|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | MATTERS OF STATE | |||
|
July 27, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
How Readers responded to Amberish K Diwanji's latest column
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:55:10 -0400
Here are my first-ever comments to a column on Rediff. The columnist says... The fact that Muslims dominate various gharanas and have richly contributed to Hindustani music means that beyond the strictest interpretation of Islam comes the cultural influence of India. These painters and artists are Indians, not just Muslims, and they are influenced by, and in turn influence, their surroundings. This is what explains the ustads and singers, the Husains, Mohammed Rafi, and even the various Khans prancing about in celluloid. Sure! Who opposed this weaving of different religions and communities into a single fabric called India? The opposition was to hurting the sentiments of one section of the people by one person -- irrespective of which community this one person belonged to. Nobody can deny that there are many great poets, singers and artists -- one does not remember them by their religion. No one is saying that artists should be treated differently based on their religion. Should he paint Hindu goddesses? Or just stick to Muslim motifs? And would he have dared to paint any Muslim holy figure similarly? Who objected to Husain painting Hindu gods and goddesses? We appreciate his paintings, but he has to realise that he HAS NO RIGHT TO HURT THE FEELINGS OF A SINGLE HINDU. No one has any objections he simply paints Saraswati or other holy figures in a dignified way (not nude), irrespective of whether it is a single line painting or a multi-dimensional portrait. But is he justified in painting Hindu goddesses nude? If the painting affects the sensibilities of the people, then certainly Husain should be, and most likely would have been, more circumspect. But one must remember that Husain did not draw these paintings in the recent past. He drew them a few decades ago, and to his credit, none of his paintings then drew angry responses or cause vandals to ransack his flat. People have become more aware now. This is a fact of life, and YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT, else you will be the ODD MAN OUT in present-day society. There is nothing wrong in opposing the attempts by anyone, whichever community he belongs to, if one's sentiments are hurt. But you should not do by ransacking his paintings. Yet, in this case, it was justified because they had clearly demanded an apology and asked him to destroy the controversial paintings. His arrogant and irresponsible response might have provoked them to indulge in this rampage. Hindu mythology is replete with graphic images and sexual overtones, especially with reference to Lord Krishna and his antics with the gopis. Yet, this is considered playful and bhajans (devotional songs) are sung around Krishna... You are missing a point here. Nowhere in Hindu mythology is Goddess Saraswati portrayed in the NUDE. She is supposed to be goddess of education and concentration. You can't present a counter-argument by saying some gods and goddesses are portrayed in a sexual manner. There are certain gods and goddesses who are NOT TO BE tampered with. What makes a goddess portrayed in the nude ARTISTIC? It is columnists like you, and hypocrites like you, who are to be blamed classifying any support to the Hindu sentiment as fundamentalism. Therefore 'Sita is our goddess, we must only venerate her, ditto Saraswati.' This is why Husain had to pay the price and apologise to the Shiv Sena. Not satisfied, a person in Delhi too has filed a case. He too wants an apology, because he does not recognise the Shiv Sena (someone should tell this to Bal Thackeray)! Maybe Husain will end up apologising to every Hindu, or to at least every so-called Hindu organisation seeking its momentary brush with fame. Yeah! He has to apologise to all HINDUS. And since he has committed a big mistake in hurting our sentiments, he has already paid the price, in whatsoever manner. I suggest the author of this column come and visit us here; his sentiments will change by the time he returns to India.
Date sent: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:16:19 +0530
I concur fully with the tone of this article. Indians are by and large becoming very intolerant, especially with regard to religious issues. And this feeling is very pervasive and is also seen in the supposedly 'educated' class. This fact has become evident to me after a quite few experiences. I pride myself on my openness and my sense of tolerance, but events like these leave me feeling just as intolerant of other religions and their practioners. When the people I looked up to can so easily condone the loss of thousands of lives just because of their faith, I see no way that these very same people can lead this country to the oft-talked about 'bright future'. All this leaves me in deep despair for this country. Can anything or anybody help us?
Vinay N Das
Date sent: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 06:55:06 PDT
There are only a few good theatres left in India and Marathi theatre is one of them. If the government can look at Sita and Saraswati in the nude, painted by none other than a Muslim, then what is the need of imposing a ban on the drama Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy? Or does the government now feel that only Muslims have the right to freedom of speech, expression and so on? The drama is made, played, staged (and most probably watched) by Hindus. The protagonists are Hindus (Well, the secular, so-called Mahatma was a Hindu, after all, and Nathuram definitely was one. Even the title forced by his followers, Mahatma has relevance in Hindu terminology). It is not a case of Hindus insulting or endangering Islam, which is the popular and misleading cry raised in India. So if the drama is to be banned after all for insulting the (imposed) "father" of the nation, then why not think about not getting the pictures of Sita published in the nude, who is, after all, revered in most Hindu homes.
Date sent: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:22:29 +0800
Diwanji says, "And to remember that whenever religion has dominated society, that civilisation has only declined." It is not true in the case of India. I hope Diwanji understands the difference between religion and fundamentalism. Hinduism is much more than religion, as the word religion is defined in the West. But fundamentalism, that is dangerous. We must not work towards creating a society that is valueless and immoral; that is the path India is treading on, by creating the impression that religion (dharma) is bad.
Anurag
Date sent: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:41:43 +0900
A very rational article, correctly identifying a deep concern for India. A society which has been hailed as tolerant and receptive to others' culture and traditions is increasingly become intolerant. I think the biggest reason for this (and for many of the other problems that we are facing) is the state of our politics. Our politicians are busy getting votes in name of religion, caste, language and we are giving them those votes. If they are the culprits, so are we. We are happy if someone tells that he will build a temple, but we don't question him about our daily bread. It's not that we can't think, but that we don't want to think rationally. We don't understand the simple fact that one person can't be happy for long if others around him are unhappy. So, please think about it. If you don't tolerate others' views, they are not going to tolerate yours. And it will bring nothing but chaos, of which we have more than enough.
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:48:32 -0700
Really sensible article. I have only this to add -- freedom of speech (or expression) is the bottom line. Even if we knew that Husain was not influenced by a deep understanding of Hindu culture and mythology, even if we knew that his intentions were not artistic but that he meant to vilify Hinduism, nobody in a free democracy has the right to tell others what they can and cannot say -- or paint. You can be upset. You can feel insulted. You can complain. You can demand an apology -- that's free speech for you. But you cannot take away someone's freedom of speech. In this context, I would like to point out that the reason several people in India do not understand this essential principle of democracy is because it is not followed by even the government. We have the government banning movies and books, and whatever else it pleases. How can you expect the common man to rise above this muck and appreciate this most cherished ideal?
Murali Krishna Devarakonda
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:24:54 -0400
I disapprove of violence. I don't think Husain's house should be ransacked or he be harmed in a physical manner. Violence is a last resort and shouldn't be used in this issue at all. At the same time, I think no one should support his painting nude goddesses. It should be severely criticised. In the name of looking good, or a desire to be called tolerant, we should not support an act whose motive we cannot comprehend in any way. Won't we criticise him if he paints a heroine, who is no longer alive, in the nude? It is pure commonsense for a confident man to condemn Husain. No Hindu is going to be pleased by a nude painting of a Hindu goddess. What is a painting which displeases so many people? If he was a famous painter in America and had drawn a Christian woman who is worshipped, he would have certainly faced criticism. It is the people who didn't criticise him are responsible for the attack on him. It is a deplorable act and when the right people don't respond, the wrong ones will. Hope one day we will just not want to look liberal or good, but we will have the courage to do what is right and let others be the judge.
Vijay
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:15:43 -0700
Amberish lists all the points raised by a number of authors in one article. While I agree that a liberal attitude is the essence of the Hindu way of life, I disagree with some specific examples. Husain's painting goddesses in the nude is no different from his usual gimmicks and should be ignored. Ignoring an artist is the best punishment people can impose; you ignore an artist if you do not like his 'style'. It is as simple as that, you don't need to talk of religion. Amberish contradicts himself when he talks about graphic images in Hindu mythology in support of Husain and when he shuns the revival of Hinduism. Indeed one can argue that Husain is trying his version of revivalism by using ancient depictions of Hindu goddesses. Also, Shiva's lingam symbolism does not mean phallus as interpreted by western historians and there are a number of treatises to this effect. In his summary, Amberish talks about religiosity as wrong. It is not religiosity (be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Zorastrianism, Judaism etc.) that is wrong, but rather religious intolerance. As an analogy, it is not science or the pursuit of science that is wrong in the context of chemical weaponisation, but its destructive use.
Anil
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:05:39 -0500
This is crap! It is the perfect example of the stupid Hindu who feels to call something wrong, wrong is a crime. Husain made a mistake whenever he did that painting. He should have not done it for many reasons, the most important one being that he is not a Hindu. He needs to apologise. I hope people like Amberish develop a little more self-esteem (that is, if they believe in Hinduism) and be honest enough to admit that if a wrong has been committed, it needs to be amended, if not punished.
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:58:47 +0000
Thank you for rehashing the same old topic! Whatever my opinions are about the MFH issue, you are being extremely naive when you say "whenever religion has dominated society, that civilisation has only declined. " I hope you really mean "whenever religious fanaticism has dominated...". To suggest that would be showing your ignorance of the fact that civilisation, at least in India, has been dominated by religion all along. More so in the distant past, than in the last couple of centuries. You would be wise to pick your words carefully in future. I am very disappointed that your words are denouncing religion. Religion, at least the Hindu religion in its truest form, is to be revered. Now, I would be the first person to say that what the fanatics believe is NOT Hinduism. Hinduism is the philosophy of the Vedic texts, not some twisted version that suits the present-day political parties.
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:49:53 -0700
At the end of his article Intolerant India, Diwanji talks of "Indians (not just Hindus, because followers of other faiths in India are perhaps even more radical and intolerant)..." Would people like him ever have the guts to say instead: "Indians (not just Muslims because followers of...) " Does he realise that he is able to talk about the "intolerance of Hindus" precisely because they are tolerant of his ramblings? He keeps harping on M F Husain's paintings. What prevents him from talking about the 400-year-old temple which was destroyed less than a month ago in Hyderabad only because of a pamphlet that offended the Muslims? No, he won't talk about that. Because bashing Muslims isn't PC for the likes of Diwanji. Instead, he preaches about the intolerance of Hindus. Shame on him.
Anand
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:52:39 -0400 (EDT)
It is human nature to follow the path of least resistance. Yesterday, I read an Associated Press article about the Darul Uloom and its influence on the Taliban. The article also had an interview with a spokesperson of the Deoband school. He just repeated the Taliban point of view about how men are superior to women and other medieval morals. To think he is revered and upheld makes me sick. Most journalists do not have the guts to take up certain causes. It is much easier to write against Mr Vajpayee than take up a point against Kanshi Ram or Mulayam or Laloo or the Ummah, since their most sober reaction might be a slap. I understand the dynamics. I understand the fear, but don't announce that you have a sense of fair play. There are people who call a spade a spade, but you aren't one of them. By the way, I don't think Mr Vajpayee is proving to be the right choice as good intentions don't get you home. A high degree of capability is required. Look at the choice the Americans have made. Clinton has proved to be an efficient rascal, which is why he still popular. Also Sino-American trade is about $ 76 billion, of which American exports are only about $ 13 billion. Don't cook numbers!
Mukul Gupta
Date sent: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:31:30 +0530
Old wine in a new bottle once again, Mr Diwanji. When HINDUs express their concern, why do you people label it fundamentalism? Why you so-called secularists go on like this? You people talk about the BJP and AYODHYA, but did you ever open your mouth against the murder of the KASHMIRI PANDITS? No, that is not a prime issue for you. I think, under today's circumstances, every HINDU should become a fundamentalist. Why should we be second citizens in our own country? All over the world, except in India, the majority form the government. Why? Is it because we are tolerant? When they kill our brothers in Kashmir, we don't react because we are tolerant. And what about what happens every December 6, when at least 10 bombs will explode all over India. This, too, happens because we are tolerant. We can only give them equal rights, nothing more. This, too, is our magnanimity, when no Muslim country gives any rights to minorities. Let them know the freedom their brothers experience here. All Islamic countries make a lot of noise about the state of Muslims in India. What gives them the right to do so? Please look into all sensitive areas of India, they are all Muslim-dominated areas. Wherever the Muslims are in majority, they have created problems. History is proof of this fact. I just want to make one request to every Hindu, "Don't be so tolerant." That's all. Raghu |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|