It has now appeared that India has miles to go to claim that it is a liberal democratic country. What better example of the country's liberalism-deficiency can there be than External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's statement in Parliament yesterday that author Taslima Nasreen will be given shelter in India provided the latter refrains from hurting sentiments of people in the country. Stupidity of the statement is self-evident. Taslima is not here in search of a shelter. She had been safely living in Sweden for many years after she went into exile in the face of violent wrath of fundamentalist sections of Muslims in her country, Bangladesh, for writing books critical of Islamic extremism. A Bengali writer, she wants to be closer home and stay in Kolkata. That is just the reason why she has come to India. The rider attached to the minister's assurance, alas, is a threat couched as a piece of nice advice: you will be shown the door unless you behave. Politicians of the Left, the Right and the Centre in India are all identical when it comes to appeasement of violent mobs venting their ire at individual writers, artists and film makers. How unlucky we are that we have allowed the political class to be the sole arbiter to define matters relating to our freedoms! No I am not talking about the freedoms enjoyed by a bunch of thugs led by a legislator to hurl chairs and flower pots at an unarmed author at the Press Club in Hyderabad, a group of goons who attacked art students in the Baroda University or people who virtually hounded out a painter by using weapons of litigation. I wish the country upheld what French writer Voltaire said most succinctly: "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That is liberalism and India is still far away from being in a position to accept this basic principle of democracy. Democracy is not merely about holding periodical elections. It is also about building institutions and strengthening civil society to ensure individual's rights. Three cheers for our democracy!
6 comments:
I have not read any works of Taslima Nasreen but lam sure that her writings are authentic enough to rattle the fundamentalists.
About M.F.Hussain l have this to say. I had a glimpse off a painting oh his wher Sita is shown to be masturbating using Hanuman's tail. Now is that obscene or is that also part of freedom of speech?
I haven't seen this particular work of M.F. Hussain. But I will defend his right to freedom of expression as strongly as I do that of Taslima Nasreen or Salman Rushdie. Your take on the `obscene' in Hussain's painting begs a few counter questions: Where does decency in art and literature end and where does it begin? Who will draw the line that divides the decent and the obscene? Isn't Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita obscene? Is D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover okey for someone obsessed with sexual morality? What about erotic sculptures of Kajuraho? We should not pick and choose one example of freedom of expression as good and another as damn bad. Some writers and artists may be more provocative than others. And you can always criticise tham. But it is a different thing when you kill them or banish them or harass them.
Khajuraho happened in the Khajuraho era. Let us leave it to historians and heritage. I have seen Khajuraho, they are beautiful and shocking at the same time.
M.F.Hussain treats every goddess with disdain, whereas his horses were magnificient. And none of those horses were painted in any obscene manner -- oops I am sorry there is no the obscenity does not apply to animals. Let Hussain draw the Prophet making love to his 13 year old wife and then we shall see some action.
You perhaps forget the dictum that freedom is all fine but it should end at the tip of another's nose. All said and done, playing with goddesses of a religion, not yours should be done with more finesse. Do you by the way see any artistic beauty in a private act like masturbation? Is that the only subject left for Hussain to paint? Would you like seeing your sister or any female relative portrayed in this manner? I am sure the answer is a big NO. Tell you what, Hussain was definitely inviting the wrath of a religion that is acclaimed as the most tolerant one on this planet. Hussain must have been fulfilling his sexual fantasies thro the portrayal of Sita, Laxmi and Saraswati. Perhaps he had reached a stage where only the likes of Sita in an obscene pose could have satisfied him!
As for Lolita and Lady Chatterly's Lover, show me the obscenity and I am willing to disown them from my favorite list!
Fine, you made a very valid point on the possible consequences of portraying Mohammad and his 13-year old wife. We have seen the consequences in the case of Rushdie. Intolerance, of late, has become the hallmark of Muslims. Voices of reason may be a minority among Muslims, but they are slowly emerging. Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, Taslima, Irshad Manji, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan etc. represent this emerging sceptic stream in Islam. You are perfectly entitled to your belief that Hinduism is `acclaimed as the most tolerant one on this planet.' I have a bigger idea of our planet where there are more tolerant but numerically smaller faiths such as Baha'i movement and Zen Buddhism which have no fanatic elements who will be out there to demolish mosques, hijack planes to hit into buildings and issue fatwas of death against authors. My question is why you defend actions that will tranform your religion into an intolerant one. I refuse to accept your concluding challenge simply because I don't think Lolita and Lady Chatterley's Lover are obscene. For me, love, passion, sex, incest and yes masturbation are all part of human experience, are they not? My point was that there were people, and still are, who will treat the two books obscene and scandalous. D.H. Lawrence even face obscene trial when his book was published.
In the list of voices of reason, you forgot to mention Shabana Azmi. Faroukh Sheikh and Javed Akhtar. All are film personalities.
Now the question about where to draw the line between artistic freedom and obscenity - it has no valid answer. Simply because the line between sanity and insanity can also be contested. Well, you just know what is obscene and what is not by looking at it or reading it. Only emotional intelligence is needed to know the difference.
You mentioned love, passion, sex etc in the same breath as incest. I object. In that case rape also should have been included in that list. Any thinking adult would agree that incest is pure rape in a much more convenient mode.
The difference in our perception is due to the difference in our gender. Recently a survey shown on CNN/IBN claimed that almost 70 percent of female children were molested and some of them bore the scars of these traumas for a lifetime. A woman NGO is working on rehabilitating those who dare to come out of hiding and face the world squarely. In fact, if I were near to her, I would join the crusade.
As for Lolita, Humbert is not her biological father and Lady Chatterly and her lover are two consenting adults. D.H.Lawrence is so lyrical as to transport you to another world where nothing else except passion and love matter.
Again, each age has its mores. Till recently upper caste Hindus married their cousins. The tag, Murappennu was idealised to such an extent that if you did not have a Murachekan, you would probably remain a spinster. Much sexual exploitation happened in the dark corners of old nalukettus. I have portrayed some of them in my novel.
As regards Buddhism and Bahaism - hey come on, they are fit only for sadhus and saints. I have been to the Lotus Temple in Delhi and stood around solemnly during prayers. That kind of traquility can be had even in your kitchen garden.Any religion should be vibrant enough to attract devotees. I would even suggest Mata Amritanadamayi(yech!!) or Saibaba(more yech--)The best religion of all times is the one called Homo Sapiens! Long live Humanism.
You said it. Humanism is the best religion that doesn't preach violence because it does'nt have a competing religion to fight against. Those of us having faith in that religion can find peace and happiness while doing simple things like watching a flower, sitting in a place alone thinking thoughts that come unsolicited, talking to a close friend, reading books, blogging our views, expressing our differences and...I cannot agree with you more on that.
Your view on my inclusion of incest in the list that includes love, passion etc. is debatable. I don't think that incest and rape are conceptually identical. Dictionary meanings of incest and rape will show you the differnece.
1.in·cest [ín sèst]noun - sex between close relatives: sexual activity between two people who are considered, for moral and genetic reasons, too closely related to have such a relationship.
Incest is regarded as a serious taboo in almost every society, although cultures differ as to the extent to which marriages are allowed between relatives.
(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)
2. rape [rayp]noun (plural rapes)-
(criminology) forcing of somebody into sex: the crime of forcing somebody to have sex.
(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)
Rape is a crime while incest is about forbidden relationship which can be a theme of art and literature.
Post a Comment