of a gay pride parade. While the Ganesh Chaturthi festival can be a culturally uplifting and festive experience for any visitor to India, it most definitely does not need to be marketed as a gay pride parade.

Mr.Madigan's ignorance itself is quite disturbing and yet what is even more reprehensible is The Guardian's complete lack of censorship when it comes to a piece that is not just hurtful towards religious sentiments but is deceptive information. Especially since "The Guardian's editorial code" unequivocally states the following:

"A newspaper's primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted."

It is at times such as these that I wonder what role media actually plays in confirming or denouncing our biases, false prejudices and untrue generalizations. If a popular online news source such as the The Guardian can provide a platform for such a grave cultural misrepresentation, one wonders how educational our search engine exploits over the internet truly are.

As for Mr.Madigan, it may be interesting to note that the euphemistic phrase "Seeing pink elephants" describes drunken hallucinations resulting from alcohol withdrawal.