No Comments ye [...]

16 Comments [...]

Add a Comment

Name

[...]

But I have a slightly different take on free speech, especially the type of “free speech” JP is prophesising to defend. If I am sure that my free speech is going to hurt millions of others, it is in my best interest that I try to make it more acceptable, sugar-coat it, make it more diplomatic etc. And in any case I don’t think this was a matter of free speech as much as hate monegering. JP baited Muslims, and stupid radicals(that much I admit,yes, there are many idiots amongsts Muslims) fell for it hook line and sinker. And media loves images of things burning. for eg: read this story. Headline says: “Muslims hold peaceful protests in Europe” and much of articles is about that. But note the image:Burkha-clad women in Pak burning effigy of Danish PM. Many of us when we reflect back on this event after a year, all we’ll remember is those images. The alternate reactions are either not reported or POVed like this case. And that is what makes many people like me flinch.

I also don’t believe the case is as cut and dried as you make out (law of the land within your own borders). Ok, on paper it is. But let’s be practical shall we? I don’t believe I can anymore claim that I am immune to what happens outside my country. eg: Ideally speaking US-politics shd not affect me, but it does. I should not be concerned about NSA wiretapping, but I have to be. That Indian-American guy shouldn’t have been evicted from Bush’s SOTU and grilled for hours, but he was(yes, there were three people arrested). He was not even wearing a T-shirt. And what do we make out of it that the administration had to “apologize”(pseudo IMO) for all three of those? I am not trying to mix issues deflect attention, but making out a case why I won’t delude myself in that line of thinking. Throw this internet thing in the mix as a dessert topping.

Also in your part#1, you wrote:
“Muslims have taken offense because Islam forbids the depiction of Muhammad or Allah.”
Yes Islam forbids depiction of Prophet or Allah but for a reason. And it definitely doesn’t prescribe such a reaction. Many like me have NOT taken offense due to that.
The above statement coming from you assuming that you believe it to be the sole reason(and assuming that you’ve watched those 12 cartoons) makes me a wee bit uncomfortable. But I can totally understand why one would form that opinion. And this is exactly the point I’ve addressed in my post.

Sadly there is only so much time to write a lengthy comment. And I’ve just returned after a gap, so my fingers are not warmed up enough:) And these issues sap up a lot of energy.

For once, may I direct you to my post where I’ve put down an alternative viewpoint. It’s not laid out as good and coherent as your 3-part series but FWIW do read it.

Thanks for writing this.

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/09rang.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

While eroticism is prominent in Hindu mythology and theosophy, depicting Saraswati in the nude is almost random. Among the plethora of Indian godesses and their colorful antics, Saraswati has less than average association with sexuality; mythology regarding her is centered on very different aspects. If Hussain had drawn explicit pictures of Krishna getting it on with his consorts, it wouldn’t have caused a ruckus. Some devout Hindus would have gladly snarfed it up, outrageous price tags and all.

With Ganesha, sandals and toilet seats – there is absolutely no correlation. It reminds me of the museum piece of the cross mounted in a bucket of urine. No art, no iota of meaning.

The depiction of Mohammad in the cartoons touches on two aspects: (1) the Islamic diktat that it is blasphemy to portray the prophet, and (2) the constant, time honored undercurrent of violence. They are both fitting.

No one can deny the second, not even revisionists who would want us to believe that Islam spread peacefully and that Sufism had pacifist roots. Islam has always spread only due to the most extreme violence, coercion, or unfathomable ignorance. So it is indeed apt to depict the stick of dynamite lodged in the turban of the prophet.

Regarding banning the depiction of the prophet itself, Atanu you excellently and rationally argue the necessity for the freedom of such expression in non-Islamic societies. I view it as touching on the same live-wire that the dynamite stick in the turban conveys. You are commanded not to portray the prophet. If you do, then … We only have to look at history to see what has been done to people who have portrayed the prophet in the past. Or the unfortunate few who have made apparent their appreciation of music. Centuries later, their followers do them immensely proud.

The Danish cartoonists could have made their point a little better if they depicted the prophet as an outline or silhouette surrounded by any and all artificats of violence, drawing rightful emphasis that depicting him is itself heresy. To be tackled we all know how.

“Show me one society where speech is proscribed by religious dogma and I will show you a backward underdeveloped society”. Amen. Show me one country that continues to be dangerously backward and underdeveloped, and I will show you the increasingly pernicious influence of a certain monotheistic faith.

I’d like to know your opinion on the M F Hussain and Bharat Mata painting.

Atanu’s response: I think I have addressed that point in this series. But allow me to reiterate. Freedom of expression is paramount. It is non-negotiable. It is not context dependent. Anyone — artist or clutz — is free to express himself in words, pictures, speech, mime, dance, or whatever as is allowed by the law of the land. If the law is restrictive and the people don’t want to be restricted, they have to go change the law.

MF Hussain is free to paint whatever he wants to paint and however ugly his paintings are, it is protected. It is interesting that he would happily paint nude Hindu goddesses but will not paint Islamic icons. Interesting but understandable because if he did the latter, he would be sent to make his maker, as Monty Python would say. Bereft of life, he would rest in peace eternal. All statements to the effect that the artist known as MFH is still a going concern would from that point on become inoperative. He will become a dead artist.

On the other hand Muslims have every right to be offended. Also those who are threatening to kill or actually killing other people in the name of these cartoons are fools. The best way for Islamic countries to “express” their freedom to be offended is through boycotts and suspension of trade and such. I believe that even without any threat of bombing and killing, boycotts and trade suspensions will also make the Europeans “blink”. Fear of “losses” is greater than fear of death.

Then again I feel it would be foolish to make such a big deal over a bunch of cartoons. A few scraps of paper should not harm my faith. But there are those who feel that their faith is deeply offended by this and they all all the right to be offended and “express” that right in every legal way possible. (even if it causes harm in the sense that few Danish people will lose their jobs, companies will suffer losses etc).

Ultimately any freedom has to be used wisely. If I know that my expression of freedom will cause harm to someone then it is my duty to do it in a way which causes no harm or less harm. I see that “lack of wisdom” is more prevalent that “lack of freedom”.

In the current situation however, given that one of the two parties has to blink, I donot doubt that the it will be the European side (same reason you gave: fear of death)!

Points well made though I am sure that there will always be people who just can’t get it. Case in point being a commenter above.

You are welcome to Apratyaksh anytime. Especially, your comments on

http://apratyaksh.blogspot.com/2006/02/complete-apratyaksh-manifesto.html

- Abhinav

But a certain sense of consideration to other people’s sensibilities wouldn’t go amiss. In anyone. When there are a million zillion burning problems to solve, face, handle and just survive, to do things to just provoke a certain religion and its sincere followers shows lack of taste, grace and refinement and kindness / understanding. But then, what do journalists know of these adjectives or their meaning and their import, let alone know how to live these qualities?

Nice fun.