|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | THE OUTSIDER | |||
|
June 2, 1998
SPECIALS
|
How Readers responded to Saisuresh Sivaswamy's last column
Date sent: Sun, 31 May 1998 14:08:25 -0400 This is a totally biased article. Just because in Bharat anybody, irrespective of religion, criticises the Hindu religion and Hindu gods. Just think of doing it against Mohammad, in any of 28 Islamic countries, or doing anything against Christ in any Christian-dominated country. Because of these of so-called secular people we aren't proud of our culture, history and we protect mistakes intentionally made. I am really very sorry about the author, who is not aware of the state of Hindus or any minority community in any Islamic country. Vijay
Date sent: Sun, 31 May 1998 07:40:58 +0900 I read this and I feel it is waste of time. It is now time for us to do something for the future. The respected columnist should try to tell society what it should do for the future rather than just randomly commenting on something that has happened.
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 22:15:44 Sai, I agree that Hindu tolerance is on the slide now-a-days but for no reason should we call it a myth. Hindus have been tolerant for so many years that people have started taking Hindus for granted. Just because one is tolerant doesn't mean that you could heap any insult on him. And also just because someone didn't fight back all these years when being insulted doesn't mean he shouldn't fight back now. With regards to the Husain story, people did not condemn Husain just because he was a Muslim. They condemned him for his act. Even if he had been a Christian or a Hindu, that act would have been condemned. It is "self-righteous" people like you who claim that he was condemned because he was a Muslim and that only people like you can safeguard the interests of the minority community. Dieties in any religion are a symbol of sanctity and should be treated that way. If Husain wanted to do a nude painting, he could have done a painting of anyone. Why pick on a Hindu deity? You say that banning of Salman Rushide's work was repeated "ad nauseam, ad infinitum," but wasn't that true? When someone writes something derogatory about Islam you come forward and ban that book to save the religion, but why not apply the same standards for Hindus? Just because other religions are not tolerant you do not touch them and just because Hinduism is tolerant you trample them the way you want. To quote you here: "Is it anybody's case that Husain is a closet Muslim fundamentalist, who is going around the country painting Hindu deities in the nude with the ultimate aim of setting off a civil war? To me, it seems likely that he has so absorbed the symbols of the land as his own, that he does not see anything wrong in using them in his art. Offence is the farthest from his mind, I am sure." Maybe offence is the farthest from his mind, but maybe it also skipped his realisation that he was affecting the sentiments of millions of people. A real artist should know how his work is going to influence people. Did Husain ever give a reason for doing the painting? I don't understand how you could read his mind so well, but are unable to read the minds of people who oppose it. In this regard let us get back to Salman Rushide. Do you think that he meant offence when he wrote the derogatory statements about Islam? Is that why you think that the book was banned? You go further to say that since Husain has made India proud he has not done the right thing by his apology. Think about it. Doesn't it sound hollow to you? It is true that Husain has made the country proud but that doesn't make all the things he does right. If you cannot respect the sentiments of your fellow countrymen, the country doesn't need people like you. I think Husain did the right thing by his apology. Sai, being tolerant to others is one thing, letting others trample you is a completely different story.
Date sent: Sun, 31 May 1998 00:53:48 -0400 Mr Sivaswamy should know that Hindus do not go around painting nude paintings of Muslim religious figures. In my opinion, M F Husain has recognised his mistake and apologised for his mistakes.
Date sent: Sun, 31 May 1998 00:33:34 -0400 I didn't need to read the whole article. The heading was sufficient to term this bullshit. If one does not show his guts, then one will get bulldozed. And this stands true between nations too. HINDUISM IS GREAT. PRACTICE HINDUTVA.
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 20:40:00 +0100 Dear Mr Sivaswamy, I read your article a number of times before I concluded that your knowledge of Hinduism is extremely poor. I fail to understand why your antagonism towards Hinduism has been expressed by invoking some stupid incident that was created by a bunch of semi-literate goons. I would like to first state that the Bajrang Dal is not a representative of Hindu voice or faith and nor do their actions reflect anything about the religion. I am born a free and an educated Hindu and my experience with my faith does not allow me to be a part of a herd that follows a bunch of self-styled leaders. I follow my religion based on my judgements and I know that it is not right to brand a faith that is as old as civilisation on earth as either intolerant or outdated. I would also like to tell you, Mr Sivaswamy, that Hinduism's core is still uncorrupted. Based on the social evils that have crept through the ages, it is not fair for you to cast aspersions on this great religion. Hinduism is not about specific rules, and does not dictate or try to impose barbaric controls on a person. What has been followed is certainly not the real religion, but has over the ages been interpreted to one's convenience by so-called tolerant people like yourself. This has led to various superstitions and other social evils. Furthermore, let me tell you that Hinduism is the only religion in the world that has not been spread by way of rape, loot, arson, or genocide. Nor do the true followers of this religion believe in conversion or luring members of other faiths through green bucks. People who have left this faith have done so because they have been too weak-minded to understand the vastness of this religion, and not been able to use this faith to better their lives. You might be a very educated man, and you might have knowledge of Hinduism as passed on by your family, but I am sorry to say that your interpretation of Hinduism has been really pathetic. I request you to kindly take some time off and browse through some of our culture's great books. I am sure it will change the way you think and you will realise that the only tolerant religion in this world is Hinduism. I also request you to not brand my faith like the others based on the Islamisation of Hinduism by the so-called defenders of this faith today. As a Hindu, and a proud one at that, I condemn and despise those outfits like Bajrang Dal who are trying to compartmentalise and narrow down my great faith. With regards, G Venkatnarayan
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 14:24:07 -0500 All said and done, the article by Mr Saisuresh is off-track and just baloney. There is no iota of truth in his assertions. It's a huge waste of Internet bandwidth. I believe Mr Husain crossed his professional/artistic, social and ethical limits with this particular painting. I practise Hinduism, but am very broad minded and do not subscribe to many tenets of Hinduism. Nevertheless, I found the painting in bad taste. We need to draw a line between genuine artistic expression and its misuse. Besides, it is hard to say whether Mr Husain has done India proud. I personally do not think so.
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 14:27:15 -0400 Keep your point of views to yourself. Look at history and get real. It's time we stand up for ourselves. What have you done except to criticise people who have been around for 1,000 years?
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 18:26:07 EDT I was born a Hindu brahmin but I lost my faith in religion. Even then, I cannot understand why Husain would paint a Hindu goddess naked. If he had taken the same liberty with Muslim religious figures, he would now be hiding from a fatwa. Mr Siwaswamy's claim that he took the liberty of depicting Sita nude because he was truly Indian is astonishing, and illogical. I have lived in north India while the riots went on, and I can attest to the fact that Hindus were as cruel as the Muslims. But let Mr Sivaswamy consider the fact that while Salman Rushdie gets a fatwa, Husain in India has no problem. I also condemn the action of the thugs of RSS, and I have always detested the RSS as an organisation, but when I see the atrocities committed in Tamil Nadu, I sometimes wonder that maybe the RSS is an deterrent to fanatical Muslim organisations. The very fact that you can defend Husain without a problem , without a fatwa on your head, speaks of the tolerance of the Hindu community. S Subramanyan
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 09:42:16 -0700 Perhaps Saisuresh doesn't understand that the whole issue was not about Sita being depicted nude, but the double standards of people who feel Muslim sensitivity could be offended by newspaper stories and novels, but that Hindus should be big-hearted and enjoy the paintings. It is true that Indian temples depict nudity and sex, but the main deities are not depicted either fornicating or in the nude. It is possible that M F Husain has "so absorbed the symbols of the land as his own that he does not see anything wrong in using them in his art". But note the fact that though this painting is more than 20 years old, the exhibitions that bring such paintings out of the closet have been so organised as to act as timed provocations and to extract expected responses -- like Pavlov's experiment with his dog. This is abhorrent, not the painting. There is no relevance for any other arguments of casteism and class discriminations in this context. Srinivas Murthy
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 19:01:45 +0530 I agree with Saisuresh Sivaswamy that intolerance is the very antithesis of Hinduism. And in recent years the Sangh Parivar is being more and more aggressively intolerant not only to other religions and some sections of Hindus themselves, but also to non-religious activities of the minority communities. The attack on Maqbool Fida Husain is one such case. Religious bigots have no right to circumscribe the freedom of artists to express themselves. I have not seen the painting. Therefore I cannot comment whether it is a vulgar depiction of a Hindu goddess or not. But merely depicting a goddess in the nude can neither be vulgar nor disrespectful to the goddess. Many idols in India, whether sculpted in stone or cast in bronze, are in the nude. Clothes and adornments are added by the pujaris. Not only that, some goddesses are worshipped in the nude in the tantrik form of worship. Parts of female goddesses are venerated by all Hindus in some of the well-known temples of India. The most private parts of a female are worshipped, for instance, at the Kamakhya temple near Guwahati and the Mangala Gauri temple in Gaya. Fellows who have attacked Husain solely on the ground that he painted a goddess in the nude are religious fanatics who ought to be weeded out of our society.
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 15:35:31 +0300 It is easy for Saisuresh to get into an orgy of self-flagellation and see everything wrong with Hinduism. Tolerance or the lack of it is not defined by a bunch of idiots who go about ransacking people's houses -- to define and to discard a religion on that basis is a sick and illiterate joke. All religions go through their ups and downs and admittedly Hinduism needs its scholars to look deep within and come up with something. But again, is any of the larger populace interested? The daily routine is so deadening and soul-depressing that higher thoughts rarely, if ever, enter an average person's mind. All round one sees degradation and the individual believes he is a helpless victim of circumstances. It's a vicious circle.
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 12:13:26 +0530 I am surprised to read this article by Saisuresh Sivaswamy. Though he claims to be "believing Hindu," he fails to understand what faith is for devotees. I would not have objected if those paintings would have remained in his private collection as they had for the last 20 years. But the public display of it was purposeful provocation to trigger this kind of reaction and get publicity. I also object to the author's statement "After all, India has not done Husain proud, Husain has done India proud." I don't think any person can be greater in status than the society in which he lives. Also I don't know how Husain has done India proud. Sameer
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 03:09:08 -0500 I think this column is just great and signifies what this Hinduism propaganda is all about. I am not a big fan of these things going on in India. It is totally intolerable and look at how goondaraj prevails in India right now. Be sensible, people, 'cause one day this is going to come back to you. Thank you, Saisuresh.
Date sent: Sat, 30 May 1998 04:43:04 GMT Patience and tolerance after a limit is looked upon as impotence. Thanks to the Congress and the so-called secular ideology, as Hindus we are finding ourselves aliens in our own country. Moreover, we have spineless people like Saisuresh. The day is not very far when Hinduism will be eradicated from the face of the earth. Monish Jain
Date sent: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:39:20 -0400 After reading your article I cannot help but ask, 'What is tolerance according to Mr Saisuresh Sivaswamy?' For more than a millennium the Hindus have been oppressed or suppressed in some or the other form. First came the Islamic invaders who not only invaded several places but also molested our women. And as if that was not enough they also started full fledged conversion of Hindus. Those Hindus who did not convert had to pay the jazia tax for being a Hindu. Imagine, you have to pay to stay in your own house. Then came the British colonisers. They exploited India and Indians to the maximum. Finally, India got freedom in 1947 from the British, but India had to pay a price -- Pakistan -- so that the Muslims could have their own Islamic country and not a Islamic India. India had to pay 550 million rupees so that Pakistan could start afresh. India had to take all the responsibility. A Constitution was established which gave equal rights to all the citizens of India, irrespective of their caste, creed or religion. The Congress, under the leadership of Nehru, started appeasing the Muslim community because they were a minority. I guess this is known as 'secularism' in Nehru's dictionary. To date, Kashmir has been at the forefront of India-Pakistan disputes and many Hindus there have been killed or have had to flee the region. Many Muslim fundamentalists and terrorists have entered our country to terrorise Hindus with bomb blasts in different cities at different occasions. Just recently, in April, 26 Hindus in Jammu were killed, either decapitated or burnt alive. Even children were not spared. Muslims are safe and sound in India; in fact, they are thriving in India, whereas in Pakistan the number of Hindus have dwindled. In India the Muslim population has increased to almost 18 per cent in 1997. If Hindu tolerance is a myth, how can you explain this phenomenon? If Hindu tolerance is a myth, how can so many Hindus be butchered day in and day out, without creating a commotion in India, how can the Hindus lead their peaceful lives as usual? If Hindu tolerance is a myth, how can Pakistan wage a proxy war on Kashmir for 10 years? If Hindu tolerance is a myth, how can the Muslim community burst firecrackers when India loses a cricket match against Pakistan? If Hindu tolerance is a myth, how can M F Husain paint historic Hindu figures nude and still stay alive? You have to answer these questions. You say that M F Husain has assimilated our culture so well that he uses it for his art. Why cannot he use his own religious figures for his art? After all, he is a secularist. The answer is the day he does that he will have a fatwa on his head. Is this Muslim tolerance according to you? Is it tolerance that Christianity displays by proselytising to the poor in India? What exactly is tolerance, according to you? Please, don't wear your self-donned hat of 'secularism' to call yourself a secularist. What is true secularism? People like you claim to be secularist only when it comes to blast Hinduism or to protect some unwanted Muslim rights. When it comes to distinguishing between truth and untruth, you lose your voice, you forget secularism. I don't claim that what the Bajrang Dal did was right. But, what I know for sure is this very same organisation was formed to combat Muslim extremists. If you want to stop these people, then first you have to wipe out Muslim extremism as well as fundamentalism. This is just the effect; the cause is Islamic intolerance. You say that Hindus should have followed the Hindu principle of ahimsa. What exactly do you mean when you make such statements? Should the Hindus go on a hunger strike outside M F Husain's house to follow the principle of ahimsa? If ahimsa was not there, how could Husain have survived safe and sound? All he was told to do was to apologise for his mistake. Is that ahimsa? I am not trying to justify the means for the end, but at the same time I do not want to behave like a 'secularist' you portray yourself to be. Hinduism also says that whenever there is unjust, rise and face it. If possible use peaceful means, if not use violence. For so many years Hinduism has displayed ahimsa, in spite of all the himsa committed on Hindus, and you claim all this is a myth. If Husain has done India proud then, why can't he make India even more proud by being a true secularist and paint an Islamic figure nude? First, learn to think and speak like a true secularist, Mr Saisuresh, then preach tolerance. If Satanic Verses can be banned on the basis of secularism, so can Sita Revisited be banned on the same pretext. If the Muslim League and other organisations can raise such a hue and cry against Salman Rushdie's writing, so can the Hindus against M F Husain's art. In conclusion, I would like to state that Mr Saisuresh, your writing spills of Leftist ideologies which many journalists adopted during the Congress regime to appease the minority community in India and to blast the majority, that is, the Hindus. Stop showing us this leftist/liberalist fanaticism and live in the present where such ideologies will not be accepted dumbly. Change according to time, because time demands change. Sanjay
Date sent: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:30:26 -0700 Mr Sivaswamy once and for all debunks the canard that we Indians have this wonderful history of "secularism & tolerance". Why do we take pride in a tradition that had self-imposed apartheid? Where is the sense in glorifying a culture that among other things promoted Sati? It always amazes me when Indians selectively resurrect habits and customs in the name of adhering to Hindu values, while never acknowledging that eroticism was an integral part of it. How come it is a sudden revelation for the right wing that the Babri Masjid is the birth place of Ram (itself a myth), when for several hundred years no one really cared? How far back in history do they want to traverse and re-write? When an artist -- a minority, in more than one sense -- is forced to render mea culpas for self-expression, largely to appease the right wing nuts of the ruling party, it is time to pause and wonder where we are headed as a nation? What in heaven's name is wrong in being a disinterested critic of ourselves? Why not acknowledge the fact that like most things in life we aren't perfect; that Hinduism, like most other religions has some good and some bad in it? Unless we come down to earth from this "jingoistic high" and resist succumbing to the fascist inclinations of the ruling party, we are doomed as a nation.
Date sent: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:13:39 -0700 I personally am not the least offended by Husain's paintings but am certainly offended that an old man of 80+ years has to deal with hooligans at this age and they don't have any respect for age. What the Bajrang Dal doesn't realise is that their popularity will not increase by resorting to such vandalism. The only way they can stay in power is by providing effective governance and prosperity to this poverty-stricken country of 950 million people. Kamal
Date sent: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:06:23 -0700 In this article it appears that Mr Sivaswamy needs to understand the meaning of the word 'tolerance' when used in the context of religion. Tolerance here means that Hindus don't force their religion on others. Unlike Islam (where the Quran says, 'Fight idolatry till idolatry is no more'), Hinduism believes that there is more than one way to reach god and they are tolerant of others following their own religion. I don't know how close a friend of Husain is Sivaswamy or what kind of insight he has into Husain's mind to be able to assert that 'Offence is the farthest from his mind, I am sure'. If, for a moment, we accept it to be true that Husain did not mean to hurt the feelings and sentiments of the Hindus, then what is wrong in apologising if later he finds out that his Hindus were actually hurt by his actions? This is not unreasonable among friends. Why does it have to go to the courts? If it has to be settled in the courts, it would cast serious doubts on Husain's original intentions, which Sivaswamy claims to be benign. Sivaswamy, like many so-called upper class Hindus who take pride in being secular-minded, seems to mistake tolerance for cowardice. The Ramayan and the Mahabharat will tell you that Hinduism does not teach you to be a coward or allow others to walk all over you. Hinduism says that doing injustice to others and allowing others to do injustice to you both are wrong. It is a shame that your publication would allow such rubbish to appear in you columns. The debate over Saisuresh Sivaswamy's Husain column continues next week. |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|