Just when I uploaded that post defining an Indian Liberal do I read this rather puzzling piece on India Uncut.
Amit Varma pushes his political correctness to a new pitch. If this piece were written by an ultra-secularist, it would definitely be titled Hindu Fascism in Baroda or its other infinite equivalents.
It is easy to chuck words like Fascism without thinking about its relevance in the Indian context. Amit unthinkingly links to the Wikipedia definition of the term with great approbation. I can show how every single criterion applied to define Fascism there is inapplicable, misleading, and even downright false in the context of Hindu nationalism. This definition is exactly the stock-in-trade of our more popular Hindu baiters.
Not that I condone violence in any form. I’m more concerned about the paintings themselves: what exactly did Chandramohan paint that provoked violence? I cannot provide a fair commentary unless I see the other side, which is in such cases, invariably concealed.
Millions of Hindus find no offense with, or vulgarity in Hindu erotic art. Personally, I relish the whole ambit–painting, sculpture, and (erotic) literature. Yet I despise M.F. Hussain for reasons explained elsewhere in this blog. In a line, Hussain’s “art” is designed to offend. Perhaps Chandramohan’s wasn’t.
Questions for Amit:
1. You take issue with Neeraj Jain & company’s goondaism and I fully support you. That was their way of expressing dissent and it’s entirely disgraceful. But–do you take exception to the violence on the grounds of its unacceptability in civil society, or do you uphold Chandramohan’s provocative paintings in the name of free expression?
2. Did you actually see those paintings (scanned/photographed versions) before writing your piece? If yes, can you forward them/post them on your blog?
3. Why did these paintings provoke Neeraj et al while they’re perfectly okay with say, Khajuraho, Hindu erotic miniatures, and the Kama Sutra?
Tags: Commentary, Discussions, Indian Politics, Media Watch, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture, Weblogs
On 05.15.07 vatsan says:
http://chenthil.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-dare-you-thinkwritedraw-about-gods.html
I thought erotica was amongst the USPs of hinduism
On 05.15.07 Atlantean says:
Vatsan, there’s nothing wrong with erotic art. I love erotic art. But what is being passed off as art by the likes of M. F. Hussain and his comrades in the media and civil society is mischievous art, not erotic art.
On 05.15.07 kaunteya says:
Sandeep,
The I-KEPT-SILENT-WHEN-DA-VINCI-CODE-WAS-BANNED-AND-DANISH-CARTOONIST-WAS-KILLED brigade has suddenly woken up. I did not see the “artists” lined up on the Gateway of India to protest against the UP minister’s bounty to knock off Danish cartoonist.
These secular artists know, they don’t have to fear Hindu Fundamentalists. Hindu Fundamentalists don’t carry AK-47. They write blogs. They are apologetic. They argue. They reason. That’s the only weapon Hindu fundamentalists have.
Christians and Mohamedians don’t do such things. They are neither apologetic nor do they argue or reason. They simply act. Ask Rajshekhar Reddy and Javed Akhtar.
On 05.15.07 vatsan says:
@Atlantean
Thts a matter of perception, lets give him space, if it really isnt good stuff it wont be bought. Why attack him and give him importance?
On 05.15.07 Atlantean says:
Sandeep, Amit Varma is a guy whose views are usually radical and quite cynical. It’s no suprise that he uses the word fascism freely. But atleast, he has the same standards for everyone. During Cartoon Rage, he was more or less on our side. Coming to the Baroda issue, I find it interesting that no newspaper has published any of the pictures of that art. I want to ask, if there was nothing wrong with that particular piece of art, then why wasnt it published? Some of M. F Hussain’s paintings were published but not this painting. Why? I also want to ask where did all this love for freedom of expression go when the AP govt. Banned the Da Vinci Code, during Cartoon Rage and Pope Rage? The movie and the Danish cartoons were also forms of art. If art is not supposed to care for religious sensibilities, then why did everyone from Mullah Mulayam to N. Ram argue that the cartoons were offensive because they hurt the religious sensibilities of the Muslims? Why was there no outcry when Samuel Reddy banned the Da Vinci Code, as much as was there when Parzania (which was not actually banned) was not being screened in Gujarat?
On 05.15.07 Atlantean says:
And hey, does anyone remember that we have the dubious distinction of being the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s brilliant Satanic Verses? I was a kid then, so I dont know if there was any media outcry against that murderous onslaught on freedom of expression. People who know better can enlighten me on this. Frankly speaking, if the media were not choosy, highly selective and biased, I’d have taken their latest outcry seriously. But what you find is that they are often quite biased and highly selective. Somewhere down the line, you realize that all these self appointed guardians of secularism do whatever they do not because their grievances are genuine (if they were, they would’ve applied the same standards to everybody) but because of ideological or political reasons. Which is why when I see a headline screaming “fascism” or “intolerance” these days, I yawn and change to Cartoon Network.
On 05.15.07 Atlantean says:
Vatsan, that’s right. Good policy
On 05.15.07 MadMan says:
or do you uphold Chandramohan’s provocative paintings in the name of free expression?
I think this is quite obvious in his post.
Have you read this?
On 05.15.07 MadMan says:
In a line, Hussain’s “art” is designed to offend.
Even if this is true, so what?
On 05.16.07 socal says:
>>>In a line, Hussain’s “art” is designed to offend
“Even if this is true, so what?”
Which means he is deliberately trying to disturb communal harmony, which is a crime as per the Indian constitution and the SC that lefties have so much faith in. Now would any leftist worth his salt support intentional inciting communal discord? What’s good for goose in Taslima’s book, Nathuram Godse play, Meenaxi by the same Mo Fo Ho(ssain), Da Vinci Code and most famously the Danish cartoons should be good for the MS Univ gandeer too! Why are we seeing such transparent double standards only now? The protesters’ seriousness is seriously questionable. And I am afraid no amt. of doublespeak can gloss it over anymore.
On 05.16.07 socal says:
Mo Fo Ho - Mockbull Foada Hossain
I am taking liberties with spelling as the leftists usually do. I hope this diversity of interpretation is supported by multi-culti crowd and not frowned up as fascistic or distasteful since taste in art is an individual matter which needs to be upheld.
On 05.16.07 amit varma says:
Sandeep, answers below.
You ask, “do you take exception to the violence on the grounds of its unacceptability in civil society, or do you uphold Chandramohan’s provocative paintings in the name of free expression?”
My answer: Both.
You ask: “Did you actually see those paintings (scanned/photographed versions) before writing your piece?”
My answer: No, and it is irrelevant. Even if they were as crass and offensive as possible, they do not justify violence.
You ask: “Why did these paintings provoke Neeraj et al while they’re perfectly okay with say, Khajuraho, Hindu erotic miniatures, and the Kama Sutra?”
My answer: Why are you asking me this? Ask Neeraj?
I am, by the way, not saying that Neeraj Jain should not be offended. He has every right to feel outraged and to express his outrage, as do you. But not with violence. Everything is potentially offensive, and if everyone reacts to being offended with violence, there will be no free speech left. Jain would probably find my blog equally offensive: are you saying that you will support his beating me up and shutting down my blog?
Also, you may wish to note that I also spoke out in favour of the Danish cartoonists, and also against the Christian groups that demanded the ban on the da Vinci code. My support of free speech does not depend on the religion of the thugs in question.
On 05.16.07 MadMan says:
Which means he is deliberately trying to disturb communal harmony, which is a crime as per the Indian constitution and the SC that lefties have so much faith in. Now would any leftist worth his salt support intentional inciting communal discord?
Goodness, did you just call me a “leftist”?
ROFLMAO.
On 05.16.07 socal says:
>>>Goodness, did you just call me a “leftist”?
Certainly not. Haven’t seen you here before as much. Excuse me if I may, but what’s the joke about that makes you ROTFLMAO?
On 05.16.07 socal says:
Ashok Malik has a got a complete acct. of the whole episode.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
On 05.16.07 Niketan says:
was a kid then, so I dont know if there was any media outcry against that murderous onslaught on freedom of expression.
There were only Op-eds criticizing the restriction of Freedom of expression but no outcry. Similar to how Amit and others defend the Danish cartoons and write against Christian groups demanding the ban on the Da Vinci code. An outcry is what is going on now against the events in Baroda with Amit and the others holding All-India protests and labelling these events as Fascism
But question to Amit - Why the All India protests against this and labelling this event as Fascism? I do not recall any All India protests against what happened in Hyderabad regards Da Vinci code or against the Danish cartoons protest - even to the extent that a UP minister placed a bounty on the cartoonist.
On 05.16.07 Tushar Saxena says:
Im sorry Sandeep but Ill have to go with Amit on this even though I entirely disagree with his terminology - “Hindu fascism.” You simply cannot ever, EVER judge something to be “designed to offend” and hence eligible to be banned in a free society. That would be like our friend Amardeep Singh. It is either all or nothing. No middle ground.
Solution is extremely simple yet politically difficult in our country –> protect exhibitions of, display of art denigrating Islam crassly….give equal protection to artists insulting Hindu gods and goddesses.
You can be outraged all you want. Write op-eds, etc. What we cannot do is be hypocritical. John Stuart Mill and John Locke and company have resolved this debate ages ago.
On 05.16.07 Tushar Saxena says:
Of course, if I may add (its implicit already!) that such things are NOT enforced as communalism is only crass propaganda targeting Hindu society which is why the hysteria can be entirely dismissed. I actually agree with what Nitin has coined “competitive intolerance.” This entirely explains Hindu behaviour. If Muslim threats were not rewarded by the ’secular’ state, Hindus would have no incentive to demand the same ‘benefits’ by engaging in similar behaviour.
And its obvious Hindus dont do this anywhere else, whereas the Prophet’s followers are dutifully offended everywhere 24/7.
On 05.16.07 vayuputra says:
I would request amit verma to visit the following blog wherein the hindu fu
indamentalist has given the true story along with the photograph of jesus christ penis! which started rage in Baroda by the psuedos.
cbcnn.blogspot.com
On 05.16.07 Barbarindian says:
A decapitation of an offender for insulting their religion is long overdue to the Hindus.
On 05.16.07 Barbarindian says:
Re. competitive intolerance:
It is no longer a competition, perhaps it ceased to be in 1950. The original idea of a secular country was that all religions would be subordinate to the state and accept the state as the ultimate arbitrageur.
What we see now is a set of beliefs and religions masquerading as the state and bullying the others.
On 05.16.07 Ravindra says:
Sandeep,
Was watching a Times Now (as usual one sided) discussion on the topic. It had Dolly Thakore, Anil Dharker, some american-accented painter and Akhil Sibal (MF Husain’s lawyer) and of course Arnab Goswami (who was supposed to be the anchor) all on one side. And it had Neeraj Jain who was hopelessly outnumbered, bravely defending his stand!
One of the points raised by Neeraj was quite relevant, and which has not been highlighted by the media.
While everyone screams that the exhibition was a “private” affair, Neeraj Jain showed an advt in the Ahmedabad Times which gave details and invited everyone to this exhibition.
Secondly, when Mini Menon (the other anchor, who was making a vain attempt to be neutral) challenged Anil Dharker, about his absence on the scene when the Danish cartoon controversy erupted, Dharker said that in the cartoon case, it was certainly provocative.
When Mini asked Dolly Thakore who was to decide what is provocative and what is not, she just skirted the question.
And Arnab kept screaming at Neeraj Jain and joined hands with the others who kept calling the VHP/BJP as fringe elements and goons!
One more example of the media’s completely biased coverage!
On 05.16.07 Ravindra says:
@ Amil Varma:
“I am, by the way, not saying that Neeraj Jain should not be offended. He has every right to feel outraged and to express his outrage, as do you. But not with violence.”
How else? By burning candles outside the exhibition hall? Do you think your media would have paid any attention to it? Do you think the objective of stopping the exhibition would have been achieved?
In one of the many TV discussions, Alyque Padamsee (no prizes for guessing which side he was on) mentioned “You can burn as many effigies as you want, but dont go around beating people”
Now when the Richard Gere controversy erupted and his effigy was being burnt, it was these same people who still had a problem then?
As regards the Husain issue, I have already given a link in the earlier post here about how Husain has been a hypocrite. I give the link once again. Read the last article on that page. It shows how Husain paints Hindu goddesses nude, but doesnt extend the same creativity while painting members of his family or icons representing other religions.
http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/campaigns/national/mfhussain-campaign/
On 05.16.07 Niketan says:
Frankly speaking, if the media were not choosy, highly selective and biased, I’d have taken their latest outcry seriously. But what you find is that they are often quite biased and highly selective. Somewhere down the line, you realize that all these self appointed guardians of secularism do whatever they do not because their grievances are genuine (if they were, they would’ve applied the same standards to everybody) but because of ideological or political reasons.
If Muslim threats were not rewarded by the ’secular’ state, Hindus would have no incentive to demand the same ‘benefits’ by engaging in similar behaviour.
Atlantean and Tushar - You guys are late entrants at the secular and upholder of freedom of expression parties.
These charades have been going on for almost 2 decades.
Let alone Anil Dharker even N Ram, Shabana and the usual suspects have labelled the Danish cartoons as being offensive.
On 05.16.07 Tushar Saxena says:
Some people simply do not get it.
Yes, the pseudo secs are hypocrites.
Yes, Muslims have a huge monopoly in all things “offensive” to them.
Yes, everyone has the right to protest in the streets, write op-eds, whatever.
NO, harassing, beating and censorship should be unacceptable (NO MATTER WHOOO IT OFFENDS)
NO, simply because the media and pseudo secs are hypocrites, does not justify this blatant mafia-like intimidation.
The answer is extremely simple: an American style First Amendment. All you offended people can shut up and follow some logical trails. That is all Amit is saying (bar his ‘Fascism’ comment which incidentally only came up when hindus were doing what muslims always do)
CLARITY PLEASE!
On 05.16.07 MadMan says:
The answer is extremely simple: an American style First Amendment.
Tushar, finally someone who gets the point.
Scrap the entire Section 295(a), as Amit says here.
(socal, I was ROFLMAO because I’m libertarian, which is pretty darn far from being leftist.)
On 05.16.07 Gaurav says:
(socal, I was ROFLMAO because I’m libertarian, which is pretty darn far from being leftist)
Depend on point of view….
On 05.16.07 amit varma says:
Niketan, you write: “But question to Amit - Why the All India protests against this and labelling this event as Fascism? I do not recall any All India protests against what happened in Hyderabad regards Da Vinci code or against the Danish cartoons protest - even to the extent that a UP minister placed a bounty on the cartoonist.”
I can only speak for myself. I protested against those who had a problem with the Danish cartoons, against the Christian groups who wanted the Da Vinci Code banned and so on in the only way I know how — by blogging and writing about it. I haven’t organised these protests, merely joined them since they happened to be there. If I had the resources to organise protests, I would do so for each of these events. Sadly I don’t, and all I can do is write, as I have on each of these instances. I do wish that those who stand for freedom of expression now do so on every such instance, but that is not in my hands.
Vayuputra, I visited the site you speak of. I’d pay more credence to Neeraj Jain’s own utterances on why he did what he did.
Ravindra, Dharkar actually said that? That’s inconsistent then. If you stand up for the artist here on the grounds of freedom of speech, you must also stand up for the Danish cartoonists — and I do for both.
As for whether the exhibition was public or not, it shouldn’t make a difference, in my view. Even if it was public, I support the artist’s right to express himself.
Also, you ask how Neeraj Jain should have expressed his outrage. Exactly as I am now, or how the peaceful protesters did across the country on Monday. He has no business “stopping the exhibition,” just as naxalites would have no business stopping a peaceful meeting of the RSS.
And really, I can’t speak for Padamsee or anyone else. My stand on this has been consistent throughout, and you are, of course, free to disagree with it. But I will speak only for myself.
On 05.16.07 amit varma says:
And Tushar, thanks, good points.
On 05.16.07 Atlantean says:
Tushar, do not think for a moment that I support or sympathize with the violence that is unleashed in the name of hurting religious sensibilities, in all cases, including the Danish cartoons, the da Vinci code and Hussain’s art. Note that our criticism is aimed at the media, the “intellectuals” and their hypocritical stands. People who speak and write against M. F. Hussain also have the same right to expression that M. F. Hussain has. But everybody who doesnt have a positive opinion of his art is summarily branded communal, fascist, Hindutvawadi, intolerant and all other names. On the contrary, anybody who doesnt have a negative opinion of the Danish cartoons or the Pope’s statements on the Prophet is called an antiMuslim bigot and hatemonger. These double standards are unacceptable to me. And so, since I believe in the power of free speech (American style) and the counterproductive nature of violence and intimidation, I write blogs and opinions instead of going around beating people up and threatening them. The least the media and the “intellectuals” can do is not calling me a bigot or a fascist or an intolerant person. By calling me those names, they seek to stifle my opinion, which actually is an indirect attack on my right to express freely without fear of defamation. Hope that clears things up
On 05.16.07 prudent indian says:
Sandeep,I have the picture. See it here.
Is Protesting Against This Is “Hindu” Fascism?
PI.
On 05.16.07 socal says:
It is a publicly funded university. The affair was not private as is claimed. And anyway, the premises of publicly funded university are always open to people– they should be, so the reasoning that’s being forwarded is frivolous.
The media should print pictures of the paintings if they don’t deem them offensive or uphold freedom of speech and let people judge for themselves.
I have a suggestion for Jain and co.- paste lifesize posters of Danish cartoons outside media houses and see what happens. They might try to rent a billboard next to the offices of the Hindu and sundry media and intellectuals and see the magic unfold. There really is no need for violence.
A better one yet- buy advertising space in newspapers supporting free speech and give centrespace to one of those Danish cartoons. Try to organize a free-for-all open-space play on Nathuram Godse on public grounds or arrange public reading of select passages from Satanic verses with a huge cutout of Salman Rushdie for inspiration placed tactically. Don’t go to the media, take it to the public including those who the media listens to- yes, I mean a particular community.
On 05.16.07 socal says:
>>>Ravindra, Dharkar actually said that? That’s inconsistent then.
Hahaha…disbelief followed by uncharacteristically pale understatement. I beats me why these otherwise loquacious folks turn laconic at the slightest hint of potential trouble. This Varma guy sure knows “which side his bread his buttered” to quote ot from that other thread.
>>>just as naxalites would have no business stopping a peaceful meeting of the RSS.
Ahh..the itch to somehow utter RSS. Couldn’t help it huh?
On 05.16.07 Atlantean says:
One more thing, different people have different opinions of art. Some feel that a piece of art is great, some will say it sucks. Everybody is free to have his or her opinion. But when I say Hussain’s art sucks big time, it doesnt automatically become support for violent attacks on his art. This distinction has to be made by those who are ever eager to apply their favourite words to those who have a negative opinion of that piece of art. Most of the time, they fail to make that distinction.
On 05.16.07 Mayuresh Gaikwad says:
Enough has been written on this matter, yet here is my rupee (2 cents = 1 rupee [:)] )
I suport the American way - i.e. complete freedom of expression. I should have a RIGHT to offend any person on the face of this planet, as long as I do so without inflicting harm to him. Similarly, he has the right to protest against me by publishing infinite op-eds, burning eggifies, etc. But the moment he harms me (read slaps me/ restricts my movement/ stones my house/ etc.), he should be imediately booked and put up to trial.
Chandramohan painted some offensive pictures. He should have every right to paint it as offensively as he wishes. MFHussain painted some nude Hindu Gods and Godesses which were extremely offensive to some Hindus. I personally find them offensive and in bad taste, yet I will defend to death, his right to paint them.
Similarly, I should have every right to paint Mary copulating with some guy to get pregnant and give birth to Jesus. Better still, I should have every right to paint Mary copulating with Jesus while being simultaneously serviced by some farm bulls and be shown as a sex-maniac in my picture. And the government should be willing to put the entire police force and army to protect me from harm if need be.
I also have a similar right to offend all the 1 billion Muslims in the world by painting a man pissing on the Kaabah in Mecca. I also want to paint Mohammed trying unsuccessfully to get an erection while his wife Ayesha is being serviced by a camel.
Similarly, every person in this world has a right to offend me by painting any of my kith and kin nude and being serviced by any animal of their choice.
I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO OFFEND ANYONE I WISH WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT ANYTHING
I firmly believe that when only I get this right to offend, will I truly have the right of “Freedom of Expression”. And there should be no exceptions or amendments to this
Unfortunately, I do not see this law coming to our country anytime soon. SO, what is the next best option? ——– Any answers??? Help me brainstorm this scenario
On 05.16.07 Gaurav says:
Mr Mayuresh Ashok Gaikwaad, you always had a vivid imagination, now it is turning morbid
On 05.16.07 Tushar Saxena says:
Yeah Atlantean, and I dont know why youre addressing me, what you said is precisely what I was saying. Hence the need for clarity, which sandeep failed to follow in this case (hes almost always very clear). He should have stated his support for a First Amendment (if he does support it that is). And thats all! Ive already said twice now that yes the hypocrisy stinks, the media stinks, the pseudo secs stink, everyone stinks and are completely anti-Hindu. Of course they are, and hence they will seize upon any and every opportunity to denigrate it. We must not provide any ammunition to them by defending a-holes like Neeraj simply because the media-combine does not offer the other side of the story. That is pretty much like Jihadis complaining about Israel killing civilians and so them targetting civilians is okay. (its called Tu-quoque).
Till then, lets pray thus:
Oh Lord, Deliver unto us our own Thomas Jefferson
On 05.16.07 Mayuresh Gaikwad says:
Hmmm, Gaurav, I think I should start painting now
I am sure the psuedo-secs would be willing to pay me a ton for my raunchy creations
On a separate note, have we met? Please reveal your full name
On 05.16.07 Atlantean says:
Mayuresh, that’s cool
I always wanted to paint 54 year old Prophet Muhammad expressing his love and sympathy, sanctioned by Allah the most Merciful, to 9 yr. old Aisha. It would make for a great painting, a great piece of art. In the painting, Muhammad’s erect phallus signifies his moral uprighteousness. Pointing towards the sky, it signifies the Prophet’s single minded devotion to Allah subhanu wat’ala. It’s size, length and width also signify the strength of the Prophet’s belief in Allah. Watching the strength of the Prophet’s belief in Allah, Aisha proclaims with great pride “Allah O Akbar! Allah O Akbar!” Coming soon… Only in Art Exhibitions… Protection of right to expression sought from the state… publicity and moral support expected from the media if there are any attacks by Muslim extremist groups against me or the exhibition… Condemnation of such attacks expected from civil society, artists and intellectuals.
On 05.16.07 nkota says:
@Sandeep
look what the “wise” professor says
http://nanopolitan.blogspot.com/2007/05/outrage-at-ms-university-baroda.html
“chauvinistic goons”,
On 05.16.07 Sandeep says:
Wow!
Never expected this thing to attract this many comments. Unfortunately, I have a deadline hanging on my head. More later.
I *glanced* thru Amit’s responses. I promise to revert, Amit. Thanks.
On 05.16.07 Bombat Flyer says:
Amit Varma is the blogger who inadvertently leaked the fact the AID was funding DYFI, and wanted people to believe that DYFI, the storm troopers of the CPM, is just another boy scouts organization.
When this was used against AID, like a seasoned liar he retracted his earlier statement.
So this selective labeling of some organizations as fascist is not really surprising.
On 05.16.07 Bombat Flyer says:
Have the sickular media or its champions told their audience what the paintings showed?
Last time I checked except for Ashok Malik NO ONE as said what the paintings showed. Ashok Malik correctly points out that the sickular media has censored itself.
The self censorship shows the insecurity of the sickularists, they are afraid of losing whatever public sympathy they have if the fact becomes widely known.
If people think that Hindutva “fascists” attacked “art”, they might support the sickularists, but if people know that the “art” showed a child pushing its way out of a woman’s vagina and was titled “Durga Mata” they will move away. Moreover, such “art” was exhibited in a public place.
So people will have to be kept in ignorance, and told that “art” was attacked.
On 05.16.07 Gaurav Sabnis says:
Sandeep, Atlantean, etc.
My opinion on this matter is the same as madman, mayuresh etc. Complete freedom of speech.
Yes, I agree there is a definite appeasement-ist bias about the outrage. When muslims are offended, the matter is treated with kid gloves. I vehemently support the danish cartoonist because the cartoons were meant to be provocative and a statement. A statement which would go - “There are no holy cows. Everyone can be and is insulted. We can and do insult jesus and mary. And we will insult mohammad. because for us freedom of expression is paramount”.
I agree that in India, there is a double standard. Satanic verses was banned as were 2 of Taslima’s books. And you guys are right in expressing outrage against it.
However, you need to be careful in choosing whom to attack and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The media, Mulayam, communists and bloggers are not one entity. Treat them separately, on a case-by-case basis. The media and politicians are biased. But that does not mean you lump together with them bloggers like Amit or Madman who are equally critical of all suppression of free speech.
Secondly, the approach of you guys seems to be - if Muslims can get offended and raise hell over it, even Hindus should be able to. Prima facie, this argument seems valid. But this is an excellent time to remember the “eye for an eye makes everyone blind” adage.
If we keep up the “competitive intolerence” as nitin calls it, we will end up in a really sorry shape.
So I would suggest denounce Neeraj Jain and those who vandalise Hussain’s exhibitions. Instead, do what the Danish newspaper did. Or even what the RSS did in Delhi once. They were distributing free copies of the satanic verses. i think that is an excellent move.
So the argument should not go - “If muslims can go on a rampage, so should hindus”. Instead it should go - “If Hussain can paint Hindu goddesses the way he wants, we should have a right to paint/write about islam and christianity the way we want”.
On 05.16.07 7*6 says:
A kid is typically not aware of things around it.
An adoloscent has an emerging awareness, and throws tantrums.
An adult is supposed to be more aware, and have more well-defined moral ideals.
I can’t help but feel that it is important for India to go through this “adolescence” process.
Technology and individualism fueled by technology are recent additions to the Indian psyche, and libertarians having read a couple of books and articles cannot demand an immediate conversion of national psyche rooted in communitarianism.
It is not even *advisable* to demand an immediate change because that would be unstable.
But their fervor is in turn required for any change, for the adolescent to grow as it were.
I realize I’ve pissed off both camps here, disparaging libertarian sociological-naivete, and those furiously upholding the uprightness of the Indian psyche.
If it helps, I’ve also avered that both of you are required for India to grow.
On 05.16.07 7*6 says:
I should add, in defense of the “Hindu Fascist” side, that I wouldn’t even want to live in a place with a sole focus on individualism.
Free speech is useful only when there are sufficient societal disincentives against hateful and overly offensive speech. Those bringing up the US should note what happened to Don Imus, the radio show host. There is a lot of speech with stupendously high societal disincentives in the US.
Which is why it is important for the national pysche to grow and incorporate individualism slowly and only in the presence of a strong conservative and moral/communitarian “police” as it were. This would make the nation a more pleasant place to live for all.
On 05.16.07 Nanda Kishore says:
Just because the media, public insitutions or certain intellectuals/ideologues have shown a consistent bias, the likes of Neeraj Jain are justified? Because people feel frustrated at their inability to counter the leftist propaganda, they resort to defending people like Neeraj Jain who value political power and nothing else.
Agree with Tushar, Nitin’s competitive intolerance is definitely appropriate in the context.
Barbarindian, you will be a proud Hindu I’m sure when that ‘long overdue’ beheading happens.
This kind of nonsense serves one and only one purpose - that of Neeraj Jain. We can all be naive and dance along or call BS. Hindu way of life doesn’t need self-serving idiots to protect it.
On 05.16.07 Nanda Kishore says:
what exactly did Chandramohan paint that provoked violence?
Way too easy for some people to “be provoked”. If you’re itching for a fight, you can be provoked by anything.
On 05.16.07 socal says:
Mayuresh,
I have another idea for you. How about an exhibition about Sonia’s “European roots” where certain body hair will serve as an allegory in various cases, in highly fantacized positions. I know Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson will suport your right but unfortunately the exhibition has to be in India where we only have tinpot pan-chewing jokersons masquerading as free-speech commandos.
Aside, Hindu orgs should up their ante and start distributing the Danes Mo cartoons with apologizes to Muslim brethern. Request Muslims to whisper in secularist ears or else the cartoons will start appearing on mosque walls. This is the best time to make it into a full showdown since the cartoon flipflop of the media is still fresh in public minds. Carpe Diem!
On 05.16.07 socal says:
“what exactly did Chandramohan paint that provoked violence?”
One picture is here-
http://cbcnn.blogspot.com/2007/05/christian-aggression-labelled-hindu.html
It is a painting of christ with a penis hanging, and apparently semen/piss (pick yours) falling in the commode lying beneath.
The another pic(I couldn’t find it)as reported in pioneer, is of Goddess (labelled Durga)giving birth with her vagina wide open and shown as such.
I must agree, Chandramohan is an equal opportunity offender, except that he forgot to put in muslim character. Perhaps he was just willing to risk his artisan parapharnelia but not his life, which is understandable.
On 05.16.07 Roman Emperor says:
Jain would be happy. He has provoked people to run through their every fantasy about phalluses, pubic hair, copulation, child abuse and wotnot, all on one web page.
Congradulations, Sandeep.
On 05.16.07 socal says:
>>>“what exactly did Chandramohan paint that provoked violence?”
One picture is here-
http://cbcnn.blogspot.com/2007/05/christian-aggression-labelled-hindu.html
It is a painting of christ with his element protruding out, and, apparently, body fluids dripping in the commode lying beneath.
The other pic(I couldn’t find it)as reported in Pioneer, is of a Goddess (labelled Durga) giving birth with the female birth canal wide open and shown as such.
I must agree, Chandramohan is an equal opportunity offender, except that he forgot to put in a muslim character to complete a communal harmony theme. Perhaps he was just willing to risk his artisan parapharnelia but not his life, which is understandable.
On 05.16.07 socal says:
>>>child abuse and wotnot
Another case of hyperbole indulging in dishonesty. None of the fantasies delineated above mention child abuse. Please point it out specifically.
Methinks the free-speech mafia will be happier than Jain with spate of peaceful measures taken through fantasized artwork. That people are willing to offend each other peacefully is not progressive? C’mon the pleasure is all of Jain’s detractors. Free speech pontificators should be proud.
Full Disclosure: I fully support free-speech but just NIMBY about it. I am offended certain times, and not other obviously.
On 05.17.07 Spartacus says:
Jain would be happy. He has provoked people to run through their every fantasy about phalluses, pubic hair, copulation, child abuse and wotnot, all on one web page.
Hey, thanks for dropping in, Dilip.
Dilip D’Souza, everybody. He’ll be here all week.
On 05.17.07 Nitin says:
Wow 47 comments!
Want to add two points:
a) A civilisation that constrains academic and artistic freedom is a civilisation that has lost its way. The fact is almost all political parties not only agree that this freedom needs to be checked, but have actually gone about doing so.
b) Moynihan’s test: the amount of human rights abuse in a country is relatively, inversely population to how much it is written about. I suspect it applies to freedom of expression in Indian states as well. In other words, there are many states where such abuses occur, but no one gets wind of it.
On 05.17.07 anonymous coward says:
A very informative article from ToI by the esteemed journalist Anil Dharker who features prominently in these comments.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Beauty_And_The_Beast/articleshow/2055679.cms
Note the passing reference to Christian and Muslim protests, the absence of the Danish cartoons is conspicuous. There is also no mention that the Hindu “loony fringe” does not issue death threats like 51 crore award for the Danish cartoonist. Has Dharker forgotten that Salman Rushdie lives with a fatwa on his head under constant security? What about Taslima Nasreen, who is not granted Indian citizenship on “secular” grounds ?
Pseudo-secs like him will be the first ones nailed to the wall when the revolution comes :P!
On 05.17.07 Barbarindian says:
Once distinct group identities form, a civilization is doomed anyway. Game theory 101.
On 05.17.07 anonymous coward says:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/31107.html
All freedoms of expression are equal, but some are more equal than others. Notice the tone of the article which makes this artist’s freedom of expression akin to a crime.
On 05.17.07 Chandra says:
People who talk about First Amendment (of America? And what the hell is it and why does it matter to us?) clearly haven’t lived in the country long enough. Our first Amendment was made to deprive economic freedoms for most middle class people, take that I-want-to-live-in-a-make-believe-country!
While you guys want to import another country’s constitution, why not China’s or, better yet, Saudi’s?
There are no absolute freedoms in India. As recently as last month, Indian SC ruled freedom of expression can be curbed if state feels it’s warranted.
Our own PM, in his official capacity, protested to Danes when the cartoon issue became news. Apparently we don’t support absolute freedom of expression. But UGC wants to withdraw license to this university in Baroda, per Arjun’s agnya, unless it continues to offend Hindus. Apparently this means we are not a secular country or a Hindu country but an Islamic country?
And what is this fascination with penises and vaginas in arts community? With total blackout by MMS (so much for freedom of expression), we need a right of center TV network in the country to show the pictures on television to understand the reaction of ordinary people. I am sure secularists will be front and center of every media to defend garbage with labels peddled as art.
On 05.17.07 The Acorn » Moynihan’s Law says:
[...] Busy week. But here’s something that should illuminate some of the current discourse on artists, freedoms and intolerance. Here’s the Wikipedia entry on Moynihan’s Law:” The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country.” [...]
On 05.17.07 Bombat Flyer says:
“Yes, I agree there is a definite appeasement-ist bias about the outrage. When muslims are offended, the matter is treated with kid gloves.”
I wouldn’t fault the govt. completely. Muslims have forced others to respect their sentiments. Remember we are talking of a community here which rioted and killed Hindus in Sholapur when the late Rev. Jerry Falwell called prophet Muhammad a terrorist from the heart of redneck America. This is the same community which rioted and killed people in Mumbai over Satanic verses, ignoring the fact that India was the first country to ban that book. In Hyderabad the Muslims attacked Hindu shopkeepers who refused to close their shops when Muslims were protesting the cartoons+Bush’s visit. So even if the kufar appease the Muslims, the Muslim might still decide to teach the kufar a lesson, the consequences of confronting them means more dead people, mostly the kufar.
Then there are the useful idiots, suppose the cops pump some lead into the angry Muslims, the likes of Dharker, Setelvad, Shabana will start screaming “genocide, genocide!”. Many would have noticed the latest leftist trend of protesting the application of law to the Muslims, the only place where the left would be happy to see the Hindus overrepresented and Muslims underrepresented are the jails.
The govt. really doesn’t have much of a choice, a crackdown on Muslim thuggery means a bad press and secular condemnation and a crappy law and order situation, humoring the Muslims is the easy way out.
On 05.17.07 Mayuresh Gaikwad says:
On a slightly related note,
A lot of Sikhs are on the rampage in Delhi and Punjab - Atleast this is the feelng I get when I read the IBNLive.
Headlines say
“Punjab Boils”,
“Map: Punjab fire spreads, Sikhs panic”,
“Sikh factional war spreads to Delhi”,
“India 360: Are Sikhs over-religious? ” - This one is a porgram question hosted by a useful idiot called Sagarika Ghose.
I wonder why we did not have programs which said the same thing about the “Religion of peace” and the “Religion of love”
Acorn has just mentioned about Moynihan’s law in his post.(http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2007/05/17/moynihans-law/) I think the same logic applies here. Hindus/ Sikhs/ etc. have much talked about their religion and idiots can afford to host such shows because the reality is mild. The reality is much graver in Abrahamic religions in India. (In the West, there are several critics of the religion of love, so I assume, the ground reality is milder) Or is it competitive intolerance (word coined by Acorn)?
Help me understand this outrage of the Sikhs….. As I se it, a man (himself a Sikh, belonging to a particular sect) dressed up as Guru Gobind Singh. I do not see this as an insult to the great Guru, infact imitation is the greatest form of flattery. The poor guy was merely trying to depict a scene from the life of Guru Gobind Singh, that too, in no manner which would insult the Guru. And he has profusely apologized to everyone if he has hurt any sentiments
On 05.17.07 Spartacus says:
Because people feel frustrated at their inability to counter the leftist propaganda, they resort to defending people like Neeraj Jain who value political power and nothing else.
Dilip, you here again? Keep visiting, please?
It’s the great Dilip D’Souza, ladies and gents. Dcubed himself. Posing as two people on this page, no less! Thanks for dropping in, Dcubed.
On 05.18.07 Blogospheric Debates and Free Speech Arguments on Art Censorship says:
[...] Sandeep’s blog has been a host of some interesting debate [61 comments so far] on the issue of so-called fascism in Baroda. If you have been following his blog, he is unabashedly a fierce proponent of the Indian Right. But I largely disagree with his opinions on the Baroda issue. His contention that art that is intended to offend should be reprimanded is going down the proverbial slippery slope. We have plenty of idle minds who actively seek an opportunity to be offended and then resort to clearly criminal acts of violence in order to voice their disagreement. [...]
On 05.18.07 Bombat Flyer says:
@Mayuresh:
Sikhs are facing a severe identity crisis. This angst ridden community is trying to figure out what makes someone a Sikh. There appears to be a consensus on one thing : that the Sikhs are not Hindus. But such a negative identity is clearly not satisfying. It seems are large section of them are creating an religious identity modeled on Islam. Scriptures are to be interpreted literally, any sign of deviancy is not tolerated. As my Sikh colleague informed me a few days ago, the Udaisis are not Sikhs (Guru Gobind Singh was against asceticism), neither are the Nihangs (they take intoxicants), etc. The attacks on the Saccha Sauda folks shows how Abrahamic the Sikhs have become in their outlook.
On 05.18.07 kural says:
Sandeep,
The professor of IISc - Prof. Abi - is showing us that while his bleatings about ‘freedom of speech’ etc., are in the Mega and Giga range, his willingness to be examined or accept criticism is in the Nano and Pico range. The guy does best what commies are best at (well, he is no commie, but unfortunately under their spell) - deleting comments that embarrass.
http://nanopolitan.blogspot.com/2007/05/outrage-at-ms-university-baroda.html
On 05.19.07 kuraL says:
Sandeep,
Left a post here about our professor at IISc who is getting hot all under and deleting comments. Looks like this ‘liberalism’ is a cheap wannabe variant of Voltaire’s - simply skin-deep.
On 05.19.07 kural says:
I left this on Prof Abi’s blog Prof Abi it is hard to “tone down rhetoric” before a hypocrite. Read this post every time to remind yourself how far you are from what you profess. It would be OK if you were a journalist or some chatterati. You are a person of learning hence you are obliged to uphold the highest standards of fairness. This post on this thread is about you and your standards of fairness. As long as you ignore this question I will continue to post on this thread. This is your blog. You can hit the delete button as many times as you want to. But there is no delete button to quell your own self. Let’s see what the good professor does about it.
On 05.21.07 Ot says:
Hi Amit,
Interesting discussion here. Been travelling and missed a lot of fun!
You said:
“you may wish to note that I also spoke out in favour of the Danish cartoonists”
Excellent! I applaud your spirited defence of freedom of expression!
You also said:
“If I had the resources to organise protests, I would do so for each of these events.”
Here is where you err! You do have the resources to organize protests. You have your blog. A blog is a powerful medium, especially a blog like yours, which seems to be attracting quite a bit of attention. Indeed, the internet, being a relatively democratic medium, allows all of us to organize protests.
May I suggest that you host the Danish cartoons prominently on your blog in protest against the censorship and the thuggery imposed on them? I’d really love to see them on your blog, and, if comments are enabled, would like to leave a comment too, in appreciation of your defence of freedom of expression. Thanks!
On 05.21.07 Sri says:
Hey guys,take a look at Vir Sanghvi taking on the pseudo-liberals..it’s for real!
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=ebce8724-1e20-44f8-9e29-9a0f03fa3881&MatchID1=4464&TeamID1=10&TeamID2=6&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1109&MatchID2=4466&TeamID3=2&TeamID4=4&MatchType2=1&SeriesID2=1110&PrimaryID=4464&Headline=Art%2c+tolerance+and+religion
On 05.21.07 Ot says:
Hello there again Amit,
As I am getting familiar with this issue, I am uncovering facts I have not known earlier.
Question for you: Does freedom of expression itself need to be defended with falsehoods, and with suppression of information that is vital to making reasonable judgements about the issue? For that is what you and some journalists in the media seem to be doing!
You claimed in your blog:
>>
An internal evaluation of students is on at the Fine Arts Faculty in Baroda
>
Contrary to an erroneous impression being created, the paintings were not on display at a private gathering but, rather, at an exposition open to walk-in visitors.
>
A BJP leader named Neeraj Jain storms in with a bunch of gundas. He has a problem with some paintings by a student named Chandramohan that use religious imagery.
>
A large cross depicting Christ with his penis hanging out, semen dripping from it into a commode.
A nude woman with a baby attempting to push its way out of her vagina. The caption below the painting reads: “Durga Mata”.
>
“Jain and his gundas beat up Chandramohan, and abuse faculty members and students.”
>
“A group of irate Hindus, led by Niraj Jain, a BJP activist, also marched into the exhibition venue. Jain, who had complained to the police about the apparently blasphemous nature of the “art”, demanded the paintings be removed.
Chandra Mohan and the Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts, SK Pannikar, refused. Pannikar turned down a request from the university’s vice-chancellor as well and was quoted as telling mediapersons that the Faculty of Fine Arts was like his “personal bedroom” and he was free to do and display what he wanted.
After persuasion from the police, the paintings and other works of “art” were taken down and locked up in a room. Despite the anger of Jain and his compatriots, there was no major violence, no damage to university property and Chandra Mohan’s creations were left untouched. They are still safe in that room.
On 05.21.07 Ot says:
Sandeep, for HTML reasons, my comment is not appearing as it should. Please ignore the previous one and approve this instead:
Hello there again Amit,
As I am getting familiar with this issue, I am uncovering facts I have not known earlier.
Question for you: Does freedom of expression itself need to be defended with falsehoods, and with suppression of information that is vital to making reasonable judgements about the issue? For that is what you and some journalists in the media seem to be doing!
You claimed in your blog:
**
An internal evaluation of students is on at the Fine Arts Faculty in Baroda
**
But Ashok Malik writes in The Pioneer:
**
Contrary to an erroneous impression being created, the paintings were not on display at a private gathering but, rather, at an exposition open to walk-in visitors.
**
You said in your blog:
**
A BJP leader named Neeraj Jain storms in with a bunch of gundas. He has a problem with some paintings by a student named Chandramohan that use religious imagery.
**
You avoided mentioning what kind of “religiou imagery” this was. Was it unitentional? Or were you in blissful ignorance yourself, fired as you were, no doubt, by the opportunity to fight fascism? Malik explians:
**
A large cross depicting Christ with his penis hanging out, semen dripping from it into a commode.
A nude woman with a baby attempting to push its way out of her vagina. The caption below the painting reads: “Durga Mata”.
**
And you claimed:
**
“Jain and his gundas beat up Chandramohan, and abuse faculty members and students.”
**
Whereas Malik says:
**
“A group of irate Hindus, led by Niraj Jain, a BJP activist, also marched into the exhibition venue. Jain, who had complained to the police about the apparently blasphemous nature of the “art”, demanded the paintings be removed.
Chandra Mohan and the Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts, SK Pannikar, refused. Pannikar turned down a request from the university’s vice-chancellor as well and was quoted as telling mediapersons that the Faculty of Fine Arts was like his “personal bedroom” and he was free to do and display what he wanted.
After persuasion from the police, the paintings and other works of “art” were taken down and locked up in a room. Despite the anger of Jain and his compatriots, there was no major violence, no damage to university property and Chandra Mohan’s creations were left untouched. They are still safe in that room.
**
From Malik’s narration of events, the following sequence emerges:
1. The paintings were grotesque and offensive.
2. Neeraj Jain first complained to the police about them.
3. The vice-chancellor asked the dean to remove the offensive paintings. The dean disobeyed the orders of his boss.
4. Then Jain organized his own protest. While this protest was not very quiet and peaceful, it was not what it was claimed to be in the media either. I suspect there must have been some heated exchanges at the protest, some pushing and jostling perhaps, and probably the threat of breaking out of violence must have hung about in the air. At any rate, there was no violence, and it is not certain whether the so-called artist was beaten up at all. The police arrive, persuade the exhibitors to remove the offensive paitings, and defuse the situation.
I return to my question to you: does freedom of expression need to be defended with falsehoods? Does fascism need to be fought with suppression and censorship of crucial information? I hope your answers are in the negative, and I also hope that in your hunt-a-fascist zeal, you were misled by your colleagues in the leftwing media.
On 05.21.07 amit varma says:
OT, you write: “You do have the resources to organize protests. You have your blog.”
I did protest it on my blog. But the resources you need to organise a real-world protest involves tons of time, volunteers to make banners etc, someone to organise a venue etc, and I do not have all this, especially time. All I have is the blog, and my post in support of the Danish cartoonists is one of my most-read posts ever.
As for Ashok’s piece, Ashok is a good friend of mine, but he lives in Delhi, and my post was not based just on other press reports but also on first-hand reports from people at the scene in Baroda.
On 05.21.07 Seriously Sandeep » …the Fascism Debate Continues Here says:
[...] My questions to Amit Varma’s fascism post stirred up quite a debate. Work kept me from responding to Amit’s responses. [...]
On 06.02.07 Abhijit says:
HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY SEEN CHANDRAMOHAN’S PAINITNGS? CAN YOU PLEASE PUT IT UP ON THE WEBSITE??