…the Fascism Debate Continues Here
Monday, 21. May 2007 - 10:00 PM
My questions to Amit Varma’s fascism post stirred up quite a debate. Work kept me from responding to Amit’s responses.
While I cannot respond to every comment on that post, I’ll try to address as many as I can.
Starting with Amit.
Let’s get a confusing item out of the way. Amit says in separate comments:
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 ask how Neeraj Jain should have expressed his outrage.
I’ll give him the benefit of doubt. Perhaps he didn’t read my post carefully. I’ve always maintained that violence is a despicable form of protest; here, the relevant lines:
Not that I condone violence in any form.
You take issue with Neeraj Jain & company’s goondaism and I fully support you.
With violence (pun unintended) out of the way, I’ll examine the rest.
My post addressed two broad issues of which Amit has responded to just one. The other related to the casual use of the word fascism in this context. From Amit’s post, you can easily conclude this: Neeraj Jain & co are a bunch of fascists and therefore they did what they did. Amit Varma’s link to the Wikipedia definition of Fascism supports just this conclusion. It obfuscates the fact that there is a genuine probability that Chandramohan’s “art” was offensive.
Now, to Amit’s responses.
He says he upholds Chandramohan’s provocative paintings in the name of free expression. A related refrain is the freedom to offend.
Freedom of expression (artistic or otherwise) can never be absolute. It comes with responsibility. You cannot claim freedom to insult a community’s deeply-held beliefs, symbolism, etc and then, yell murder when the community members protest. When you hold your freedom of expression as sacred, you should be willing to acknowledge, and respect others’ sacred space.
Chandramohan’s depiction of Goddess Durga does not stem from an understanding of Hindu nude (or other forms of) art. Goddess Durga is not just any female form. That Chandramohan didn’t use a generic nude female form throws light on something deeper involved. More clearly, it is merely his crude attempt at overnight fame. And if Amit says this fact is irrelevant I’d like to draw a parallel. If somebody posts nude pictures/art of a friend/colleague on the Internet, I’d argue that the victim cannot sue the offender simply because the offender has exercised his/her right of free expression. If that sounds absurd, I’ll offer a tamer example. How would somebody react if an artist exhibits pictures of that person’s parents making love?
On the question of why Neeraj & co don’t find Khajuraho and Kama Sutra offensive, Amit responds with Why are you asking me this? Ask Neeraj? I guess my question wasn’t clear enough. It was partly rhetorical, but mostly commonsense. The entire gamut of Hindu eroticism is rooted in the traditions of Sanatana Dharma. Taken independently, the erotic element in Kalidasa’s epic poems is a masterpiece in itself but it is always subordinated to the only goal that motivated it: moksha or liberation. I cannot detect any such understanding in Chandramohan’s “art.”
Amit also says his “support of free speech does not depend on the religion of the thugs in question.” I agree. I’m a vocal defendant of hurt Hindu sentiments while I supported free speech in the Danish controversy. I don’t deny other communities their right to feel offended/hurt.
But what really needs examination is what their religions say about themselves and about free speech. Islam forbids painting. No known image of Allah or Mohammad exists. Christianity has a huge list of things that are considered blasphemous. Hinduism’s greatest of saints frequently cursed their favourite Gods, a move that would result in certain death in Islam. Yet their followers loved them all the more for it because it denoted their closeness to the diety. The basis of this kind of accommodation lies in Sanatana Dharma’s inclusiveness. The fact that even Mohammad was (erroneously) given an avatar-like status is just one of the more visible proofs of its all-encompassing nature. These are just some of the features of free speech, freedom, democracy, etc that we’re so proud of. Among other things, Goddess Durga symbolizes this abundance of spirit. You cannot therfore, ask Hindus to uphold Chandramohan’s perversion of this symbolism in the name of protecting free expression.
I treated the Baroda controversy as an independent issue, so it’s puzzling why Amit mentioned the Denmark cartoon issue. A related comment is why we shouldn’t have something similar to the 1st Amendment. Every country shapes its laws based on its unique historical experiences, challenges and other precedents. Which is perhaps why the West has no holy cows. But why do we need to apply the same yardstick to India? The West isn’t easily offended with gross depictions of Jesus and other Christian symbolism–that is an extreme consequence of religious oppression.
But our experience is different.
Like millions of people, I revere Goddess Durga as my own mother. That is one of the chief reasons I’m certainly hurt and offended at Chandramohan’s “art.” The extreme argument that freedom of expression is supreme denies basic human emotions. It is tyranny in another name: you don’t have a right to be offended because it goes against the state principles of free expression. Lest you fire me for being undemocratic, anti-freedom, anti-whatever, I fully support people expressing themselves in whatever acceptable, creative, decent, proper and sedate form they see fit. But there’s a limit to that freedom. Responsibility, as I said earlier.
There’s no absolute right or freedom to cause absolute offence.
21. May 2007 - 10:33 PM
Vir Sanghvi [the poster boy of limo-liberal] surprisingly has an interesting take on this issue
21. May 2007 - 11:04 PM
Sandeep,
No offence but why do you even bother to waste your time deconstructing the eminent blogger. I mean he supports cannabalism (voluntary ofcourse) and bestiality for heaven sake. He should be locked up somewhere, he is dangerous.
21. May 2007 - 11:45 PM
I fully support people expressing themselves in whatever acceptable, creative, decent, proper and sedate form they see fit. But there’s a limit to that freedom
Then you have clearly not got the whole point of the “freedom of expression” principle. What you really mean is:
“I fully support people expressing themselves in whatever acceptable, creative, decent, proper and sedate form I see fit.”
That is not freedom.
22. May 2007 - 12:16 AM
Sandeep, MadMan pretty much said what I would have above.
Why don’t you simply state that you do not believe in free speech, and only support it when it is convenient to you? That is a perfectly common position — you would be in agreement with most of India — and we can just agree to disagree then.
Gaurav. For months you’ve been ranting about me on your own blog and your comments on other people’s blogs. I don’t get it. If you disagree with my views, you can surely state those disagreements in a civil manner and move on. The vehemence baffles me.
22. May 2007 - 12:55 AM
But there is a silver lining to this post. Sandeep, we are happy to find that you share the same views as Dilip D’Souza on this matter. I think that’s a good start for making up with him.
22. May 2007 - 1:12 AM
@Madman:
“That is not freedom”.
Damn right! In this country (like in most others), I do not have the freedom to kill someone I dislike, I do not have the freedom to have sex with a minor etc etc.
How about that?
Which brings us back to Mayuresh’s and socal’s earlier comments, where their imagination ran amock!
Surely, there are limits to freedom in every country?
22. May 2007 - 1:15 AM
And our dear friend Burkha Dutt also shares a similar view….LOL!
http://hawkeyeindia.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/barkha-dutt-on-the-freedom-of-speech/
22. May 2007 - 1:28 AM
Madman, that was a funny observation.
Sandeep: you must differentiate between harsh societal (soft) constraints on expression, and harsh legal (hard) constraints on expression.
I have a very poor view of human nature, and this leads me to highly recommend harsh societal constraints, and at the same time, highly disrecommend harsh legal constraints.
Societal constraints come from tradition and long experimentation, and are steeped in human nature, and are also difficult to change easily.
Legal constraints come from flawed people with ulterior motives, goondas if you will.
Constraints are necessary, but we should take care what we wish for.
This would also allow both Madman/Amit and yourself to be in the same camp. Following societal traditions out of their own free will, no freedom violating villain there.
22. May 2007 - 2:37 AM
Que. Which party or Ideology was responsible for the most number of human deaths in contemporary Indian history?
Ans : The Indian National Congress.
Que. Give examples
1. The partition of India and Pakistan. 2. The deadly Punjab problem manufactured to keep the “communal” Akalis at bay. 3. The Kashmir problem 4. The killings of 3000+ Sikhs under the nose of Shri Rajiv Gandhi 5. The Bhagalpur massacre of 1989 6. The Bhiwandi Massacre 7. The Assam Massacre 1983 8. The Lanka Accord
Que. Which Indian national party, apart from the Leftists has the record of high intolerance against opposing opinion?
Ans : Indian National Congress. Example : Emergency.
Que : Yet which Indian National party lectures the most on “Tolerance”?
Ans : INC. CPI[M] comes close second.
Que : Which party refuses to hang Afzhal Guru, has an alliance with “Muslim” League, supports releasing of Madani and yet calls itself “Secular”?
Ans : The INC.
Que : What group of people keep quite when DA’Vinci Code is banned,when the “Satanic Verses” is banned, but expresses Outrage over opposition of Nude Hindu God’s paintings?
Ans : The limousine liberals.
Que : What group of people conveniently use “Freedom of Expression” theory to blast Hindu “Fundamentalists” , but forget about it when it’s another community in action in curbing the same “Freedom of Expression”?
Ans : The Limousine Liberals.
Que : What is explanation mostly used by the liberal analytics for an election loss of BJP/Shiv Sena?
Ans : “The communal forces have been defeated.”
Que : What if Congress looses and BJP wins?
Ans : “Anti-Incumbency, price rise, party infighting etc were the main reasons.”
Que : What is the single point Agenda of these liberals currently?
Ans : Ensure Narendra Modi’s defeat, come what may.
Que : Why?
Ans : After the smashing defeat of the “secular” forces in the 2003 elections, when the entire media muscle was used to demonize Modi, the limo liberals are still smarting. The stinging slap has not gone well with them. They want to teach Modi and Gujarat a lesson. The bleeding hearts of the nation whose hearts never bled for Kashmiri Pandits, have a one point agenda to prove that Secularism as conceived by Nehru and practiced by the INC and Left is the ultimate and absolute “Satya” and should be forced on to a hapless people by hook or mostly by crook. The royal defeat of 2003 elections has not gone well with the “tolerant, progressive” lot who have still not been able to digest the defeat.
Que : What is the moral you learn from this?
Ans : People who lecture on tolerance are the most intolerant of them all. People who speak of secularism are the most communal in nature. People who talk of courage and “freedom of expression” rarely use courage and express their opinion freely when their opponents are real blood-thirsty, AK-47 carrying opponents. They maintain a studied silence at that point. Even ignore the issue as if it never happened.
Que : What’s their opinion worth and why?
Ans : Sadly, very high. In a society full of hypocrisy and double speak, these limo liberals have come to dominate our national discourse. They have a disproportionately high presence and visibility in the media. Like the communists who can at best claim a 6% of total electoral support base nationally, even in their best performance, the limo liberals do not have a very huge support base of their opinion. Yet, we should grant them that they are smart deceivers. The way they speak in a forum, they may fool many into believing that their views are the most popular one’s and in fact the defacto view of the nation.
22. May 2007 - 4:00 AM
I will not discount the mischief element in all this. Let me quote the Head Stinger:
What sort of blinkers does one need to put on to make such statements, I wonder.
Let me assert once again, before it is too late, “we” should seek ways to create a new nation. This sort of deadlock coupled with extreme biases and blinkered views can lead to only one outcome and it is never pretty.
22. May 2007 - 5:52 AM
Sandeep, sad to say that was hogwash. Freedom of speech is PRECISELY the freedom to offend because there is no arbiter of a “drawn line”. Im sorry but this is nonsense, you really have no clue about what freedom of speech/expression means if you blv what you stated. You need to read the classics to understand the argument. And always remember this : Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
Sad to say, you won’t get it.
However, I completely concur with you on the casual use of the word “fascism” by Amit. He has not used this term for any other egregious example of this sort when it was mostly Muslims who were the “offended party.” Either they all are fascists or none are, but jumping on the “fascism” bandwagon only for Gujarat and only for Hindus is just BS.
And no Sandeep the “West” does not generalize the First Amendment. Europe is disintegrating precisely because there is no First Amendment. The label “Racism” shuts down all debate about Muslim immigration, Islam, social welfare, taxes, etc. We now have a “respect” policy in the EU regulations on speech. Your way is hell, Sandeep, whether you face it or not. “responsibility” in these instances lies on the terminally offended not the offenders (which is subjective anyhow).
Good day.
22. May 2007 - 6:18 AM
testing..
22. May 2007 - 6:26 AM
Tushar,
There is no society with absolute freedom of speech, though there should be. I only see an effort in this whole sordid episode, on behalf of cynical advocates of free-speech to get the acceptable level to wherever their idiosyncracies deem it fit. I guess most people are opposed to this blatant hypocrisy rather than anything else, and its absolutely asinine to believe that it won’t be so in other cases-notably involving minorities, which will inevitably arise.
That Varma guy doesn’t even allow one comment and he claims with a straitface to be a votary of free-speech? Not even moderated comments, mind well!! C’mon, take this BS some other place plzzzz.
Mouthing platitudes is easy but the history of none of these worthies suggests that they are for free speech. I will look for a simple example. How many of them have give wide berth to Danish cartoons on the web real-estate that is available to them. No linky-dinky or hidden references, I mean prominent display to what they find offensive but nonetheless displayed in their own backyard. Kindly list them and then talk!
22. May 2007 - 6:40 AM
>>>Which brings us back to Mayuresh’s and socal’s earlier comments, where their imagination ran amock!
Ravindra,
Fyi, it was a contrived jab not mind running “amock(sic).” There’s a distinct difference between the two. Question is, will any of the free-speech vigilantes defend, shelter or promote something they themselves deem detestable. I believe convoluted take on Sonia amma would certainly qualify as one such. What say you?
22. May 2007 - 6:40 AM
Is it possible that “freedom of expression” creates more problem in a socialist economy?
Think about it, state sponsored art schools, government/NGO supported favorite artists (like Tehelka art foundation). In a capitalist economy, people can take market actions to punish people they feel are offensive. Socialist people do not have such options.
There is also an economic component to it. The Head Stinger realizes this:
22. May 2007 - 6:41 AM
Note that in the above post, only this part was intended as a quote:
India is full of idle troublemakers; the State should tell them where to draw the line
22. May 2007 - 6:41 AM
@@ Amit, Tushar, MadMad
Freedom of expression is a common thread running through all civilized societies. Yet, this freedom of expression is not absolute. For e.g. Itll be impossible for you to escape censure if you use the N-word, or any other kind of derogatory words towards a class or a group of people. (e.g. the Don Imus case)
Civilized societies have voluntarily given up their right of expression when exercising that right is reminiscent of historical wrongs and historical crimes against humanity.
There is a long history of hindu religious icons being desecrated as a way of ’showing the hindus their place’. Many practicing hindus will see these paintings and works of ‘art’ in a continuum with that history, and hence find it not very different from deliberate hindu baiting.
You can say that you are backward, that your idea of history is all wrong – but that is besides the point, what matters is how many people hold that opinion and how strongly do they feel. Bringing in pasta is just creating straw men and trying to win the argument by putting forward ridiculous and absurd analogies.
Its important to keep in mind what is at stake here, i.e. what is it that the ‘artist’ is trying to state, and what are the reasons for the protests.
The protests, most certainly are not about sex, for if it was sex that was the issue, dhoom2 would have been a bigger issue than this storm in a teacup. Overt Sexuality is already a part of Indian popular culture and its only going to increase in future.
22. May 2007 - 8:10 AM
Question,
How many of you are not christians ??
Which mean after how many times you are gonna be pissed off ??
22. May 2007 - 8:43 AM
And amit I tried to do exactly that, but it seems I can’t quit you, probably it is the passive sentence construction which is a turn on, that or may be the fact how sure and self righteous you sound even when you could have done with little application of your brain, but I am sure using brain is also against libertarianism/minarchism/classical liberalism or whatever label you are going to come up with next, it is all about brand positioning isn’t it ….
22. May 2007 - 8:58 AM
Free speech is wonderful. The right to offend is even better..
But why do these brave artists all insist on consequence-free free speech? Why can’t they stand up like human beings and face the music which their (f)art provokes?
And why wasn’t Niraj Jain’s revolutionary performance art considered protected free speech?
22. May 2007 - 9:04 AM
socal,
>>>Fyi, it was a contrived jab not mind running “amock(sic).†There’s a distinct difference between the two.
Of course, I did get the sarcasm. Maybe I didn’t convey it appropriately in my comment!
Blame it on the late hour (1.15 a.m.) at the end of a long day!…Sigh
Sorry about that
>>>Question is, will any of the free-speech vigilantes defend, shelter or promote something they themselves deem detestable. I believe convoluted take on Sonia amma would certainly qualify as one such.”
Thats exactly what I intended to say!…Sigh again!
22. May 2007 - 9:06 AM
Damn right! In this country (like in most others), I do not have the freedom to kill someone I dislike, I do not have the freedom to have sex with a minor etc etc.
Hey hey, it’s Dilip again! Folks, join me in wishing a warm welcome to this page to Dilip D’Souza, now in a 3rd avtar!
Stay as long as you like, OK, Dcubed?
22. May 2007 - 9:17 AM
I think Amit and other pseudo-liberals like MadMan are living in utopia.
According to them,freedom is not freedom unless it is ABSOLUTE.
I beg to differ.
There is a term called “community standards”.
If a community finds something offensive,they have every right to register their protest.
From the Wikipedia article on the First Amendment
” Thus, the standards of the most sensitive members of the community were the standards for obscenity. In 1957, the Court ruled in Roth v. United States that the Hicklin test was inappropriate. Instead, the Roth test for obscenity was “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.”
In 1964 Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that although he could not precisely define pornography, “I know it when I see it.”
The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California in 1973. Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that “community” standards—not national standards—are applied whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. National standards, however, are applied whether the material is of value.”
Also I don’t find any “liberal” acknowledging the fact pointed out by Ashok Malik,
“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.”
“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.”
Don’t know what violence you people are condemning.I certainly didn’t see any.
22. May 2007 - 9:50 AM
As always, clarity always helps.
1) Freedom of expression/speech is precisely the freedom to offend ESPECIALLY things held “in deep respect” as nobody can arbitrate as to what should be “banned” and what not. The Qur’an should be banned according to this definition, and so should the Bible. In a Muslim country that is what happens — all others are banned are relegated to an inferior stratum of society. Certainly one must be prudent enough to notice that in any such subjective removal of someone’s right to expression, the most vocal and intolerant part of society will always be able to use it to its advantage.
2) You can certainly protest any taxpayer-money funding things you dislike. Which is why the free market is great and having to petition your local MP isn’t. Solution: Get rid of the “Ministry of Culture,” release temples from Government control, and let culture flourish by itself.
3) If indeed there was no violence, and the paintings were not destroyed, no damage to university property occurred, one could simply say they were petitioning to enforce the law which was already in the books. So in effect, the Indian state has fascist laws with regard to free expression. THIS IS WHERE I differ from Amit.
22. May 2007 - 11:45 AM
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.
Mark Twain
22. May 2007 - 11:59 AM
Tushar, I’ve explained why I used the term “fascist” in that post, and left the readers to judge for themselves. For what it’s worth, I’ve often used an equally pejorative term for the Indian Left: “Communist.”
Socal, free speech applies to the public domain, not to private property. How people behave in your house is entirely at your discretion, but you can’t control their behaviour outside your house. Similarly, Neeraj Jain would have been 100% justified in everything he did if Chandramohan installed his paintings in Jain’s house. So it is a non sequiteur that that I don’t have comments on my blog, and you’re conflating private pproperty and the public domain by making that link, as I’d explained here: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/the-flying-spaghetti-monster-v-private-property/
As for the Danish cartoons, I didn’t show them on my blog, but nor have I shown Chandramohan’s paintings. But I have supported their rights of expression in both cases.
Sudeep, I’m all for social censure, and that is what got Don Imus into trouble. But not beating people up and putting them in jail. I entirely stand by Jain’s right to protest at the paintings, but not in the manner of his protest.
Gaurav, here we go again, you’re telling me to use my brain. Why don’t we focus on argument please, instead of getting personal? Of course, I won’t beat you up or demand that you be jailed if you continue calling me names.
Sri, you say: “If a community finds something offensive,they have every right to register their protest.”
I agree 100%. When have I said that Jain and his boys should not protest? It is the manner of their protest that I protest! And while Ashok might write there was no “major violence”, I know from first-hand reports that Chandramohan was roughed up, as Ashok’s need to use the qualifier “major” acknowledges.
For Sri and Ravindra, I also recommend you read up the Harm Principle.
And for those pointing to liberal hypocrisy, you might be surprised to learn that I agree with you: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/why-indian-liberals-arent-quite-liberal/
That doesn’t affect the merits of this case, however.
Tushar, I agree that the central problem here is with the IPC, as I’ve pointed out in this post: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/only-live-in-fear/
That does not, however, justify Jain’s behaviour, even if it enables some of it.
Ok, I’m outta here now. It’s quite clear where we all stand.
22. May 2007 - 2:06 PM
“And always remember this : Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”
Really Tushar? One wonders which classic says this. Most humans behaviour is controlled by words – even a baby’s. Have you missed an evolutionary step somewhere?
“Europe is disintegrating precisely because there is no First Amendment. The label “Racism†shuts down all debate about Muslim immigration, Islam, social welfare, taxes, etc.”
Not really. The only curbs on free expression in some European countries relates to expressing support for Nazi ideology and atrocities (and few rare instances about Christianity). The really enforcement of curbs on free expression in Europe, relating to “Racism” and all Islamic critics, is done by self-professed liberals, who otherwise shout in high shrill about their own right for free expression, mainly humanities folks and artists and writers (their cohorts exists in this country and take clues and behave similarly as we see during this episode). EU or individual governments do little to curb free expression.
““responsibility†in these instances lies on the terminally offended not the offenders (which is subjective anyhow).”
How does this work? I guess this works in an alternate, aka pseudo-liberal, universe where there is no morality, or right or wrong. Most normal people don’t live in that universe – and so have a penal code based on their social needs.
Gaurav, nice quote. Apparently, prudence applies to fascists only.
22. May 2007 - 2:54 PM
Amit and Madman are wrong; Sandeep is right. The right to freedom of speech is not unfettered; there are restrictions on it even in the mecca of freeword: the US. (By the way, folks, is the phrase “mecca of the freeworld” an oxymoron?
Abuse does not fall under free speech. Chandra Mohan’s “art” is pictorial abuse.
Some people say that the purpose of art is also to “provoke”, hence what the Baroda artist did was justifiable. They miss the point. Aimlessly provoking people, using whatever medium, is not justifiable. You have to use provocation to make a statement — a social, political or ideological statement perhaps. God only knows what statement the Baroda lout meant to make by depicting a Cross with a penis urinating into a WC. Till date, nobody has cared to interpret this genius artist’s abstract obscenities to lay people.
Ironically, it is the Jyllands Posten cartoons that used provocative visual imagery to make statements. You may or not may not agree with linking Islam to terrorism, but claiming such a linkage is a legit opinion to express, and the cartoonists expressed it through their creations. Ergo, to defend Danish cartoonists is to truly defend freedom of speech, but to defend the Baroda “artist” is to defend a non-existstent “right to abuse”.
Note that many in the media and the loonie Left (but I am repeating myself) contend that Baroda “art” is “justifiable” but that Danish cartoons are “offensive”. Which is all in keeping with the perversion of values that they keep trying relentlessly to enforce on the rest of us normal folk.
22. May 2007 - 3:02 PM
I find it amusing when someone who has disabled comments on his blog, talks about debate on someone else’s blog.
22. May 2007 - 3:09 PM
“I find it amusing when someone who has disabled comments on his blog, talks about debate on someone else’s blog.”
Heh. You don’t need to allow others into your house to support freedom of movement in public spaces.
But it’s a common mis-perception of free speech that you have. Read this to understand better where I’m coming from: http://www.mises.org/story/2569
And though I’ve linked to it before on this thread, since you bring it up again http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/the-flying-spaghetti-monster-v-private-property/
22. May 2007 - 3:47 PM
Ergo, to defend Danish cartoonists is to truly defend freedom of speech, but to defend the Baroda “artist” is to defend a non-existstent “right to abuse”.
IOW, “when its stuff that doesn’t offend me, defending it is defending freedom of speech. when its stuff that offends me, it cannot be defended and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.”
Gotit.
22. May 2007 - 3:55 PM
Ot, in the US, Chandramohan would have been protected by the First Amendment. And also, there would have been no way he could have landed up in jail, as their laws are nowhere as absurd as some of the ones in the IPC.
22. May 2007 - 3:59 PM
Amit,
I never knew that Sandeep’s blog was a public space, thanks for clarifying.
22. May 2007 - 4:24 PM
I don’t know what purpose Mr. Chandra Mohan’s art has served or what he wanted to express. But then I’m not an enlightened soul. What baffles me is the behaviour of the mainstream media. They deliberately highlight the plight of one section of the community and underplay the issue if majority community is involved. They are struck by the thunderbolt of reason and free speech if majority is outraged. I don’t know why they are purposely leaving a gap, a huge gap. Perhaps they want the frustrated common public to go to the VHP, Bujrang Dal, RSS or Shiv Sena, who can take their side and talk their language.Maybe that’s why this lopsided view is created by the mainstream media.Whatever they shout at the top of their voice is all nautanki, they are actually strengthening the hands of hardliners.
22. May 2007 - 4:58 PM
“IOW, “when its stuff that doesn’t offend me, defending it is defending freedom of speech. when its stuff that offends me, it cannot be defended and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.â€
Gotit. ”
You didn’t get it, and I doubt you’ll ever get it, because you seem to feign the inability to distinguish between irreverence (Danish cartoons) and wanton abuse (Baroda “art”). But in the hope that you’ll get it, let’s try an experiment.
Is the offense given out by of Baroda guy’s “art” and Danish cartoons comparable? Let’s see.
The Baroda dude portrayed in a certain manner some entities that people hold sacred. Let’s see if portraying something that YOU hold dear in a SIMILAR manner offends you or not.
Now, what was Chandra Mohan’s “art”? To repeat Ashok Malik:
**
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”.
**
Be my guest, and give me pictures of your dad and mom. Let’s remove Jesus and Durga from Chandra Mohan’s “art” and put your mom and dad there. Let’s then put those pictures here, on this blog, for everybody to look at. And don’t get offended, dude! The whole point is to avoid getting offended, or you’re givig the game away!
Then tell me in which Danish cartoon do you want me to substitute Prophet Mohammed with Brahma or Vishnu or Shiva, or even my dad or mom. It would be “offensive” only because it’s so embarrassing, for then the cartoons cease to make any point.
22. May 2007 - 5:12 PM
“Ot, in the US, Chandramohan would have been protected by the First Amendment.”
I doubt it. For example:
“(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions which would not violate the First Amendment:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
But even if a Chandra Mohan can get away with murder (of art) in the US of A, the point is that there ARE limits on freedom of speech in every country, including the US:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C
“And also, there would have been no way he could have landed up in jail, as their laws are nowhere as absurd as some of the ones in the IPC.”
It’s not the laws, but their implication and interpretation that vary from country to country.
For example, “average person”, “contemporary standards” etc are not exactly identical in the US and India, so what is not obscene in US by the above definition used by the US courts may indeed be obscene in India using the SAME definition.
22. May 2007 - 5:44 PM
Sudeep, I’m all for social censure, and that is what got Don Imus into trouble.
I also believe in the caste system.
22. May 2007 - 5:53 PM
their laws are nowhere as absurd as some of the ones in the IPC.
Could we know which laws in the IPC you mean, which are absurd?
22. May 2007 - 5:55 PM
Ot,
Extending your logic about obscenity being different in the US and India, what is obscene to you may not be obscene to me , and vice-versa. Give me one good reason why the Union of India should (on a matter of principle, not laws – we all know how terribly flawed laws can be)prefer my definition of obscenity over yours or vice-versa. Also, applying the ‘average person’ criterion, the average person in most Indian states would find ANY nude offensive and the ‘nude erotica is ok but nude durga is not’ line of thinking that you guys (defenders of free speech with the BUT in between) present would not find many takers. Thus, are we to conclude that no nudes should be allowed?
And please, everyone, stop the “your dad and mom” arguments. Jesus is not my dad, Durga is not my mom, and neither are citizens of this country. But anyone’s parents who are citizens of this country (should) have certain individual rights that are meant to be protected by the state. Thus, if Chnadramohan were to paste nude pictures of my parents as art without their consent, it would be a crime indefensible by the free speech argument. If however, he had acquired formal consent from them before doing so, then as disgusting as I may find the whole thing, it should be allowed.
Sandeep,
Off the tangent, since I do not find much weight in your views about the issue. However, your ‘justification’ of the eroticism in ancient Hindu(Indian) literature by saying that the eroticism is subservient to the aim of moksha in Kalidasa’s takes on erotica reminds me of ISKCON booklets that describe in great detail the adolescent Krishna stealing the clothes of bathing women (gopis) OLDER than him and then ‘justifying’ those antics in the name of the ‘divine love that the lord extends to every being that is not meant to be viewed erotically’. If there is one thing that contemporary Hinduism can do without, it is hypocritical, shallow and ill-informed ‘justifications’ like these.
22. May 2007 - 5:58 PM
Amit,
>>For Sri and Ravindra, I also recommend you read up the Harm Principle.
Which only reinforces my point that you’re living in an utopian world.
An interesting line from your piece on the Pink Unicorn.
You say “..Now, you’ll no doubt say that there is a difference between Invisible Pink Unicorns and that-which-I-shall-not-dare-to-name.”
“that-which-I-shall-not-dare-to-name”????
You’re certainly not talking about Voldemort are you?
Why,in the entire piece you’ve never used the word “facsist”….obviously I cannot force you to use it..but still…
The word “islam” appears only in other persons’ quotes.
Again a case of “that-which-I-shall-not-dare-to-name”??
And in another post you say
“some chaps stoned a bus in Kurla”
Some chaps?
Not Islamofascists?You’re sure?
Amit,you’re what a Mumbaikar would call “FATTU”
22. May 2007 - 6:15 PM
Ritwik
” Thus, if Chnadramohan were to paste nude pictures of my parents as art without their consent, it would be a crime indefensible by the free speech argument”
Why would it be a crime ??
22. May 2007 - 6:26 PM
“Extending your logic about obscenity being different in the US and India, what is obscene to you may not be obscene to me , and vice-versa.”
True, but in this case, I’d be surprised if you (like me) do not consider Baroda “art” offensively obscene. Note that the offensiveness stems not (only) from subject matter chosen (Durga/Jesus) but from the manner in which the subjects were portrayed.
If you don’t believe this, please volunteer to run the experiment I suggested to Spartcus, and do provide pictures of your loved ones.
“And please, everyone, stop the “your dad and mom†arguments.”
Why? There is a biblical dictum: do unto others.. And there’s also a proverb: what’s sauce to the goose.. Even more earthily: put your money where your mouth is.
Courts use “reasonableness” as a criterion to judge if something is offensive to the general population or not. How many ordinary people are NOT offended by depiction of objects they hold sacred in the manner the Baroda artist depicted them? Not even you!
22. May 2007 - 6:27 PM
Is the offense given out by of Baroda guy’s “art†and Danish cartoons comparable?
Absolutely irrelevant.
The only relevant question is, did the two things cause offense? Yes they did. So shuld they be banned/shut/attacked/what-ever? No. Weather Danish cartoon or Baroda art, no.
Baat khatam.
22. May 2007 - 7:05 PM
“I never knew that Sandeep’s blog was a public space, thanks for clarifying.”
And where did I say Sandeep’s blog is a public space. It’s his private property, and he has as much right to allow and moderate comments here as I have to not allow them on my blog. But neither of us have a right to make demands on people’s expression outside our personal property.
“‘Ot, in the US, Chandramohan would have been protected by the First Amendment.’
I doubt it.”
Okay, so when was the last time an artist was arrested in the US for his art?
“Could we know which laws in the IPC you mean, which are absurd?”
295 (a). 153 (a). In a different context, 124 (a) and 377. The IPC was framed by the British in colonial times as a tool of oppression, as you probably know.
“The word “islam†appears only in other persons’ quotes.
Again a case of “that-which-I-shall-not-dare-to-nameâ€??”
“that-which-I-shall-not-dare-to-name†is a tongue-in-cheek usage. Do a search for “islam” under my Blogspot archives. Or “islamism”.
Ritwik, good points.
As for those asking for pictures of loved ones, they are real people with their own individual rights, including the right to privacy. That analogy is absurd.
As we’re going round in circles, I’m out of here. It is inevitable that your lot will be back in power some day, so you can shut down my blog and throw me in jail then. Tra-la.
22. May 2007 - 7:07 PM
“Absolutely irrelevant.
The only relevant question is, did the two things cause offense? Yes they did. So shuld they be banned/shut/attacked/what-ever? No. Weather Danish cartoon or Baroda art, no.
Baat khatam. ”
If you must insist, I don’t think the Danish cartoons offend anybody, except those itching to take offense on ANY pretext and then go on to bomb a few buildings and kill a few poeple.
As to whether the depiction of objects held dear by one in the manner depicted by the Baroda “artist” is offensive to one or not: why not just run the experiment I suggested? Do give me the pictures I asked for. I will put your dad and mom in Chandramohan’s “art”, and exhibit the result to you. My hunch is that you’ll be seriously offened by it, if you are a warm-blooded person like most people are, that is, regardless of whether you’re a D’Souza or a Briganza or a Prem Shankar Jha.
22. May 2007 - 7:13 PM
Whew! This is amazing. I can hardly keep pace out here.
Teaches me not to post anything in a hurry.
meanwhile i didn’t see amit responding to my concern about fascism. Am i missing something?
22. May 2007 - 7:27 PM
“Okay, so when was the last time an artist was arrested in the US for his art?”
You tell me when was the last time somebody lodged a police complaint in the US against an artist who depcited Jesus’ semen dripping into a WC.
Given your penchant for beating about the bush, I consider that you have conceded the central point that freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, and that you have nothing else of substance to add.
22. May 2007 - 7:41 PM
Guarav,
The ‘without their consent’ clause makes it a crime by violating their rights.
Ot,
I don’t own my parents. If you are so desperate to get pictures of them, find out their contact information and contact them yourself. And in the name of all that is dear to you, stop this maa-baap line of argumentation right now. Brings back memories of inarticulate schoolmates and college buddies.
Also, bear an aphorism in mind – a proverb doesn’t an argument make. The ‘do unto others…’ line of thought is irrelevant here – I said that the dad-mom arguments were irrelevant because Jesus is not my dad and Durga is not my mom, and if you consider them so, just prove why the Union of India should listen to you and not me.
Third, whether or not I get offended is just not the argunment here. The point Amit and others here have been trying to make is – even if we’re offended, the artist should not be jailed, or rather the laws should be such that he cannot possible by jailed. All these ‘warm-blood’, ‘avergae person’ ‘most people’ phrases that you’re throwing about have no bearing to the central argument of those who oppose your views.
And lastly, you find Durga Mata giving birth and Jesus ejaculating/pissing offensive but do not find Prophet Mohammed depicted as a terrorist with a bomb offensive? Brilliant – I now have new standards to judge bigotry by.
22. May 2007 - 7:44 PM
Amit,
“Martyrdom… is the only way in which a man can become famous without ability.
George Bernard Shaw”
22. May 2007 - 7:49 PM
“It is inevitable that your lot will be back in power some day, so you can shut down my blog and throw me in jail then.”
So you won’t put up Danish Cartoons on your blog because your lot that is in power right now will throw you in jail?
That’s wise, given what happened to the poor ToI correspondent who reported the name of Manisha Koirala’s non-existent pet dog.
I see that a journalist’s life is a harried life these days really. Your lot or their lot — they will all throw you in jail anyway. So it’s indeed a good strategy to stay away from cartoons right now, and water-closet art later on, while continuing in all seasons to fight fascism and defend freedom of speech.
22. May 2007 - 8:01 PM
Hi Sandeep, my comments end up getting flagged or caught up for moderation. Could you do something about it?
22. May 2007 - 8:24 PM
7*6,
Your comment got through fine. Mostly it ends up in the moderation queue. Let me check my spam filter.
22. May 2007 - 8:30 PM
“And in the name of all that is dear to you, stop this maa-baap line of argumentation right now”
Given that you’re squirming in your seat, the point seems to have hit home.
“Also, bear an aphorism in mind – a proverb doesn’t an argument make”
Well, you know dude, making meanigless claims repeatedly like a stuck record doesn’t either. Try logic.
“The ‘do unto others…’ line of thought is irrelevant here – I said that the dad-mom arguments were irrelevant because Jesus is not my dad and Durga is not my mom,”
The contention here is “depiction in the manner the Baroda “artist” did of objects one holds dear”.
Durga is sacred to me. Your mom presumaby is dear to you. Hence, perfectly relevant argument.
“All these ‘warm-blood’, ‘avergae person’ ‘most people’ phrases that you’re throwing about have no bearing to the central argument of those who oppose your views.”
Why not stand in a corner and shout the about sentence a thousand times? Maybe that gives you the feeling that you logically demonstrated a point.
“you find Durga Mata giving birth and Jesus ejaculating/pissing offensive but do not find Prophet Mohammed depicted as a terrorist with a bomb offensive?”
I do not find Mohammed depcited as a terrorist offensive, for the said depiction is a statement on Islamic terrorism.
“Brilliant – I now have new standards to judge bigotry by.”
Good. You are showing signs of improvement. Given the amounts of rationality you displayed, you sure have a lot to learn from me.
22. May 2007 - 8:34 PM
Ritwik,
I doubt, privacy (by private players) is mostly protected under tort laws which are most clear for cases of commercial use or physical injury, otherwise there too it is dependant on perception of “offense”.
As test cases, I doubt whether Richard Dawkins could sue Comedy Park for his portrayal in South Park or Cherie Blair for Shoot the dog in US and UK respectively but I think they will win the case in India, so it is subjective.
What if someone to draw a portrait of your parents in unflattering positions in order to lampoon them ?
22. May 2007 - 8:37 PM
Sandeep my comment got stuck
22. May 2007 - 9:03 PM
Ot,
I have time to kill, so I’ll persist. I’m squirming in my seat not at your reference to my parents, but at your ‘main teri maa ke baare mein baat karunga to tujhe kaisa lagega’ level of argumentation. I last heard it in 1st year college, and I had hoped that those days were behind me. Sadly, idiocy extends across all ages.
Also, for the last time – Durga Mata is not a citizen of this counrty and doesn’t have rights as I understand them. Also, I consider my mom sacred and so if someone violates any of her rights, I feel offended – that however is not the reason the state or its laws should butt in, they should butt in because my mother is a person in her own right and has rights protected by the state. Whether something denigrating to her offends me or not becomes secondary, or rather, irrelevant. This me-centric focus and references of maa and love and honour and sacredness brings just one term to my mind. I never thought the day would come when I say this, but dude, heard of the term ‘patriarchal mindset’?
And since you contend that the prophet with a bomb on his head is representative of Islamic terrorism – I contend that Jesus ejaculating is representative of Christian ejaculation and Durga Mata giving birth is representative of a Hindu birth. Since Christians do have sex, and Hindus also give birth and are born, and these two things are as much relaities of life as Islamic terrorism, by your logic they should be non-offensive right?
O great teacher of logic, clarify my doubts.
22. May 2007 - 9:19 PM
>>>free speech applies to the public domain, not to private property. How people behave in your house is entirely at your discretion, but you can’t control their behaviour outside your house.
This amounts to the insolent defense akin to running a tavern on residential property while simultaneously claiming the benefits of an NGO, in that putting oneself beyond auditors’(critics here) reproach. Add to it a few charitable visits to the auditors’ office too. Very convenient!
22. May 2007 - 9:37 PM
Gaurav,
In India, they wouldn’t even have to file cases. Their supporters would burn a few buses and destroy some public property as means of protest.
Also, portrait/pics are different issues. Answering your question directly – I would feel offended yes, but I do not feel that the laws of my country should have provisions to jail the fellow who drew them as such.
Lastly, why are all of you constantly arguing on the ‘wouldn’t you feel offended if your parents were represented in such and such manner’ lines? Don’t you relaise that my parents are individuals in their own right and my taking offence at unflattering portarayls of them is secondary to the offence that they themselves would feel? So, the question you should be asking me is – how would you feel if somebody drew unflattering portrayals of you and passed it as art? This question just doesn’t have the same bite as the parents-wala question, isn’t it? You guys are bringing in the ‘parents’ angle to purely emotionalise and obfuscate the issue.
22. May 2007 - 10:05 PM
I don’t think the Danish cartoons offend anybody, except those itching to take offense on ANY pretext and then go on to bomb a few buildings and kill a few poeple.
IOW, “I think the Danish cartoons offend people I couldn’t give a damn about. Therefore defending them is defending freedom of speech.” OK, Gotit again.
My hunch is that you’ll be seriously offened by it, if you are a warm-blooded person like most people are, that is.
U r right, ur hunch. So wot? The point is not weather warm-blooded persons are offended, but weather they should go and assault the artiste. To repeat wot I said earlier – “So shuld they be banned/shut/attacked/what-ever? No. Weather Danish cartoon or Baroda art, no.”
22. May 2007 - 10:12 PM
“Lastly, why are all of you constantly arguing on the ‘wouldn’t you feel offended if your parents were represented in such and such manner’ lines?”
I’ll give you benefit of doubt Ritwik Spartcus and assume that you really are a dimwit and explain again:
The contention is: depction in the Chandramohan manner of people one holds dear.
If you are offended
by the use of your parents in my analogies, well, then spare yourself trouble by letting us know who else do you hold dear or sacred or not deserving of the Chandramohan treatment.
How about doing a Chandramohan on Arundhati Roy?
22. May 2007 - 10:23 PM
Hence proved that Ot is blind not just to logic but also to actual written text that precedes and follows and provides context to the one statement that he can see.
22. May 2007 - 10:30 PM
Ritwik,
“Lastly, why are all of you constantly arguing on the ‘wouldn’t you feel offended if your parents were represented in such and such manner’ lines? Don’t you relaise that my parents are individuals in their own right and my taking offence at unflattering portarayls of them is secondary to the offence that they themselves would feel?”
What if they are, heavens forbid, dead.
“So, the question you should be asking me is – how would you feel if somebody drew unflattering portrayals of you and passed it as art? This question just doesn’t have the same bite as the parents-wala question, isn’t it? You guys are bringing in the ‘parents’ angle to purely emotionalise and obfuscate the issue. ”
Err. offence have to do with emotions. I dont see anything wrong in it.
22. May 2007 - 10:45 PM
Ritwik,
Since you are that big on logic, please explain the “logic” behind freedom. I, as as layman will like to share your enlightenment.
22. May 2007 - 10:54 PM
Gaurav,
If they’re dead, then their property would rightfully pass on to me. Hence, if someone uses their pic without my consent, that would be a crime. Your question of ‘what about unflattering portrait? ‘ I have already answered – I may be offended, but the laws of my country should not allow for the imprisonment of this man who painted them as such.
Yes Gaurav, offence has everything to do with emotions. Giving/taking offence should not have anything to do with laws (in my opinion). Hence, I find the bringing up of the ‘what about your parents’ line of thought into what is (or rather, was) primarily an argument about whether or not there should be legal provisions/measures against the Chandramohan style of represntation an attempt to obfuscate the issue by the means of using personal emotions.
I have exhausted all that I can possibly say. The only thing that’ll keep me going is if Ot comes up with more logical master-strokes. You game, Ot?
22. May 2007 - 10:59 PM
Gaurav,
I’ll take that as a compliment. And freedom is axiomatic – but do you really want to scale up this debate to those levels here?
22. May 2007 - 11:27 PM
Ritwik,
From your first comment I am assuming that your position is that people have a right to “portray” your parents howsoever they please in whatever degrading way they want. Good you have conceded what OT was saying.
But now to more important things
How is freedom axiomatic ??
Of course being a expert in logic I assume you understand what axiomatic means.
And no I don’t want debate, I want enlightenment, so pretty please with sugar on top.
22. May 2007 - 11:56 PM
Ritwik says, Durga Mata is not a citizen of this counrty and doesn’t have rights as I understand them. Leaving aside the issue of blasphemy (I have nothing to do with that Doctrinal Abrahamic piece of nonsense) and the frredom of speech (I believe it is absolute for all concerned), you are not taking the right line of defence. The Courts of England set a precedent many years ago in deciding the case of a stolen Nataraja murti, when they opined that Nataraja-Shiva is a person with personal rights. A smart lawyer in India would have no problem in using that precedent to extend personal rights to Durga in an Indian Court, which follow precedents set in the UK. Second, the officially published version of the Indian Constitution in print is illustrated with paintings of several devatas including Rama and Krishna – I am not sure of Durga though, according an historical significance to these personages. Again a smart lawyer (and we have plenty of them) would have no problem using this phenomenon to set a precedent for according personal rights to Durga.
23. May 2007 - 12:01 AM
Gaurav,
I ‘conceded’ that a long time ago. And to be sure, there was no conceding – it was a direct answer to a question you posed. I reproduce from comment 58 – Answering your question directly – I would feel offended yes, but I do not feel that the laws of my country should have provisions to jail the fellow who drew them as such. Ot raised that question thinking that it would corner people who believe in free speech – well it didn’t corner me. Right from the begining, what I(and others who have opposed your/Ot’s views on this) have been saying is that the issue is not whether I feel offended or not, the issue is whether the guy should be legally accountable for ‘offending’ me.
As for the enlightenment – here it begins. Listen carefully, my dear student who wishes to receive the eternal wisdom – freedom is axiomatic. Do not question, just internalise. Repeart after me, freedom is axiomatic, and hence it does not need to have external justifications. Freedom is the axiom – it is the basis on which we justify other details/policies. There are other axioms too, but they will be revealed only once you have developed the requisite capacity to internalise them. So, now uphold the spirit of the great oral tradition of this land, and repeat after me and internalise – freedom is axiomatic.
23. May 2007 - 12:13 AM
Ritwik,
So lord of logic what you are saying is freedom is just some assumption you made.
and basically you have no arguement or idea about freedom. Great, I think it is such a nice feeling to form your world view on nothing more than mathematical propositions.
To paraphrase Nietzche “logicians” at no point of time came anywhere near reality.
23. May 2007 - 12:34 AM
Gaurav,
And now after all the going around in circles, and random sparring (good humoured, I presume) and taking pot shots at each other’s penchant for logic, here is the basic case I have been making –
1. A person has the right to say/do/depict anything he/she wishes unless the said depiction tramples upon somebody else’s basic rights
2. Giving ‘offence’ cannot be construed as a violation of basic rights because what may offend one may not offend another – for eg. one Hindu may find a depiction of Durga Mata giving birth offensive and another may not.
3. A nude picture of anybody depicted without his/her consent is thus wrong, while a nude depiction, however offensive it may be to the party involved, is not.
4. Thus, if you were to draw a painting of my parents in whatsoever way you want and title it “Ritwik’s parents”, as offensive as I may find it, I should not be able to put you behind the bars for this. Similiarly, Chandramohan should not be arrested for showing Durga Mata giving birth or Jesus Christ ejaculating.
5. If one was to see the prophet carrying a bomb as a non-offensive depiction of Islamic terrorism, one should also see the above mentioned works as depictions of Hindu birth and Christian orgasm, both as much realities of life as Islamic terrorism.
Which one of my points do you have a problem with? Why? What is your proposed alternative? Can I expect that instead of just questioning everybody else’s stance, you will articulate your own, as others have taken pains to?
23. May 2007 - 2:04 AM
Gaurav is symptomatic of an inevitable post-libertarian phase.
Many desi libertarians, with their axiomatic focus on right to freedom, were in some sense revolting against the socialist and freedom-constraining Indian society, but once the fervor dies down, and they look at the emotional basis of the axiom of freedom, they want to revolt
in turn against the libertarian revolt.
The problem is that they’d also like to revolt against the socialist and freedom-constraining Indian society.
Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
India needs Irving Kristols and Leo Strausses to articulate the thoughts of these neo-conservatives.
23. May 2007 - 2:18 AM
Ritwik,
What if somebody’s parent are deaf or dumb, but bestowed with vision? What should they do? Would their son/daughter be the appropriate heir to articulate violation of their “basic rights,” put it in writing and petition before court, approach the law enforcement? I guess most people will say yes.
Just fyi, many people do consider Durga as their Maata, in a more deeper and literal sense than you or I may.
23. May 2007 - 2:24 AM
“India needs Irving Kristols and Leo Strausses to articulate the thoughts of these neo-conservatives.”
That would be too much for the decrypt leftist establishment. No need to unnecassarily elevate them; even a Sean Hannity – with FN at his disposal(and the later is more important) would do.
23. May 2007 - 3:45 AM
7*6
Just to clarify, I am not Gaurav Sabnis, I am clarifying because in past I was mistaken for him, and you used post-libertarian. To best of my knowledge I have never been libertarian, because it is my firm belief that as shoe liberty simply sucks.
Now seriously speaking I have not figured out the things completely (as I am not young enough to know everything),and yes I am left unimpressed by “certain” people who labour under the belief that freedom can be explained by relying on deductive logic. Deduction is based on assumption that premises being true, but doesn’t examine whether premises are true.
I also think that there is a strong case for freedom based on assumption founded on empiricism . However
1. Using statistics introduces fuzziness and hence requires nuance, and also knowledge of context or history, which people seem to lack.
2. Freedom is necessary condition, however by no means it is not sufficient condition to fulfill the above assumptions. Any arguement which fails to take into account both the conditions is essentially flawed. So if someone wants to talk about freedom, he/she better provide a complete picture or else it is futile to debate.
Am I a neo-conservative? I have no idea. Further while I am trying to read as much as I can and gain a better perspective, I dont think that as Indian I have to import labels in wholesale from west. At present I am cultural nationalist with inclination towards capitalism, in future this may or may not change.
As an aside while I have highest regard for USA and her citizens, and also believe that there are many things that Indians can learn, CAN WE FOR A MOMENT USE OUR FUCKING BRAINS to decide on what to emulate and what not to.
Sure in America you can draw piss christ and you can burn flags, ( ofcourse it has never been the case always), but it is also a country where many educated people believe in intelligent design and dismiss theory of evolution. And also the belief that if someone else doesnt worship in the same way as he is condemned to eternity of hell. Basically speaking America has been shaped by firm belief in christianisty and ancient greece , even its atheism has been influenced by christianity.
Now since I believe that Indic civilization is derived overwhelmingly from hinduism, and also that Hinduism and Christianity are in essence dissimilar, I dont see why what is good for US, should also be good for India.
23. May 2007 - 7:45 AM
Gaurav,
Deductive logic or not, EVERYONE makes certain assumptions when they make an argument. For eg., if you believe that what is offensive to religious sensitivities must be curtailed and given preference over individual freedom, you assume that religious sensitivity > individual freedom. Theoretically, I do not have too many problems with such an assumption because contrary to what you may have thought I believe in – I’m not a libertarian. However, then comes the problem of defining what ‘religious sensitivity’ is. Forget about fuzzy logic, which is just one step below digital logic, we are talking about absolutely analog quantities here that may not even have the same value at the same time simply because the same thing can be perceieved to be offensive/non-offensive and even in that, to cause various degrees of offence or non-offence to different people.
For eg., most of you have taken the ‘nude art is ok, nude Durga Mata is not’ stance here. Anyone with the slightest idea of the views of majority Indians would tell you that would find ANY nude whatsoever offensive. So, will you agree then to ban all nudes and jail their creators? Similiarly, majority people in my home state (Bihar) consider that a married woman should drape her head with a pallo when she comes out in front of her in-laws, as that is the right way to respect your in-laws and not-covering is disrespectful. If a woman does not do this, the husband can construe this as as measure meant to disrespect/offend his parents. Should he have the legal right to get his wife jailed for this?
It is true that context and history count for a lot. It is however, not true, that context and history are absolute (or even fuzzy) – because given the same data and facts, 10 people would perceive the context in 10 different ways. Hence, when one tries to build a philosophy/world-view from whcih one tries to understand society, economics, politics etc. to be consistent, one begins on certain premises, assuming them to be true. some people recognise that they have made these assumptions, and accept them as axioms. Others don’t recognise the assumptions they themelves make when presenting their case, or maybe, don’t recognise who quicklly they change their assumptions to sut their convenience, and hence criticize those who accept that they have assumptions.
Freedom is axiomatic to me, but it is not the ONLY axiom. I have others, and sometimes their interaction with freedom leads me to impose certain curbs on ‘freedom’. I realise that on this issue, something similiar is happening with you – however, I think you fail to realise that using the same logic that you do, 10 people can come to 10 different conclusions on a matter like ‘offence’ or ‘religious sensitivity’. How will your superior understanding of nuance and context help in formulating a certain legal standard regarding this? As a test case, should a painting titled ‘Lord Rama – eating deer meat cooked on the holy fire’ be allowed or disallowed. I hope you realise that I’ve only mentioned something that is supported by the scriptures, and yet I’m sure that ‘majority’ Hindus would find it ‘offensive’.
In any case, you haven’t answered a single one of my questions about the 5 assertions/arguments I made in comment 69. Can I expect that instead of ranting about the US, you will take this up?
23. May 2007 - 7:53 AM
Gaurav, I think libertarians like Amit were always upfront with their axioms and the primacy which they accord to right to liberty.
And I think it is less of importing an idea from overseas, and more of a legitimate revolt against the stifling anti-individualistic climate in India. Indians suffering from socialism have more of a reason to be libertarian than New England yuppies in the US.
I too might agree libertarianism is not nuanced enough, but I think it is unfair to argue that it is misplaced in India, and the result of blind emulation.
Personally, I would like to see more libertarians in India, albeit with a small number of neoconservatives nudging them in the right direction.
23. May 2007 - 8:09 AM
7*6,
What about libertarian-centrists? Or more specifically, right of centre politically and economically, socially liberal. Do I fit into the future you want for India?
23. May 2007 - 8:44 AM
ritwik, you’re ‘right’ in the ‘centre’ of it then
23. May 2007 - 10:30 AM
7*6
But that’s what I am saying, there is nothing “axiomatic” about freedom, philosophy is not merely formal statements of mathematics, it has to be validated by reality.
I don’t know about motives of Indian libertarians, but from what I have seen it is guided solely by the western world view and experience.
And for that matter even socialism (or fabian socialism) to be precise is a western import, see how it wrecked India.
Lastly I dont know about libertarians or neo-conservatives, but I will certainly like more Indians who have the capacity and inclination to think. Label can be discovered/invented at a
later stage. Even among Indian bloggers, except for Atanu Dey and RaviKIran, I dont think anyone else bothers to think. I know you will not agree, so we will have to agree to disagree.
Ritwik,
We all have to discover our own contexts, some prevail some don’t, there is never any consensus about anything. My criteria is offend, but have a reason. You want to comment on caste system, you are not happy against How Rama exiled Sita or killed Shambuka. You want to comment against betting of Draupadi, feel free to offend. But when someone offends just for offence sake, this is unacceptable. There is something called gratuitous insult, scatalogy is not art. Who decides ? Judiciary does. Lastly for portraying “just anyone” in case which can be construed as offensive to common decency is not going to find favour by judiciary even in USA, and will be punished.
And again you dont pull axioms from thin air. You have to support them, for example sum of angles of triangle is 180 degrees is considered to be axiomatic because it has observed to be so, but can not be explained, similarly with second law of thermodynamics.
23. May 2007 - 10:40 AM
7*6
I forgot to add, if you want context or history, the best persons (IMO) are Jaffna, Cynical Nerd and JK.
23. May 2007 - 10:48 AM
Gaurav,
1. Define, or atleast, describe ‘offence’ that can be taken as a measure for legal formulation. You are free to use the current definition by the Indian Penal Code.
2. Reality is ever-changing. Once upon a time, Sati was reality. Some people (who were in the minority) worked against it and had it outlawed.This change in law did not reflect the prevailing societal notions of right and wrong – it was based on an axiomatic belief that asking someone to jump in the fire because her husband has died is simply incorrect. This axiom was not validated by the then current reality. It has however, shaped the future (which is now present) reality. By your argument, someone who believed back then that it was axiomatically incorrect to ask someone to burn in the funeral pyre with her husband would have been wrong, because his/her axiom would not have been validated by reality. What are your views on this? Maybe you can convert it into a post or mail me or something, as this debate has now become heavily off the topic.
3. This is just nitpicking, but it is a question of mathematics and hence I cannot let it go. “Sum of interior angles of triangle is 180 degrees” is not an axiom, it is a theorem. The axiom used to prove this theorem is – “the interior alternate angles formed by a line intersecting two parallel lines are equal”. The way to prove this theorem is – you draw a line parallel to the base through the apex of the triangle, and then use the equality of the interior alternate angles to prove the sum of angles = 180 theorem. Also, I find it hypocritical that you find my basing my world-view on ‘mathematical propositions’ incorrect and removed from relaity, yet demonstrate your assertion of ‘axioms must be validated by reality’ by using a mathematical example.
We have gone way off the topic and this is my last comment. Until later, then.
23. May 2007 - 11:02 AM
Ritwik,
We have different notions of reality.
As I said previously I have not everything figured out, but if I were compelled to state something to save my life then I would say something like
“But a democratic form of government is okay, as long as it doesn’t work. Any social organization does well enough if it isn’t rigid. The framework doesn’t matter as long as there is enough looseness to permit that one man in a multitude to display his genius. Most so-called social scientists seem to think that organization is everything. It is almost nothing–except when it is a straitjacket. It is the incidence of heroes that counts, not the pattern of zeros.”
From Robert Heinlein’s Glory Road
23. May 2007 - 11:29 AM
Gaurav, you’re confusing reality and morality.
A moral code assigns different utilities to different actions.
One cannot axiomatize reality, but one can definitely axiomatize utility functions.
At the altar of reality, one need not sacrifice having morals and principles — axioms if you will.
23. May 2007 - 11:30 AM
7*6,
I am not you can not pull morality from thin air.
23. May 2007 - 11:52 AM
Gaurav
1) What do you mean when you say there is nothing “axiomatic” about freedom? That its axiomatic that freedom is a natural state of things? If so, you are correct, of course. It is far from the natural state. It is a state we (at least I) PREFER. The socialists used this very point against the free market — that its against human nature, its individualistic, we are collectivistic, its unplanned, we are creatures who like planning and design. So yes, freedom is not “axiomatic” but it is a state a significant fraction of humanity PREFERS, and the debate for us is whether we prefer it or not, perhaps whether we should prefer it or not.
2) You have a few erroneous notions about the American system.
“Lastly for portraying “just anyone†in case which can be construed as offensive to common decency is not going to find favour by judiciary even in USA, and will be punished.”
You are conflating criminal law with civil law. If Bill Gates does not complain about a nobody’s painting of him as a money-grubbing Shaitan, that nobody does not get “punished.” If Bill does advance a civil claim, it can be one of defamation, which can only include monetary damages to the “defamed” party, after the claim has been proven.
This is a similar conflation that another poster brought up (socal I think) about Don Imus or something. I’m surprised at this amateurish disregard for clarity of discussion. Don Imus was not thrown in jail, he did not break any law, and was forced to quit by a private party which is the company he worked for, which had its own private property rights to do as it pleases with its employees according to the contract they signed. He earned societal condemnation which is exactly what Mr. Chandramohan probably deserved.
This is not inconsistent with the libertarian view which is enshrined in the First Amendment. It is the ONLY ultimate guarantee of equal protection for all social/political/religion views which may be unpopular. It is heartening (and should be) to see black policemen protecting the safety and security of KKK activisits in a racist rally in Mississippi. 99% of Americans may condemn the KKK to hell, but their words will not be enough, because of the First amendment.
3) Some people (you included) have also raised the point about the exhibition being organized by tax monies. It is exactly why libertarians posit that its so hard for freedom to exist in socialist societies due to the necessity of passing thru government channels for all action. This is exactly what the protesters against “Piss Christ” were protesting. They hardly cared a whit for what some “deranged”(acc to them) man drew, or painted or made. It was simply outrageous for them to be PAYING for it.
This was no argument against the First Amendment.
4) Your views regarding co-option of values and/or systems from America are similar to mine. We must be good arbiters of what we should import and what we should reject. With this process in mind, I have in my own mind come to the conclusion that the First Amendment is something we ought to import. It is a one-off in this world. Its the best protector of all viewpoints in a country even more diverse than America. I believe you will see the value of it, if you but study it more (excuse me if I assume wrongly!)
I am a firm supporter of the Hindutva movement, although in it I would not include such glorious examples as Shiv Sena or Bajrang Dal. I detest the unthinking branding of Hindutva to “fascism.” The progenitors of this movement have pondered on their ideas and written about them a great deal, and reading those, one hardly comes out with “fascist” on their mind, like the silly silly post Amit wrote about a fictional fascist hindutva meeting in 2025.
In the same spirit of improving out lot and condition, dear Gaurav, should we continually seek to amend our directions as in the case of “Swadeshi” economics which does our country absolutely no good. In the same tradition, I propose and wholeheartedly support accepting a First Amendment as a solution.
Good day to you.
23. May 2007 - 12:17 PM
@ Tushar Saxena:
>> Some people (you included) have also raised the point about the exhibition being organized by tax monies. It is exactly why libertarians posit that its so hard for freedom to exist in socialist societies due to the necessity of passing thru government channels for all action. This is exactly what the protesters against “Piss Christ†were protesting. They hardly cared a whit for what some “derangedâ€(acc to them) man drew, or painted or made. It was simply outrageous for them to be PAYING for it.
This point was made simply as a rejoinder to the argument which was being made about the exhibition being a “private affair” and an internal assessment of a University.
Hence, it was very much a Public Forum and hence was subject to scrutiny under norms of Public Morality.
23. May 2007 - 12:24 PM
Tushar,
Freedom is not axiomatic, but it is very much in accordance with human nature, and this is the reason I (largely) support freedom.
Regarding Ma Durga or Lord Jesus, centuries of effort has been invested by Hindus and Christians in them, and I don’t see why should Hindus and Christians not have some sort of intellectual right over them. If someone want to make relevant criticism do by all means, using these symbols just to further irrelevant and malafide intentions grieves any genuine seeker.
Ultimately there are two issues.
1. Crap to stuff ratio, I think US has a very large C2S ratio.To reiterate what I said earlier I find nothing useful in Piss Christ or Dung Mary, or for that matter attempting to save otherwise honest and law abiding citizens from eternal damnations. I think it is important to trim down the crap. What is crap and what is stuff is up to individual, but a broad consensus can be developed.
2. The filter we chose to employ to cut down the C2S. State is there to punish what is criminal. But beyond criminal there is something called civic virtues or common decency, I would rather have the society enforce these, but ultimately society is driven by intellectuals, and any enforcement is dependant on them.Unfortunately I am not overwhelmed by the kind of intellectuals India have, I dont think they care about human decency or civic virtue. In other words when they say they can understand “offence”, I suspect they are being phony as usual.
Ultimately I believe that at this moment of time things will be decided by confrontation one way or other.
23. May 2007 - 2:34 PM
Sandeep,
Amazing post.. so factual and reasonable…
23. May 2007 - 3:12 PM
Sandeep, my comments are not showing.
23. May 2007 - 3:14 PM
Said Ritwick Spartcus:
“I have time to kill”
Shows.
“I’m squirming in my seat not at your reference to my parents, but at your ‘main teri maa ke baare mein baat karunga to tujhe kaisa lagega’ level of argumentation.”
Listen, Ritwik Spartcus: your judgement about my “level of argumentation” matters little. Just rebut my points, that will do. If you can use reason and logic to your advantage, you’ll realize that you don’t need these silly tricks.
“Sadly, idiocy extends across all ages.”
True. I have seen 45-year-olds pretending to be young guys about to start grad school.
“Also, for the last time – Durga Mata is not a citizen of this counrty and doesn’t have rights as I understand them.”
Running away from the argument, dude?
Let me remind you how the whole shebang started. In your Spartcus avtar, you insinuated that I was using subjective criteria to judge what is offensive and what is not. Trying your hand at sarcasm , (I am only guessing this) you averred:
“when its stuff that doesn’t offend me, defending it is defending freedom of speech. when its stuff that offends me, it cannot be defended and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Gotit”.
So I set out to show that some things are indeed offensive by criteria that most all people agree as valid and reasonable. I showed that depicting objects one holds dear in the manner that Chandra Mohan did offends most every one — including you, poor dude, if your mom or dad were in them.
Caught pants down, you have been squirming and whining ever since.
“Also, I consider my mom sacred and so if someone violates any of her rights, I feel offended”
Why? Not your “rights” were violated, were they?
“that however is not the reason the state or its laws should butt in, they should butt in because my mother is a person in her own right and has rights protected by the state.”
Which is not the point under discussion, despite your frenetic attempts at derailing it. The discussion is about: the manner in which Chandra Mohan depicted his subjects is grotesque, and offensive. It’s offensive even to you — poor you who can’t see your mom where Durga is. I’m not going to allow you to obfuscate this point. Try harder.
“never thought the day would come when I say this, but dude, heard of the term ‘patriarchal mindset’?”
I bet you must be feeling that you used some strong argument. Feel free also to use the post-modernism generator if it makes you feel even better.
“And since you contend that the prophet with a bomb on his head is representative of Islamic terrorism”
Not me, countless others have conteded that the Danish cartoons were a statement on Islamic terrorism. Cartoonists always use topical subjects in their work. You were perhaps too busy raging at the cartoonists to read the analyses written in their defence by many people.
” – I contend that Jesus ejaculating is representative of Christian ejaculation and Durga Mata giving birth is representative of a Hindu birth.”
Is that the interpretation of the artists and his defenders as well. Did the artist explain why he finds Christian Ejaculation and Hindu Birth such interesting subjects?
While on the subject, what in your view should Chandra Mohan’s rendering of “Muslim Birth” look like?
But, never mind these questions, If the interpretation of Baroda stuntmaster’s work is as simple and innocuous as you (at this stage in the argument) claim, why do you have to froth buckets at the mouth on the simple matter of “Ritwik Spartcus” birth? Go ahead, fella, post the picture I asked of you. “Spartcus Ritwik Briganza Dsouza Birth” would not then, in your view, offend you any more than “Hindu Birth” should offend Hindus.
“Since Christians do have sex, and Hindus also give birth and are born, and these two things are as much relaities of life as Islamic terrorism, by your logic they should be non-offensive right?”
Pokint #1. The Danish cartoonists did not choose their subject for merely being a “reality of life”. They chose it because 1) it IS the topic grabbing most attention in the media 2) and many Muslims were living in denial about it, trying to blame US, Israel, non-Muslims, a gloabl conspiracy etc for the misery Islamic terrorists are inflicting on non-Muslims.
Point #2. The offensiveness of a work of art is not determined by whether its subject matter is a “reality of life”. It is determined by the MANNER in which the artist portrays his subject, and the REASON for such portrayal.
For instance, consdier the reality of life called your mom. If the Baroda “artist” drew a very nice picture of Durga, and I suggested that you replace Durga with your mom’s picture, you’dn’t be screaming your lungs off at all!
“O great teacher of logic, clarify my doubts.”
Sure. Be diligent student. I’m concerned because after showing some signs of improvement, you are lapsing.
23. May 2007 - 3:15 PM
I figured it out.
If the message begins with a quotation, like this:
“this is the beginning”
it is not getting through.
23. May 2007 - 3:23 PM
>>>> Jesus is not my dad, Durga is not my mom, and neither are citizens of this country.
RitWik,
Durga is my mom !! And I worship her. Now what ?? How much water does your argument hold?
I will be nice enough and not ask you to send your pics. (Yep, lets avoid parents)
BTW, Religion and citizenship are two different things. Even mohamed isnt a citizen of India, so why ban satanic verses.
23. May 2007 - 3:28 PM
>>> Also, I consider my mom sacred and so if someone violates any of her rights, I feel offended
Ritwik,
I consider Durga Mata sacred and if someone violates any of Her rights, I feel offended.
And frankly, I was offended by Chandramohan’s “art”. Hell, I aint a Christian, but I found his Jesus piece quite offensive.
I wonder why he included Hindu and Christian stuff in his art, but not Moslem. Strange !??? (Yeah yeah, no need to answer, its his choice, etc. I have heard it all).
23. May 2007 - 4:19 PM
Shadows,
1. I do not support the banning of Satanic Verses.
2.We have 33 crore gods and godesses, please be kind and enumerate the list of all your (and my, am a Hindu too) moms (and dads). For example, my Kul-devta is “Pancho Pir maharaj”. So please keep an eye on any work of art that carries this title and is offensive and be kind to inform me if such an instance happens. You and I will go together and get the artist jailed for his offending my dad, who is also my father’s dad and my grandfather’s dad (since he is our kul-devta etc. )
3. “Also, I consider my mom sacred and so if someone violates any of her rights, I feel offended”
Clearly, you suffer from the same ‘I am blind to preceding and following text’ syndrome that Ot does. In the very SAME sentence, I go on to say – “that however is not the reason the state or its laws should butt in, they should butt in because my mother is a person in her own right and has rights protected by the state.”
In comment 70, as a final explanation of my POV to Gaurav, I wrote this -” Thus, if you were to draw a painting of my parents in whatsoever way you want and title it “Ritwik’s parentsâ€, as offensive as I may find it, I should not be able to put you behind the bars for this.”
Ot,
1. Ritwik is not Spartacus, spartacus is not Ritwik, and Ritwik is not 45 years old. You need to undrstand the concept of IPs slightly better before jumping to such brilliant conclusions. My name is Ritwik Priya, am a (just graduated) Computer Engineer who currently stays in Ahmedabad. Google my name, you’ll get some intersting results.
2. Go look up a dictionary. Painting and picture are two different words. Do not use them interchangeably. Since you’re obsessed about my mother, I suggest you do the following – draw a nude woman with a baby coming out of her vaginal canal, call this painting ‘Ritwik’s mom giving birth’, and post it somewhere on the web. Or better still, get someone to draw a life-size version, and keep it as an exhibit in some art gallery. I swear on Durga Ma that I will be true to my beliefs and not try to get you arrested.
Lastly, think about changing your religion. It shames me that a fellow Hindu is so idiotic and intolerant.
23. May 2007 - 4:35 PM
Hello there:
“Ritwik is not Spartacus, spartacus is not Ritwik”
If not Ritwik Spartacus, Pickwick Abacus. If not Ritwick Priya, Dsouza Briganza. Do I care? I just nail your “arguments”, that’s all.
“Ritwik is not 45 years old.”
I didn’t say that he is.
“I suggest you do the following – draw a nude woman with a baby coming out of her vaginal canal, call this painting ‘Ritwik’s mom giving birth’, and post it somewhere on the web”
That is what I asked _you_ to do; but since you conceded the central point of my argument — that doing a Chandramohan on people one holds sacred offends one — you need not provide that picture anymore. But here are other possibilities that you can explore:
An abstractly artistic portrayal of Medha Patkar giving birth to a dam. Caption: “The Dam Mata”.
Arundhati Roy delivering quintupulets, since she is the goddess of small things. Caption: “The GOST mata”.
Perhaps *you* will not be offended by these, but you will sure hear from others who will be, and that shall reinforce to you the point I made that the Chandramohan school of “art” is obscene and offensive regardless of the subjects of protrayal chosen.
23. May 2007 - 4:45 PM
Ot,
For the last time, the entire point is that – my taking offence at an artistic depiction should not mean that there should be provisions in the law which can get the artist jailed.
23. May 2007 - 6:01 PM
Ritwik,
I think what OT (and even I) are trying to say that under tort laws worldwide offence as perceived by an average man is criteria for judging art. Now you may or may not agree with it, but offence is a valid criteria for jurisprudence. The question here is can we apply this criteria to God(s), I will prefer such things not to happen, it stifles criticism and discussion.
But sometimes shit just hits the fan.
Look Americans are followers of Abrahamic creed, damning the “others” is the starting point of their religion, so the way they interpret freedom is to gratuitously insult others. Hinduism is not preoccupied with damning “others”, to best of my knowledge we have not waged Jihad or instituted inquisition, we are not perfect but we have changed with times trying to adapt to the best of others, we have done that without persecuting other creeds. Why by inflicting such unwarranted insults you want to turn it into like another of abrahamic creeds.
23. May 2007 - 6:22 PM
Gaurav I didn’t pull morality out of thin (or thick) air.
You really are confused about the moral dimension.
You keep saying freedom is “not axiomatic” since reality is not axiomatic.
But any moral is by definition axiomatic.
Libertarians accord primacy to freedom as a moral.
You do not wish to see naked pictures of Goddess Durga because of your morals.
Reality has nothing to do with it.
I think what you want to say is that the morality itself should correspond to our instincts and our nature. The problem with this is that instincts themselves are evolutionary adaptations — they evolved in the hunter gatherer period, and one cannot consider pandering to a 10,000 year old non-existent hunter-gatherer society as one’s “goal” apropos a moral code.
23. May 2007 - 6:26 PM
Gaurav,
Where am I recommending that there be persecution of any creeds by Hinduism or Hindus? It is PRECISELY because I believe that the tenets of Hinduism are more tolerant than the Abrahamic monotheistic creeds that I’m saddened by the ‘this is offensive to my gods, take this down’ or ‘he offended my religion by drawing that, put him in jail’ outlook of Hindus – I would have expected that a person well-versed with Hinduism would be naturally MORE tolerant than those who demanded that Satanic verses be banned. In any case, let’s not make this a religion 1 vs religion 2 thing, that’ll be a huge de-localisation of the debate. If you feel that my last sentence to Ot was uncalled for, I apologise to everyone concerned.
Second, the question is definitely not about offence to God(s). Offence is in the mind of people/followers and thus the ‘this piece of art offends me’ is the key clause of ‘this piece of art offends me because it insults my gods’. I often wear a T-shirt of a metal band called Venom that features an upturned cross and has the number 666 written across it. This would surely offend the ‘average’ Indian christian, and would thus be punishable under section 295 of the IPC. If you consider causing abstract offence to one’s religious (or other) sentiments to be a valid aspect of jurisprudence, then you should argue that I should be put in jail for wearing that T-shirt. If you think that I should be put in jail, I have nothing else to offer – let’s agree to disagree, to use a cliche. If you somehow feel that this is not valid grounds for jailing me, then you should extend the same principle to Chandramohan’s or anybody else’s art, however offensive you find it.
Third, why haven’t any of you tackled my point of ANY nude being offensive to the average Indian. You find nude forms that depict erotica etc ok, you just find that the use of religious names/imagery with them is malafide. The average Indian would find just about any nude offensive, and the malafide intention of ‘derogatory representation of women’ can be easily ascribed to it. Give me one good reason why India’s criminal laws should reflect your views but not the average Indian’s.
23. May 2007 - 8:38 PM
“For the last time, the entire point is that – my taking offence at an artistic depiction should not mean that there should be provisions in the law which can get the artist jailed.”
How can that be? First, in democracy, there inevitably has to be recourse to law for whatever infraction that a citizen finds objectionable. We have legislators and judges to define and interpret those laws, but the right to recourse has to be primarily with a citizen.
Clearly, you are saying that there should be no law at all which will put the artist in jeopardy – with the legal establishment atleast, but law cannot be based on this lone desire, howsoever genuine and benign it may be.
Can even the state do that to the symbols it itself holds dear? The tricolor, anything to do with Mahatma Gandhi for example.
Look at Amit Varma’s defense above – just as an example. First he says that he supports freedom of speech but won’t organize protest etc., since it is beyond his means. Fair enough. But when prodded further regarding the Danish cartoons as to whether he did give space to them on his website (his personal real-estate as he repeatedly asserts)? His answer- unequivocal ‘No’.
Now one would think that you would shelter someone in distress whom, in ways and means possible, whom you otherwise support so vocally.
But most often what we inevitably see is the contrived hypocrisy of arbiters in the free-speech argument.
And when such is the case, law has to step in. Else one must demonstrate how the selective treatment can done away with, practically so.
23. May 2007 - 8:56 PM
The amount of heat that this debate is generating clearly shows that secularist and free-speech apologists come crawling out of the woodwork when Hindus protest. Unless Sandeep’s blog has bumped up its readership by a few orders of magnitude, one just needs to look at his post on UP’s minority affairs minister and the Danish cartoons:
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2006/02/20/when-terrorists-become-ministers/
A mere 1/10th of the comments that this post has, although the issue at stake is pretty much the same. Even that great artist MF Hussain withdrew his film Meenaxi when Muslims protested. When the Christian Secular Forum got the Da Vinci Code banned, no dust was raised, unlike the sandstorm over Fanaa in Gujarat. Has Chandramohan been exiled to the UK to live under police protection like Rushdie ? Why dont these free speech advocates use their lung power when Muslims are involved ? Are they scared for their lives ? I think that instead of debating about standards of free speech, we should debate why we have different standards for different communities ?
23. May 2007 - 9:22 PM
Socal,
So you’re saying that Indian law has to be formulated and implemented in such a way as to to correct Amit Verma’s hypocrisy?
As for national symbols and Mahatma Gandhi, I am against jailing someone who offends even them. I would find it disgusting if somone was to insult the tricolour, but I would not have him jailed.
23. May 2007 - 9:50 PM
>>>So you’re saying that Indian law has to be formulated and implemented in such a way as to to correct Amit Verma’s hypocrisy?
Exactly! I have to applaud your understanding. Though there was much before and after what I said was just an example which was simply filler stuff and hence could be ignored.
Seriously though, can we get done with the wisecracks plz?
One time you argue that sensitivities differ and what one finds obscene may not be deemed so by other(a Hindu in this case). Now, when I raise the issue of state tolerance, I have to ask, can the personal view you’ve forwarded (at invariance with the majority, hence the state) be realistically acceptable to the state?
23. May 2007 - 9:53 PM
“Why dont these free speech advocates use their lung power when Muslims are involved ? Are they scared for their lives ?”
Doh! Their love for life and limb supercedes their desire for free speech. Why is anyone surprised?!
23. May 2007 - 10:07 PM
@socal
That was meant to be a rhetorical question
. These ppl are probaby trying to be in the good books of the jihadis, so that when their dhimmitude has brought the jihadis to power …
23. May 2007 - 10:21 PM
Socal,
My argument about sensitivities differing and not being absolute was meant to illustrate the fact that if one was to have legal provisions against ‘offensive content’, one would find it difficult to define offensive content and thus it would be impossible to have an objective, consistent implementation of the law. My personal view on this is defnitely against the majority view – what Ot, Gaurav and you are ignoring is that in all probability, your views will also not be validated by the majority. You guys find nothing wrong with an anonymous erotic nude but find a nude Durga Mata giving birth offensive – the average Indian, or since you prefer a different terminology ‘majority Indians’ (and hence, by your logic, the Indian state)would find ANY nude ofensive – should the law then ban all nudes? Please answer this – none of you have done so till now.
My personal view is currently not acceptable to the state, yet I hold it. This is precisely why I say that I believe freedom is axiomatic – if laws at all point of time should reflect the majority opinion, Sati should have never been abolished, the Hindu Code bill should not have been passed, etc. If you believe that state laws should be guided by the principle of ‘this is the majority view, hence this is right’ then clearly you haven’t understood the basic concept of a liberal democracy.
The question Socal, is not whether my views CAN be acceptable to a majority-representing state. The question is, on a matter of principle, SHOULD they be acceptable. A change in a law, can over a period of time, change majority public opinion – as I’ve illustrated in the case of Sati. Even if it isn’t the legal change that directly causes the opinion change, the legal change can still precede the change of majority opinion and need not be guided by it.
Lastly, all of you guys just love asking questions, don’t you. For a change, have some intellectual honesty and answer the two that I have posed numerous times but yet have recieved no replies to.
1. Should all nudes be banned, given that the average Indian would find any nude offensive?
2. Should I be jailed for wearing a T-shirt that depicts an upturned cross with the number 666 written across it and is thus clearly offensive to the average christian?
23. May 2007 - 10:30 PM
Ritwik, quick answers:
>>>1. Should all nudes be banned, given that the average Indian would find any nude offensive?
No.
>>>2. Should I be jailed for wearing a T-shirt that depicts an upturned cross with the number 666 written across it and is thus clearly offensive to the average christian?
It is not for me to decide. But I should have the right to approach the court regarding this issue. If you are found wearing the said t-shirt in/outside a church during/around a Sunday sermon, chances are even the courts will take a dim view of any absolute freedom-of-expression law deeming it provocative.
You have misconstrued my usage of ‘majority.’ For want of time I will clarify later.
23. May 2007 - 10:40 PM
Socal,
1. If your answer to 1 is no, how do any of you extend the ‘average person’ principle to a nude Durga Mata giving birth? Don’t you realise that you are substituting ‘offensive to the average person’ where you actually want to say ‘offensive to me’?
2. Under IPC, I could easily be jailed under section 295. In Britain, I would be guilty under the blasphemy law. Under the US First Amendment however, (even after the Miller Test) I would be protected, and courts would dismiss your petition by upholding my rights , even if I was to wear the T-shirt inside a church during a Sunday sermon. (Ofcourse, the church has the right to throw me out for doing that, as it is private property and can set its own rules. However, I would not be jailed.) I believe that I should not be jailed – this is why so many people bring in the First Amendment in such debates, because we genuinely believe it is written better than other existing free-speech laws. And since I believe that I should not be jailed, I also believe that Chandramohan and others of his ilk should not be jailed.
24. May 2007 - 12:30 AM
i think the debate should have been more on the double standards and hypocrisies of the so called liberals and outrage mongers and not so much on the merits of “freedom of expression”.
nobody would have questioned the liberals if they had shown equal intensity in opposing Da’Vinci Code or Satanic Versus or Cartoon. Just taking the “i opposed that too”, argument by a liberal on face value is no good.
Where did he/she oppose it? in the bathroom? in their bedroom? i did not see NO opposition anywhere?
the liberal blogger who started this whole discussion by calling Jain and his supporters as Fascist did not call Sonia Gandhi or Chief Minister Reddy as fascist; nor did he call the congress government “communal” for banning Satanic Verses.
That should really be debated. No one can win a “whats freedom of expression” debate anyways.
The debating community should stick to exposing the double standards of the *liberals* rather than allowing them free hand on extremely subjective notion of “freedom of expression”.
liberals skirt the issue when questioned upfront about their stand on Muslim or Christian communities “communal” activities. They usually say, “yea we oppose that too”.
but we never see that opposition ! atleast not with such a sense of outrage.
Did the liberals take a strong stand against the UP minister? Did the liberals come out openly in supporting Salman Rushdie? Did the liberal community provide a strong support base for Taslima Nasreen? Did they write articles and blogs on Da’Vinci Code’s ban? Did they call the congress government in AP as Fascist and Communal?
the answer is a resounding NO. And this can be easily quantified and measured. Not some relative subject of “your mom being nude is more / less offensive” or “define freedom” etc. then its just moving in circles.
i think we need a crash course in – “how to talk to a liberal”, Ann Coulter anyone?
24. May 2007 - 1:20 AM
HEAR HEAR
24. May 2007 - 1:43 AM
I’d like to say I like Anon’s rage against the left.
It is only with high societal disincentives that people in the US are terrified of calling themselves communist.
What happens in poor countries (Latin America|India) is that the poor and the uninformed and malicious veer towards the left. “Enlightened” people (Amit etc) — while not of the left — vent their energies towards protesting the rage of the right against the destructive policies of the left.
And the left keeps on perpetuating its existence.
Sometimes, it is necessary to wage war. One can only hope the enlightened Chamberlains realize this and align themselves with the Pandavas.
24. May 2007 - 1:49 AM
7*6 it would be unfair to characterize Amit with this : “Enlightened†people (Amit etc) — while not of the left — vent their energies towards protesting the rage of the right against the destructive policies of the left, as most of his venting/ranting posts are against lefty/communist nonsense whether its abuse of private property rights, big governments and bureacracies, banning of Da vinci code or Fashion TV (our beloved PriyaRanjan Dasmunshi).
24. May 2007 - 2:07 AM
Tushar, moving away from the issue at hand and Amit’s post, the problem is that all the liberal conscience keepers become hyperactive at the slightest provocation of the right (gujarat encounters, fanaa, water, this art controversy …). the left have a set of designated victim communities (the minorities, tribals etc – important to note that they never take up cudgels on behalf of say sikhs or parsis or jains …). anything and everything done by these groups is the result of their mistreatment by the right. So when Hindus are driven out of Kashmir, they maintain silence and instead blame GoI for the treatment of Kashmiris. Heaven forbid if Muslims were to be driven out of Gujarat tomorrow; one shudders at the decibel power that would be unleashed on all television studios across the country. If the BJP comes out with a CD, that is communal, but when Paswan campaigns with a Osama look-alike that is not (it might even be praised as a stand against American imperialism).
As 7*6 said, the left perpetuates its existence
.
At college I took a course on “Indian Tradition”. The prof was a typical femminist-leftie, who always thought her opinion was the only correct opinion. Needless to say, mention of stuff like the Shah Bano case made her rush for cover. At the end of the course (the 2004 elections), due to my contrarian views, she said that I MUST be a BJP supporter. Sad state of affairs if different views lead to you being branded ‘communal’ by those who champion the freedom of thought and expression.
24. May 2007 - 4:13 AM
Tushar, I did not mean to say Amit — or the broader “moderate” establishment — vent *all* their energies criticizing raging bulls of the right.
My point was that they should come under a broader umbrella that would be able to wage a punitive assault on leftism in India. It is naive to think we would rid India of its socialist ethos without a couple of McCarthys and Togadias. To rage against these needed infantry is counterproductive to the programme, and as such plays into the hands of the leftist orthodoxy.
24. May 2007 - 5:07 AM
Okay 7*6 so if I understand you correctly, you are saying we should join hands and bring down the socialist empire in India, before separating into feuding parties to decide other issues. I guess I can sympathize with that.
24. May 2007 - 9:47 AM
@anonymous coward:
>>> Unless Sandeep’s blog has bumped up its readership by a few orders of magnitude, one just needs to look at his post on UP’s minority affairs minister and the Danish cartoons…
Brilliant!
I and others here too have been crying hoarse about the glaring difference in reactions in cases of involvement of the Hindu right wing vis-a-vis other religions.
Unfortunately, now that the freedom (of expression) fighters are unable to deny the obvious hypocrisy, the argument put forth is “just because there is hypocrisy, you cannot justify this incident”!
Fair enough (for now)! But then, shouldn’t the first step be to correct the hypocrisy? By putting forth this argument, arent they only perpetuating/ furthering the double standards?
24. May 2007 - 12:13 PM
Ritwik Sparacus,
“For the last time, the entire point is that – my taking offence at an artistic depiction should not mean that there should be provisions in the law which can get the artist jailed.”
That is not the point you started with — you insinuated that the Chandramohan school of “art” can only be obscene by subjective criteria; I demonstrated that that is not so by inviting you to replace Durga in the Baroda artist’s “art” with a picture of your mother. You agreed that it would offend you. That should really be baat khatam.
Nevertheless, I’m game to addressing your changed goalpost too.
There are civil offences and criminal offences; in either case, a trial ends in the wronged party getting justice, and the offending party getting penalized. In criminal cases, the penalty is generally a jail term , in civil cases, it is always pecuniary. Again, in either case, the penalty is expected to act as a deterrent.
So the debate is really not about whether obscene “art” should be a criminal offence or a civil offence, but as to what the deterrent should be so that the wronged party (and society at large) is reasonably assured that the offending “artist” won’t repeat his offence.
Is there a deterrent that prevents “artists” from denigrating Muslim objects of veneration with obscene caricatures? Indeed, there is. Note that our friend Chandramohan left out “Muslim birth” or “Muslim ejaculation” from his reportiore of art. Even bloggers and budding journalists are full of bravado about fighting (Hindu) “fascism” (using leftwingers’ self-serving definitions of ‘fascism’, while, in sweet irony, spouting Ayn Rand’s theories on private property), but they dare not take an equally no-holds-barred stance on the Danish cartoons which are truly an issue of freedom of expression. The deterrent here is not only the fear of losing life or limb to Muslim fundamentalists/terrorists, but also the fear of hurting one’s career prospects given the prevailing power structures in the fields of arts, media and academia.
But alas, there is no such deterrent to stop the likes of the Baroda lout. Despite all this manufactured noise about fascism — Paxtonian or otherwise — there’s a steady slew of fellows choosing denigration of Hindu belief as a short-cut to fame.
Therefore, while I agree with you that obscenity/defamation/blasphemy should be made civil offences, I add the rider that they should be civil offences only if the offence is one of “hurting” Muslim belief. Outrages perpetrated on Indic beliefs should continue to be criminal offences, till such time as “artists” learn to exercise self-restraint as they do in the case of Muslim issues.
24. May 2007 - 3:25 PM
To RitWik,
I read all your arguments and the interesting debate.In all my limited knowledge and time restraint (I am Sorry,as you said U have time to kill),I am hard pressed for it.I found three things in you’re spirited defense of “right to offense” line of arguments.
1.Spare My Mom and DAD since ,They are citizens of India.
Great!And you and that cahnder mohan will decide who is not citizen of India! Ma Durga was born and is reverend in ITALY? If and only if I accept your argument for the sake of argument alone,then I have a right to paint Allah as a child molester.Now please do not tell me No.He was not an Indian citizen either.And so was Christ.But I feel offended and would feel offended by any derogatory depiction of any of them,in any form.
2.I am a Hindu too,you say.So,good to know you are, but then there were many who called selves Hindus but were against the ethics and belief of Hindu religion.eg.Just to name few,Ravana,Kansa,Hirayanakashyap,Manthara
,Baali and Jaichand and so many others.So!What do you want to say?Since you do not believe in all the gods and goddesses so I should stop too!Is it?
You’re and Amit’s argument that though Neeraj have a right to protest but you protest the way he protested.Right? What do you expect him to do?Go to Wagah border and light candles,or walk down the Rajpath holding candles (and in evening sipping scotch and wondering about the ’secular’ ethos and many a times snorting ’stuff’ and being liberal,secular)or better still sit on fast un to death?
Mam! You remind me of a Prof.(BTW I am equally educationally qualified man,if not more than u Ms.Comp.Engr.) who used to say often,Communist all right in early 20s,But in 30s? Better see a Doctor.
Regards,PI.
24. May 2007 - 8:14 PM
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/24/1326241
WHOPPEEEEE … two cheers for freedom of speech!!
apparently this freedom is the freedom to not speak as well. these british historians can take some tips from our own marxist ones.
24. May 2007 - 8:41 PM
Sorry,RitWik I stand corrected,you are Sir not Mam.
Piya name,was some what confusing for a man.Anyway,Sorry again.
regards
PI
24. May 2007 - 9:13 PM
Ot,
The goalpost has not changed. From the begining, my argument is – offence is subjective, hence it cannot be the crietria for legal formulation and implementaion, hence even if I’m offended, the guy should not be jailed.’ Let me illustrate this –
1) I do not find naked Durga Mata gving birth offensive. I would find a naked portrayal of my mom offensive.
2) You find naked Durga Mata offensive, and would also find naked depictions of your mom offensive.
3) Gaurav finds naked Durga Mata offensive. He will not find ‘Rama eating meat cooked on the holy fire’ or satires of Rama sending Sita to exile offensive (refer to comments 75 and 79).
4) The average Indian would find ANY nude offensive, and many Hidnus will also find the depiction of Rama eating meat offensive.
5) I wear a t-shirt that has an upturned cross with the number 666 written across it. It is not offensive to me but it is offensive to most christians (most, not all).
6) If someone in the name of art displays a mude pic of my mom, after taking her CONSENT (notice that I say pic, not painting – a painting should not even require consent), I would still find it offensive, but it’s clear that my mother doesn’t (because she has given consent).
Therefore, since offence is subjective, my argument was – you cannot base (il)legality on ‘giving offence’. Your argument throughout has been – wouldn’t you find a naked picture of your mom offensive – which was failure on your part to take my argument as a composite whole. You feel that you have conclusively proved that offence is not subjective by using the ‘your mother’ example – you failed to take into account that my mother, indeed all mothers are individuals in their own right, and what may offend me may not offend my mother and so your argument was not really conclusive.
Am I clear now, or you still think that I’ve changed the goalpost?
Chandramohan left out Muslim ejaculation or Muslim birth – he may very well be biased. So? This demand to prove that one is equally offensive is quite ridiculous. Like I said, I wear a T that is blasphemous by christian standards. Will you also insist that I should wear T’s of unflattering descriptions of Hindu gods or Prophet Mohammed to prove that I’m an equal-opportunity offender? You want deterrents for people who try to ‘offend’. For all the reasons I have explained (offence being subjective and hence not a good enough criteria for jurisprudence,etc) earlier, I want no such deterrents.
Your rants against Amit Varma’s hypocrisy and (I presume) Dilip D Souza’s motivations are better directed against them directly. I am in no position to answer and hold my views/thoughts/arguments independently from what they may believe – whether they agree with me or not.
In your quest to separate offences caused to Muslim belief and Indic beliefs, you have carelessly (or should I say, carefully) left out Christianity. What about that – civil offence or criminal? And this position of yours – to separate ‘offences’ to Muslim and non-Muslim beliefs woud hardly find any takers even on your side of the argument. Maybe socal or Gaurav can bear me out here.
Lastly, this is a humble request O great understander of identities. Please do not call me Ritwik Spartacus. If you must use two words to refer to me, call me by my full name – Ritwik Priya – else Ritwik will do just fine. I like my name, it’s quite literary don’t you think? Since so much of this debate has been about Hinduism and Hindus, trivia question – what exactly does Ritwik mean wrt Hinduism? I want the exact answer, so ‘one who performs yagyas’ will not do.
PI,
1. I am glad to know that Durga Mata is a citizen of India. I wonder if she was included in the 2001 census. Oh sorry I forgot, such national things as censuses have been hijacked by Muslim apologists – so obviously they would have mischieviously excluded her. Also, since you helpfully inform me that she was born in India (and not ITALY), I request you to also provide me the date. You are free to use ancinet Vedic time scales.
2. I’m also glad to know that my being a Hindu doesn’t imply anything, since Ravana was also a Hindu. I quite admire the guy, I’m just sorry I don’t have ten heads – that would have been cool right?
3. Umm now that you mention it, snorting stuff while sipping scotch and wondering about the secular ethos and that too at the Wagah border is very neat idea. I hope to be able to do it atleast once in my lifetime.
4. I am also glad to be informed that I’m a communist who is in HER 30’s. A simple misinterpretation of my world view would have been too boring – I’m just happy that my sex and age have been changed too.
24. May 2007 - 9:16 PM
PI,]
Ahh well, I posted my comment without seeing yours. Apologies accepted, and to be sure they were not needed. I’m also sorry for the tone of my last comment, but given that you wrote yours in a particular way, I just couldn’t avoid it.
By the way, I have been officially declared to be shikhandi’s avataar by Avatarm on Nilu’s blog. So, there is a chance I may be trasgendered
24. May 2007 - 9:17 PM
the Danish cartoons which are truly an issue of freedom of expression.
IOW, all over agin, “I decide which issues concern freedom of expression. Danish cartoons, yes. Baroda, no.”
Gotit.
Please leave out Ritwik from your amature detective attempts. I am not him, he is not me. But you are RR, aka Raghu Reddy, once of poodlesofindia.blogspot, always the same.
25. May 2007 - 11:46 AM
Dear Ritwik Priya Spartacus Dsouza Briganza Pickwick Abacus,
“1) I do not find naked Durga Mata gving birth offensive. I would find a naked portrayal of my mom offensive.”
How come it took you ages to offer this crappy line of defence? Is age catching up with you?
Anyways, I did make an attempt to spare you the trouble of conjuring up the above crappy line of defence, but it seems you’re hellbent on winning Oscars in playing dumb. So let me educate you all over once again.
Yes, whether something gives one offence is “subjective”. If a person calls you, say, a “schizophrenic scumbag” — not that you are one — most likely only _you_ will be offended, and no one else will be, and who knows, some may even be pleased. But does that mean that that person’s “free speech” does not amount to abuse?
One reviewer insinuated that Arundhati Roy offered sexual favours to get famous:
http://www.exile.ru/2002-April-05/great_literatury_frauds_of_our_time.html
Even so, should someone call Roy a “slut”, wouldn’t that be abuse? Even if _you_ have no reason to be offended?
Likewise, it is NOT the artist’s subject of portrayal that gives offence, but the manner in which he portrayed that subject does. I gave you an example: if the Baroda lout drew a nice picture of Durga, and I suggested that you replace Durga with your mom, you wouldn’t be whining and screaming at all.
The fact that you admitted that doing a Chandramohan on your mom offends you shows that the offensiveness of the Chandramohan school of “art” is almost universally felt. And why is it offensive? Because it is *abuse*. Just as calling you “scumbag” constitutes abuse as much as calling anyone else a scumbag does, doing a Chandramohan on anybody’s object of veneration constitutes abuse.
Now, what’s your next line of crappy defence, sishya? Why are you flunking your exams repeatedly? Are you really dumb? I bet you’re actually extremely clever, and are just hoping that I’ll get confused enough by your lousy distractions to abandon the argument.
“many Hidnus will also find the depiction of Rama eating meat offensive.”
I should say that your knowledge of Hinduism is downright offenisve
25. May 2007 - 11:58 AM
RitWik
>>>1. After reading you I just searched the birth certificates of our family elders,Started with self and Dad thank fully i did get these two,but my grand father and Great grand father his father and then his father and so on…could not…so please enlighten me…did they exist or not? And yes could not find them in any vedic scripture too.
>>>2.I too admire Ravana,rather more than any body.And he had ten heads just reflects on the knowledge you have about him.
>>>3.”…that too at the Wagah border is very neat idea…”,Where did I say ‘having scotch and snorting at Wagah Border’? This I said for walking down the Rajpath and Wagah border comment was for candle march…please read again.
And yes do enjoy scotch,I too every day,but do not mix with any stuff.B’cause if u do that then who will defend “the right to offend” Sweet Heart?
>>>4.When did I say that u r in 30s and U are a communist? I said neither.I only reminded you of what our good old Prof. used to say.Please read that again too.Will U? And BTW,y u take offense if some one calls u a Communist? Is being Communist so bad…chhhhh…what will u r fellow travelers think! Haan!.
Of course,I inadvertently called you mam,and then when I checked and found I was wrong I tendered apology.
25. May 2007 - 1:50 PM
Ritwik,
>> We have 33 crore gods and godesses
If we have 33 crore Gods, we dont make fun of any of them.. OK ? Is the fact that there are 33 crore Gods a good reason to depict them offensively. How does the number – 33 hundred or 33 crores – matter? What you wrote is not a logical reply.
>> Clearly, you suffer from the same ‘I am blind to preceding and following text’ syndrome that Ot does.
The following text does not matter. The fact that it is offensive is the end of the matter. By your thinking, I am allowed to paint anyone’s moms pics nude even minutes after her death (I hate typing in this). There are some things not exactly defined by the law, and upheld by common understanding in the society.
By the way, poor George W Bush !! He has rude caricatures all over the world !!
25. May 2007 - 1:54 PM
Ritwik,
I feel, all your arguments hold good in an ideal scenario only. But in the real scenario, discrimination and inequality ( inequality as in how the state treats its citizens ) against us are rife. What you say cannot work unless the hypocrisy ends.
25. May 2007 - 2:04 PM
>>> I often wear a T-shirt of a metal band called Venom that features an upturned cross and has the number 666 written across it.
Ritwik,
Are you comparing this with the offensive Jesus and Durga “art” ? I am ok if someone wears a Tshirt with the OM reversed ? I have also seen some funny Tantra tshirt with some distorted Shivlinga symbol. It was not offensive, in fact it was funny. You are comparing apples with oranges here. There is a fine line dividing a naughty joke and a crude joke. (It might come as an average of all the jokes you might have read/heard till date). These fine lines dividing good and bad keep shifting over the years.
Whats offensive or not is determined collectively by the society, not by introducing any arbitrary law all of a sudden. Maybe in future, Ritwik, we might not find such things offensive when many Yous and Is dont find it offensive, but now, it sure is offensive. 50 years ago, the Tshirt you describe might have been termed offensive. So, lets go with the flow.
25. May 2007 - 2:08 PM
Answers, Ritwik
1. Should all nudes be banned, given that the average Indian would find any nude offensive?
No, only painting nudes of figures revered by millions should be banned. Maybe if Bush were revered, there wouldnt have been so many ugly caricatures of him.
2. Should I be jailed for wearing a T-shirt that depicts an upturned cross with the number 666 written across it and is thus clearly offensive to the average christian?
No. Nor should I be jailed for wearing a Tshirt with the Swastika anti-clockwise or OM upside down. A 100 years ago, I might have been jailed. Maybe a 100 years from now, I wouldnt find Chandramohans ugly “art” offensive.
25. May 2007 - 2:13 PM
Comments 109 and 113 .. Good one, anons..
25. May 2007 - 6:22 PM
Ot,
I had made an attempt to get past the ‘infuse sarcasm to make fun of the person while tackling his point’ plank that both of us had been using previously. Clearly, you’re not willing. Hence, I’ll just keep it short.
1. Thanks for telling me that offence = abuse. Also, thanks for telling me that if someone calls me a schizophrenic scumbag, I should have the moral and legal right to get him jailed. I stand corrcted and enlightened.
2. Do read the Ramayana fully atleast once. Then you’ll probably know what I’m talking about. Use C Rajagopalachari’s translations of both Valmiki and Kambana Ramayana, to avoid creative western interpretations that I presume you hate. But please do read.
Guruji, I’m not worthy of any more of your gyaan. Let me first go dip my unholy communist pesudo-secular hypocritical self in the holy mother Ganga and rid myself of all my sins. Only then shall I ever be worthy of your teachings. Until then, I take your leave.
PI,
I feel like taking the wisecrack debates further, but that is quite futile. Until later, then.
shadows,
1. I hope you realise the danger of saying something like ‘we should not make fun of any gods and godesses – 33 or 33 crore’. You presume that a person’s religious identity is his/her defining identity. I am a Hindu, a Bihari and a devout Tendulkar fan. I do not know which one supercedes the other, so if I can take offence at someone making fun of my gods and godesses, can I also not take offence at any unflattering descriptions of Biharis? Can I not claim that if someone ever drew a nude caricature of Sachin Tendulkar, that is offensive to me? Should I be able to legally prosecute this person who draws anything like that ?
2. I am glad you realise and accept that moralities are relative and constantly in a flux. My t-shirt is offensive to chritians not just because it has a rotated by 180 degrees (upturned) cross, but also because it has the so-called ‘number of the beast’ written across a cross that has lost its sanctity (by being upside down) – it is symbolic of the devil overpowering god (the Chritian devil & the Christian god) and is a blasphemous depiction by orthodox chritian standards. You found the tantra t-shirt funny, maybe Ot or Neeraj Jain would have found that offensive too. Who should the laws listen to then?
3. You recommend that offensiveness be determined collectively by society. I hope you realise that this is the path to majoritarian tyranny. I agree that the current Indian media (and even laws to some extent) are in fact hypocritical against the majority – the way to right that is to correct those laws and expose this hypocrisy every time it happens, not to match this hypocrisy with flawed FoS or Obscenity laws.
4. Bush figures are caricatured not just because he is not revered, but also because the Us has the First Amendment to protect FoS. In India, if there was even one ‘offensive’ caricature of Arjun Singh, however much he (Arjun singh) is hated by you or me, technically the caricaturist can be jailed and his work will be banned.
5. ‘Paintings of nudes of figures revered by millions should be banned’ – should a nude painting of Pancho Pir maharaj, my Kul-devta be banned? He is not revered by millions – indeed outside of my ancestral village, hardly anyone would have heard of him – yet he is a religious (and hence sensitive) figure for my family, and my dad would certainly find a nude depiction of him offensive. Let’s say I draw a nude figure and title it ‘Pancho Pir maharaj’ – should my dad be able to legally prosecute me or my work? I hope you realise that I’m mentioning one such example after another just to demonstrate how there are immense subjectivities involved in what you are saying. Indeed, to my questions, you, Ot and Socal have different answers. If there’s hardly any consensus between three people on the same side of the divide here, you can imagine how many permutations and combinations will result once we have considered the multitude or majority of views. Lastly, I have always maintained that ‘majority view’ cannot (or rather, should not) be a ground for objective jurisprudence.
6. Thank you for accepting that your views (and the average view) may be different 100 years from now. Just think that I’m one of those who already holds that view today and will hopefully work towards creating that average view and try to ensure that it becomes the norm 50 years from now instead of 100.
7. What I have implied is not that you can draw a nude painting of somebody’s mom minutes after death – it is that you should be able to draw a nude painting of anybody (alive or dead, anybody’s mom, dad, or that person himself) and that though they may find it offensive, you should not be jailed or your work banned.
25. May 2007 - 7:47 PM
@shadows,
dude please dont think of me at anonmyous, I regularly post comments under the name of anonymous coward. The slashdot reading junta would hopefully get the joke
25. May 2007 - 8:36 PM
one thing is for sure.. people in IT have lots of free time.. i mean look at that last comment from that secularist… what a load full of crap.. 7 wasteful points.. no one must have bothered to read…
guys.. get this straight ok.. if u don’t get across your point in one shot, you don’t get it across. ok?
stop writing essays..
here’s my unsolicited advise to ya all liberals out there – accept the fact that you guys shit in your pants/ies when you are expected to oppose islamofascism or christifascism. your outrage is selective.
and stop calling yourselves “broad minded” and “enlightened” [yea..someone actually called that amit guy - ENLIGHTENEDE..] unless you gather the guts to vehemently oppose banning satanic verses and lajja. till then stop throwing your liberal crap.. it sounds very hollow..
advise to “right wingers”… don’t sweat the small stuff.. expose the dhimmis and hit under the belt.. stop arguing on relative subjects that can’t be quantified and measured..
stop this BS will ya?
25. May 2007 - 10:35 PM
Clearly, you’re not willing.
Ritwik, RR/Ot/Raghu Reddy is never willing to do anything but sarcasm. Oh yes, also equting his debating oponents to each other and “Briganza DSouza” and so forth.
25. May 2007 - 10:39 PM
no one must have bothered to read…
anonymous coward, if you cannot drum up the courage to read, why do you assume that others are like you?
26. May 2007 - 12:01 AM
@spartacus
if you cant read the difference between “anonymous” and “anonymous coward”, please dont pass judgements on others’ ability. the comment was by “anonymous” not “anonymous coward”, viz me.
26. May 2007 - 10:34 AM
Wow, we have Indian ‘right wingers’ masturbating over fantasies of themselves in Hannity-Coulter mode. LOL! So that’s what things have come down to. May be these guys also defend Iraq. Gaurav said it right, stop importing political labels, it is pathetic (and makes you look like buffoons).
PS: Pseudo-secular is fine, that’s our own.
27. May 2007 - 6:26 AM
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/31929.html
I hope liberals will defend freedom of expression with the same zeal now.
28. May 2007 - 5:27 AM
ya right ! the entire liberal/left discourse if imported from the west and sunny boy gets angry by use of one term, albeit in quotes
28. May 2007 - 4:02 PM
That Varma guy quotes someone in his blog as saying
“In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speechâ€; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.”
Is MS University the property of Chadramohan’s father(i.e BAAP ka maal)???
MS University is certainly not public property.
In fact according to the Left’s unofficial paper,the (anti)Hindu,MS university is one of the largest recipients of UGC aid.
Hence, we have every right to protest what is happening there.
29. May 2007 - 7:09 PM
Ritwik,
>>> ‘Paintings of nudes of figures revered by millions should be banned’ – should a nude painting of Pancho Pir maharaj, my Kul-devta be banned? He is not revered by millions
Yes. And Sachin Tendulkar is not God
>>>> You recommend that offensiveness be determined collectively by society. I hope you realise that this is the path to majoritarian tyranny.
Then whats the other option.. Minority tyranny ??!
>>>
Just think that I’m one of those who already holds that view today and will hopefully work towards creating that average view and try to ensure that it becomes the norm 50 years from now instead of 100.
Good. Its all right.
>>> I agree that the current Indian media (and even laws to some extent) are in fact hypocritical against the majority – the way to right that is to correct those laws and expose this hypocrisy every time it happens, not to match this hypocrisy with flawed FoS or Obscenity laws.
Well, then, how do you fight this hypocrisy and discrimination. Atleast for me, I cannot tolerate such potshots at us in the name of art. In an equal, non-discriminatory and just society, I would not even care for such art. But now I do. Unless the discrimination and hypocrisy stops, it is not even possible in 100 years, try as you much to achieve the morality standard that you want in 50 years.
>>> technically the caricaturist can be jailed and his work will be banned.
How has RK Laxman managed to survive so long
29. May 2007 - 8:16 PM
>>>the entire liberal/left discourse if imported from the west and sunny boy gets angry by use of one term, albeit in quotes
Haha! They even import the western liberals every now and then to patch up the discourse. Btw, looking at sunny boy’s frustration seems a rather ignoble case of leftist cul-de-sac.
30. May 2007 - 10:47 PM
socal, anyone who does not agree with you ‘right wingers’ is a ‘liberal’? Exactly what I talked about. Get a grip, stop talking right/left. Our right/left are not the same, which is why it is absurd, not because I’m a leftist.
31. May 2007 - 9:07 PM
yea, write this in our language, Sanskrit, and may be it will sound less hollow.
and while you are at it, change our constitution to sound more like “ours” and less like an imported/smuggled one from Britain and you would score.
dude,when u pick the entire language, you also pick up spoken terms and general lingo.
no wonder M in CPI(M) stands for Marxist and not Mukherjee; however hard we wish that we could have made an indigenous political ideology.