This should not require any clarification but one has little choice but to live in the world as it is, not in an imaginary world where people are reasonable. One anonymous person posted a pretty needless question on my post “The Land of Retards and Hypocrites.” He, or she, wrote, “Are you unhappy about Husain’s depictions? Are you okay (or sort of okay) with cases slapped on him?”
I had previously clarified my position in that comment thread for the person and written, “The point is freedom of expression is non-negotiable. Which part of it is difficult to understand? Which part of it puts conditions on who is allowed the freedom and who is disallowed?”
Perhaps the person thought that he or she had cornered me, and I was exposed as a “fascist Hindu.” Very clever, it must have made her or him feel as he or she posted those questions.
So here are my answers.
Am I unhappy about Husain’s depiction? Nope, I am neither unhappy nor happy. I just couldn’t care less. I care as much about Husain’s paintings as I do about his sexual fantasies. It’s his business and I don’t give a flying fuck either way. I have not seen his paintings.
I am not much of a paintings person, anyway. Music I care about and have definitive likes and dislikes but when it comes to paintings, my taste is limited to some Western classical masters, and some modern painters. Sister Wendy was my guide and I am happy that she taught me to see what those paintings convey.
In general, I think that people have the right to do whatever they feel like doing, as long as what they do does not interfere or infringe on my similar right to do what I want. No negative externalities to me, no problem for me. You write, read, sing, listen, watch, show, paint, etc — whatever your heart desires and I do the same. You don’t tell me what to do and I will not tell you what you should do. This world is has a diversity of people with diverse interests, preferences, abilities, talents and inclinations. Its diversity makes the world magical for all of us. Suppressing individual behavior that does not harm non-involved people is antithetical to what my conception of the good life is.
That brings me to the second question: Am I okay (or sort of okay) with cases slapped on him? Yes, it’s a free country. People should be free to sue anyone for anything that they desire. It’s the court’s job to deal with cases expeditiously, and pass judgement. And if the case is frivolous, then the court should impose punitive fines on people who attempt to waste the time of the court.
I think that people bitching about hurt feelings and filing court cases should be dealt with severely. To me they are frivolous cases and should be dismissed.
If you don’t like someone’s writing, don’t read him. If you don’t find someone’s cartoons funny, you don’t have to laugh.
If someone gets his feelings hurt and goes on a rampage, the law against going on rampages should apply.
But India, as I have argued before, is governed by hypocrites. First, they claim that India is a country where freedom of speech exists. Then the first amendment to the constitution sneaks in the clause which says, “yeah, but not in all cases.” And then the government hypocritically determines which cases expression is allowed or not. So basically it boils down to this:
If the expression offends one particular section of the citizens, then it is not allowed. If the expression offends others, that is fine.
MF Husain paints nude Hindu goddesses copulating. That is just fine with the government since MF Husain has not offended one particular community. But that is not fine with the retards and goons of some idiotic regional parties, who then go on a rampage. The pseudo-secular leftists cry themselves hoarse about the great freedom of expression and how wonderful a painter MF Husian is.
The goons should be tried and punished for their crimes.
But here’s the other side of the story. Some writer writes something — a book, a newspaper article, a cartoon — and one particular community takes offense. The government goes into high gear banning, imprisoning, criminalizing people. It even supports the murder of foreign citizens. The pseudo-secular leftists go silent and crawl back into the woodwork. Not a peep is heard from them.
The double standards and hypocrisy grates on my nerves.
Here’s what I would like to see. I would like to see the leftist defend a painter who paints the founder of a certain middle-east — say, Moses or Abraham or Jesus or whatever — religion having sex with a minor while 20 of his other 23 wives are watching. I would like to see the government give a Bharat Ratna to the painter. I would like to see the government give the painter a dual citizenship, assuming that the painter is from Italy. Italians do get Indian citizenship. But let me see that they give an Italian painter who paints it like it can be imagined and let’s see how peaceful the country is.
So Mr or Ms Someone, I hope I have answered your question. Now back to the woodwork for you.
Atanu Dey : Life is a Random Draw 
Hi Atanu,
I’m a longtime lurker, but this is the first time I’m commenting. I agree with every word you’ve written on this post. I have a question for you. Where do you see this country in another 20-30 years from now? Will we continue to progress considerably despite having a hypocritical, incompetent government or will we witness another partition or any such unfortunate event? I’d like to hear your views.
Thanks
LikeLike
Someone : Are_you_ok with India being the first country to ban Satanic Verses? Have_you_read Satanic verses? Are_you_ok with India banning Taslima Nasreen’s work?
Did_you_and_your ilk support these two artists? Can you send me a link from the mainstream media supporting Messrs Nasreen, Rusdhi, or Danish Cartoonist? Say a Boorkha Dutt or a Shabana Azmi or a Mallika Sarbhai or a Arundati Roy coming out in open writing in their support..?
Do you think only Hussian had the right to “freedom of expression” as does his community have the “first right to all resources”?
Do you have balls only to call out in support of Hussain and not the others I mentioned? If yes, plz scoot. Thanks for getting lost forever….
LikeLike
Atanu, I completely second the thought. Couldnt have expressed it more comprehensively.
LikeLike
But “Someone”‘s questions don’t make sense, if the point of those questions was to elicit your stand on Hussain’s freedom of expression. What has that freedom got to do with your liking or not liking his art, or suing him? “Someone” is conflating defence of freedom of expression with one’s opinion of the expression in question.
MFH is a bit of a pervert. At the ripe age of 80 the old fart publicly lusted after Madhuri Dixit. (No nudes of her though; probably she put her foot down and showed him the middle finger, when the topic of posing in the nude came up). He gave expression to his sexual fetishes through his art. Some less talented, but equally sexually repressed chaps give vent to _their_ orgasmic urges by painting “murals” in public restrooms when nobody is watching. Since MFH’s work qualifies as art, it escapes the charge being obscene. So, yes, he has the freedom to seek relief through those paintings, but not the freedom to demand that everybody must appreciate the artist’s inner sexual being captured in his art.
I’m more interested in knowing what are the grounds on which anybody may dislike the anti-burqa message in Tasleema’s article. (Non-Islamist reasons, that is). I’d suppose a violent ruckus like the one created in Shimoga is the perfect foil for a debate on the practice of veiling women, indeed for a debate on women’s freedoms in Islam in general, but hey, have you noticed that “liberals” are tongue-tied? Let’s suppose an article denouncing untouchability (I’m struggling to come up with a contemporary, existing, equivalent for burqa practice here) triggers violent “protest”. Are these idiot-box assholes then going to confine their discussion to “freedom of expression”? (Not that they are doing even that much in Taslima’s case..) Or will we be bombarded with denunciation after denunciation of the caste system, of “upper” castes, of manu smrithi and of Hinduism?
Conclusion: liberals are hand-in-glove with mullahs in keeping Muslim women under the veil.
LikeLike
In India barking Dog gets the bone.
LikeLike
… more from the retards and hypocrites (via Zee News):
Author, 2 others held for alleged anti-Islamic content in book
LikeLike
“I think that people bitching about hurt feelings and filing court cases should be dealt with severely. To me they are frivolous cases and should be dismissed”.
Isn’t it wrong for a man to paint somebody’s sister or mother’s painting in nude and then show it to the world?
I quote dr. dhammananda( a buddhist scholar) here..’he says, if someone in afganistan is destroying statues of buddha…why should i get angry? It’s their problem as they are stupid enough to destroy a stone made out to look somewhat beautiful, if not respecting history or whatever. cos i am a believer in dhamma(natural laws), not statue.Similarly just by drawing saraswati’s nude pic…he can’t embarrass hindu culture. But this logic is difficult to understand and to put into use when it’s ur own mum or sister. I am not sure what’s right or wrong….!! husain might say, it’s just ur mums beauty n it’s just modern art. Will he draw his mum’s or wife’s pics in nude n show them to the world? He might say,’ he has overcome the realms of physicaliy( like on todays interview with barkha on ndtv).But seems cheap n loathsome to me. cheers
LikeLike
First Amendment in the US is balanced against “hate speech” and/or “obscenity.” One is not allowed any freedom of speech if it is “hate speech” or “obscenity.”
Mr. Hussain should be allowed to paint whatever he wants. But, not if his depictions of Hindu gods/godesses constitute “hate speech” against Hindus. Right?
LikeLike
Atanu, totally agree with whatever you have said!! I have some points to add though:
1) Why do common people take “offense” to ART? It’s ART for god’s sake and art is not for masses to debate and discuss. Let’s leave art for intellectuals (pun intended) to discuss and criticise!
2) What is the number beyond which the govt agrees it hurts the sentiments of a community of people? Say, if 1 person complains that something someone does hurts his sentiment, will the govt listen OR when 100 people complain will it liste? What is the threshold (of no of people complaining) for an art piece to be judged as hurting someone’s feeling?
3) We should try to bring the art debate into neutral domain – As you have mentioned, irrespective of the religious belief of the artist or the depiction painted in art or written in book, the artist should be protected against being hounded or slapped with cases for hurting sentiments. Hussain would at least be free to paint Hindu gods and goddesses nude during his stay in Qatar, but an artist in India cannot afford to offend ANY community, cos there are fringe element in all communities waiting to get offended for no reason!! In this case, Islamic monarch Qatar appears relatively liberal than Secular Democratic Liberal India (sic)
4) Constitution should be amended and the clause which talks of “hurting sentiments of people” should be removed. Freedom of art and expression is absolute, non-negotiable and there can be NO TERMS AND CONDITIONS, period!!
LikeLike
Totally agree with Venkat and Atanu.
LikeLike
Harsha, there is no moral equivalence between Hussain’s paiting hindu godesses in the nude and the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Hussain has created something, no matter how stupid it might be, and not destroyed something.
I stand against those evil tyranical islamists who destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas for reasons of destroying history and a great sculpture and not because of Dharma.
Hussain had every right as the citizen of a free country to pain whatever he wanted as long as it rocked it boat, even if it was in bad taste.
Again you talk about someone painting my or someone else’s mother or sister in the nude. Ofcourse it would offend me since my mother or my sister are real people. Sorry to offend you again but there is no evidence to prove that any of these godesses exist in real. Futhermore my annoyance with someone painting my mother or my sister in the nude would not entitle me to kill him or threaten him.
LikeLike
I am telling directly that I am not happy with his paintings. Burning an quran or some small misdeed with that book is an big offense where you will be prosecuted., but painting nude (I am unable to write this line) images of sacred hindu gods is not offensive!!! For this our own NDTV had kept an interaction program and some people are supporting him (why can’t we call them hypocrites too???). Definitely Hussain must be prosecuted for his offensive misdeeds..
But why our own BJP didn’t took any action against him when its in power???
LikeLike
Praveen >> But nude painting (I am unable to write this line) images of sacred Hindu Gods is not offensive
Me >> HAHAHAHA. What is wrong in nudity? That too noone is standing nude in public, this is JUST AN ARTPIECE which allegedly depicts something nude. This self-imposed morality of middle-class India is a self-destructing attribute that should be corrected through some gene-pool manipulation!!! 🙂
Only the gods have to come down and take offense for being painted nude. Why should people get offended? If Hussain had painted me nude, I can complain. But, he painted someone else and why should I complain?
Praveen, you have brought in a comparison between someone burning Quran and getting prosecuted and Hussain not being prosecuted. Now, let me ask you
1) We let the person burning Quran go scot-free. Will you stop cribbing about Hussain then? Is your “personal religious belief” dependent on someone being prosecuted for doing something of his own?
2) We prosecute BOTH who burn Quran and someone painting Hindu gods nude. Then we prosecute EVERYONE for allegedly hurting others’ sentiments. We ban all books, art, internet etc because someone somewhere is bound to get hurt for EVERYTHING. Are you fine with this?
I used to think saffronites are less of a danger, but I realise they are as fundamental as the Islamists, though the violence quotient is less among the saffronites.
LikeLike
Venkat its called the borrowing theory. The Saffronists are taking their morals from lesser mortals such as the Islamists. Rather than tackle real issues such as the historicity of the Islam and the perverted thinking it leads to, the so called Saffron brigade is begining to behave just like the Muslims.
It a war in which people are trying to outfanaticise the fanatics. Now I am not a machoist nor do I believe that we should let our guard down against the Islamists. However the Saffron strategy is extremely dumb. This is the difference between the Western Far right and the Indian far right. If we have to fight these enemies of humanity then we fight for the right issues.
Sadly in India we have only two major categories of people, the Far Right fools and the bleeding heart liberals. Both of them are equally danerous to our society.
I do however have something else to say, Saffronism is a symptom and not a disease itself. This phenomena has been given rise to by the continous attacks on Indian civilization by Commies, Islamists and Jesuits alike. <b/BPeople don't have a sane choice inorder to fight against these facist crackpots and hence they are themselves turning to facism.
LikeLike
“Ofcourse it would offend me since my mother or my sister are real people. Sorry to offend you again but there is no evidence to prove that any of these godesses exist in real.”
Thats is really the origin of where Freedom of Speech/Expression comes from, isnt it?
Those stupid idol worhippers… They actually believe that, that idol is alive and bathe, dress, and even sing lullabies to that thing!
Now imagine a country full of such retards, with you Sir, stuck admist!
As Gandalf Olorin would say : Fly, you fools!
LikeLike
Venkat said:
“If Hussain had painted me nude, I can complain. But, he painted someone else and why should I complain?”
You don’t get it, Mother Sita is a veritable mother to me, so is mother Parvati. So, I have a right to complain.
MF’s paintings are pornogrphic not just nude. It is quite telling that this jerk drew pictures of his icons(Fatima, Aisha, his Mother) fully covered. And Obscenity/pornography is NOT deserving of any free speech rights. The U.S. Supreme court made that quite clear in its ‘Miller Vs State of California’ verdict.
In other words we should say yes to blasphemy and NO to pornography/Obscenity especially when it involves revered religious figures.
LikeLike
>>>Those stupid idol worhippers… They actually believe that, that idol is alive and bathe, dress, and even sing lullabies to that thing!
Right like how “they” also feel their prophet will come out of the grave, ride on a horse, take a sword and cut their neck, if he sees his cartoon…. and they go about killing humans (Note: Not just vandalizing and stone throwing.. but actual murders).. at will
The only diff. You and your progressive NDTV friends do your bit of cheer leading from the fence and/or keep mum hiding your faces inside your toilet commode… and take your faces out the moment it’s an MF Hussain or some moron wannabe Hussain in Baroda Univ.
For Cartoons, Satanic Verses, Lajja et al… you got diff set of rules. Then it’s all about being “cognizant of sentiments of “minority community””…
They are so fucking sensitive no?… like you..
LikeLike
” I used to think saffronites are less of a danger, but I realise they are as fundamental as the Islamists, though the violence quotient is less among the saffronites.”
You are entitled to your opinions however wrong they are.
The real threat to India is from Nehru Dynasty TV(NDTV) watching echo chambers, who do not know the difference between Obscenity and free speech.
LikeLike
Hello Amit,
>>it would offend me since my mother or my sister are real people.
That’s an intriguing statement and I’ll return to it shortly, but first a question. It’s unclear as to what your argument here is.
1. Are you debating as to what constitutes “reasonable” grounds for taking offence? (For example, as you may well know, a well-known commie nut has been hopping mad here recently — with multiple IDs to boot — taking offence at any criticism of Islam.)
2. Or are you debating whether taking offence is a legitimate excuse to curb freedom of expression? (Again, as an example, the said commie wants criticism of Islam to stop pronto).
I thought the debate was about #2 but you seem to think it is #1. If so, I’d like to explore your thoughts a bit, to try and see if they are well-formed or if it’s me who’s not getting them right. So a couple of questions:
1. Why would it offend you if your mom or sis is depicted in the nude?
2. Why would it offend you to see “real people” portrayed nude? Medha Patkar is real. But will it upset you to see her depicted naked? (for reasons other than the aesthetic, that is?) If not Patkar Arundhati Roy. Or some other person. The point remains.
Regards.
LikeLike
I was waiting to see atanu reply to my message…but, oldtimer replies. So…oldtimer…plz post ur mums, sisters n wife’s n daughter’s pic hers( naked that is). I’ll send them to M.F.Hussain so he can potray them n send them to the world. Shut ur mouth till then. Talk after the effect has taken. It’s easy to talk…once u r in the heat…u’ll understand
LikeLike
To all religious people who say they are getting hurt:
1) Now that you have got hurt, what to do? (pity, pity) If courts declare Hussain guilty and put him behind bars, will the hurt sentiment vanish? If courts set him free, what will you do?
2) What is the threshold for your hurt?
3) Seeing the so-called gods portrayed as being decked up in GOLD and other jewellery is hurting me, since majority are poor in our country (that’s such a commie point isn’t it?). Do you care?
4) The abode of such gods, many of our temples, have nude depictions. Should we demolish all those temples like what the Taliban did to Bamiyan Buddhas?
And to those who think we watch NDTV all the time, let me clarify, NDTV is the last channel I watch. I hate Burkha as much as you guys hate MFH 😉
And to clarify another point. MFH and Taslima ALL are free to paint or write whatever they want. It is our govt which is biased, so don’t ask me if I would support Taslima or anti-Islamic and anti-Christian writings. I am Ok with anyone writing anything about any damn thing, I am free to read it or not read it. Even if someone paints/writes something about me, I don’t care a damn, as long as it wouldn’t hurt me physically or cause economic loss to me.
LikeLike
I do not know whether you have seen the painting, but I actually liked them. Especially the BharatMata’s picture is quite rivetting.
People, who asked the question “how would you have felt had he painted your mother nude” or sort of things..come’on. The paintings don’t have sexual or lascivious portrayal. If you are depicting India as mother nature ( the contours of whom is similar to the map of India), how can you drape her in a sharee/ trouser/ lehenga?
LikeLike
>>>I am Ok with anyone writing anything about any damn thing, I am free to read it or not read it
Agreed.
But I have the right to call out the double standards of people who don’t come out in support of Danish Cartoonist/Nasreen with same zeal they do for Hussain. And that’s what I am doing.
So there..
LikeLike
kautilya:
I forgot to mention I was sarcasming 🙂
LikeLike
Here are some questions to help us think through the matter. Please ponder upon them, if you will, in progression:
1. Let’s say someone sneaked a camera in your mother’s bathroom, took her nude picture in that private space and then published them on a public space, such as
the net. Please let me know what you think of the following questions and reasons behind your answers. Please assume that no violence occurs because of these situations:
a) Did the cameraman commit a crime?
b) If so, against whom is it a crime? Against your mother, against you, against the society, against everyone, or against no one?
c) Who has a right to complain? Your mother, you, government, or a third person like me?
d) Whose complaint should the court even consider? Your mother’s, your’s, government’s, or mine?
e) What type of complaint (assuming we know who has the most legitimate complaint) should evoke punishment? Obscenity or violation of privacy or both or neither or some other? Assume that no minor saw the picture.
2. Would your answers change if your mother was incapable of making complaints (she was mentally disabled), and you were her only caregiver?
3. Would your answers change if your mother is a porn star and actually asked the cameraman to set up the camera?
4. Would your answers change if the cameraman was your father, but he did not tell your mother about the camera, and he merely kept the photos for his private viewing instead of posting them on the net?
5. Would your answers change if the cameraman was your father, and took your mother’s permission to take pictures for his private viewing?
6. Would your answers change, if the subject of these photos was your dog instead of your mother, and you always kept your dog clothed in public?
7. Would your answers change, if the subject of these photos was your dog instead of your mother, you always kept your dog clothed in public, and you revere your dog because you believed a holy man who told you that your dog was actually a god?
LikeLike
Here is how I think of answers to my questions:
1. a) Yes, b) Against my mother, c) Anyone, d) Only my mother’s, e) Violation of privacy.
2. a) Yes, b) Against my mother, c) Anyone, d) Anyone’s, e) Violation of privacy.
3. a) No, b) Against no one, c) Anyone, d) Only my mother’s, e) No punishment can be given.
4. a) Yes, b) Against my mother, c) Anyone, d) Only my mother’s, e) Violation of privacy.
5. a) No, b) Against no one, c) Anyone, d) Only my mother’s, e) No punishment can be given.
6. a) Yes, b) Against the bathroom owner, c) Anyone, d) Bathroom owner’s, e) Violation of property rights.
7. a) Yes, b) Against the bathroom owner, c) Anyone, d) Bathroom owner’s, e) Violation of property rights.
Here are my reasons:
a) If the cameraman took pictures without the knowledge of my mother, he is violating her right to privacy, which is related to right to property (having her bathroom as she pleases). Perhaps an unstated social contract to keep out of each other’s bathrooms is also violated. So, a crime has been committed.
b) Crime has to be against an identified person or group of people. It cannot be against imaginary, dead, inanimate or non-human entities, because laws are for humans. Crimes against animals (or other conservation or animal cruelty matters) are a grey area. Non-human entities can only be protected if they are declared “public property”. There are matters of decency, such as treating your private pet animals (or private animals that you intend to eat) right, which should not be under the purview of the law.
c) Anyone has a right to complain. Freedom to seek justice (i.e. freedom of speech).
d) Complaint of the property owner is the only legitimate complaint. If the house is mine, but my mother was using the bathroom, temporarily she was the owner of the bathroom, because I let her do so. So both she and I can complain in this case.
e) Violation of rights emanating from right to property or contract enforcement, such as privacy, and whether there was a consent.
LikeLike
Please note that none of these things matter in my view, such as how much I revere my dog.
LikeLike
>>harsha said:
>> I was waiting to see atanu reply to my message…but, oldtimer replies
🙂
I was replying to Comrade Amit, Comrade Theen-Theen Venkat. If you don’t do a better job of keeping track of your IDs it will cease to be fun for me to spot you in this gigantic crowd of yourself, yourself, and yourself. So apply a block of ice to your sorry commie ass, douse the fire, and get back to the subject.
It is interesting that the question “why would depicting your mom in the nude?” itself offends you! And why does the mention of Medha Patkar’s name anger you so? Are your sentiments so easily hurt? The example could also have been a Prabha or Rambha. The urge to take “revenge” seems to stem from a misunderstanding that you’re being “insulted” with these questions (and that misunderstanding in itself is interesting). If you take offence so easily dost dost, you’re proving my point. I’m not challenging you here, we’re only trying to understand what are the psychological impulses underlying emotions like feeling offended, and why are they triggered. Then we could arrive at a common understanding on whether commie nuts may take offence at speaking the *truth* about Islam, saffronites may take offence at MFH cartoons, and your pals the Islamists may kill over a Taslima article.
Cheers.
LikeLike
=>
The paintings don’t have sexual or lascivious portrayal.
=>
I thought that art was open to interpretation, so how can you be so sure? Or is it that everyone has to agree with your interpretation of those paintings, and your interpretation is the only correct one, to the exclusion of all other interpretations? This is a serious question.
LikeLike
=>
The abode of such gods, many of our temples, have nude depictions. Should we demolish all those temples like what the Taliban did to Bamiyan Buddhas?
=>
Nude depictions of gods and goddesses, or of other celestial beings (apsaras)? If there are temples where gods and goddesses are depicted in nude (with the exception of Kali) and such depictions are sexualized, please share the links or shed some light.
LikeLike
Hello Old Timer,
That’s an intriguing statement and I’ll return to it shortly, but first a question. It’s unclear as to what your argument here is.
>>>>>>>>>My position is that there is no point in fighting about something there is no substantive proof of. Anyway there is nothing intriguing about it, certainly not to me. I mean would you fight if someone painted the sphagetti monster in the nude, or JC for that matter? What is common between the above two is that both of them are as ficticous characters as Batman and Robin. Just because one of them was created in the bronze ages does not make it more vunerable that the other.
1. Are you debating as to what constitutes “reasonable” grounds for taking offence? (For example, as you may well know, a well-known commie nut has been hopping mad here recently — with multiple IDs to boot — taking offence at any criticism of Islam.)
>>>>>>>>>Oh! you can be offended at just about anything you like. For example I am offended everytime I see a Muslim woman roaming around in a tent and when some Jesuit used to land up at my house early Saturday morning (when I was in US) and tell me how much I needed Jesus. However what I am trying to say is that my being offended should is not a reason enough to make someone stop from speaking their mind or painting whatever rocks their boat.
2. Or are you debating whether taking offence is a legitimate excuse to curb freedom of expression? (Again, as an example, the said commie wants criticism of Islam to stop pronto).
>>>>>>>>>Well the commie can Fuck Off for all I care. I have the least respect for someone who has the comprehension of a lizard. Islam is one ideology that deserves not just to be criticised but to be demolished in the worst possible way. Islam is an extremist millitant ideology in the guise of of religion and those who can’t see this are apparently blinded by their lack of comprehension.
>>>>>I thought the debate was about #2 but you seem to think it is #1. If so, I’d like to explore your thoughts a bit, to try and see if they are well-formed or if it’s me who’s not getting them right. So a couple of questions:
1. Why would it offend you if your mom or sis is depicted in the nude?
>>>>>Most certainly it would offend me.
2. Why would it offend you to see “real people” portrayed nude? Medha Patkar is real. But will it upset you to see her depicted naked? (for reasons other than the aesthetic, that is?) If not Patkar Arundhati Roy. Or some other person. The point remains.
>>>>> As long as it is being done with their permission I would have no problem at all. But suppose it is a morphed image or a picture taken without the person’s permission it would certainly offend or maybe even outrage me even if that person is someone who I differ with to the point of moral outrage.
By the way there are too many Amit’s here and I will be posting with my former pseudonym of SunDried Atheist inorder to keep things clear.
LikeLike
@Venkat
I don’t know that you can accept your mother’s & sister’s nude paintings can be displayed in public as they are JUST PAINITINGS. Everybody is not as generous as you. The goddess are like my mother so I don’t agree with this. You don’t must be a hypocrite for this and some time the person’s who dumbly opposes others views sentiments are hypocrites.
@Kedar
It’s better to worship an idol then to worship an another person’s mausoleum.
LikeLike
Hello Kedar
I have to say, you have a very good grap over sarcasm and irony. The former being better than the latter. Now let me make an attempt to answer the issues that you have raised in your post, possibly adressed to me.
>>>>>>Thats is really the origin of where Freedom of Speech/Expression comes from, isnt it?
Well, not really. Freedom of speech is not a concept but a quality that is inate the post modern mamalian primate. Ofcourse if you are talking about the people who who finally postulated this very basic human impulse, then it is a completely different matter altogether.
Those stupid idol worhippers… They actually believe that, that idol is alive and bathe, dress, and even sing lullabies to that thing!
lol, why just idol worshipper, I feel that everyone who believes in the supernatural is stupid. Ofcourse idolatory takes things to a completely different level. That said people are free to worship penises, vaginas, crucifixes or black stones, as long as this does not harm my personal choice or freedom not to do so.
Now imagine a country full of such retards, with you Sir, stuck admist!
I am not a pessimist and I see hope for Hindus, provided they are left alone by the various monotheistic forces. Had it not been for the monotheists, I dare say, very many Hindus like me would be Hindus only for cultural reasons, not believing in the absurd notions of the supernatural and basing their desicions on these very absurd notions.
LikeLike
Most of the idols in temples are NUDE and only pujaris drape them with silk clothes and jewels to PLEASE those who look at the idols, pray and ask for marriage, money, jobs and other secret things etc!! Shiva lingam represents male genital organs. Do female pilgrims (and oriented males) get aroused when they pray to Lingam? They look at it from a divine perspective only isn’t it? Why should they get hurt when an artist paints something that can be interpreted in multiple ways?
Amit >> Liked reading your post with different scenarios. But I think we are wasting our time with socialists who don’t really believe in right to property as a fundamental right. They are dhimmis ready to submit their civil liberties to the socialist state and so they don’t understand the criticality of right to property, isn’t this a pity?
For example, a so-called god man was caught on camera having sex with one of his disciples. Noone is asking how can his right to privacy be violated and how can someone barge into his bedroom and videograph a personal affair? But, the morons are asking for the so-called god man to be arrested!!!
As Atanu always says, India is a third world country not only from economic perspective, but also from social perspective, full of dhimmi-morons.
LikeLike
praveen says
It’s better to worship an idol then to worship an another person’s mausoleum.
>>>>> There is a third alternative, don’t worship anyone or anything at all.
LikeLike
Venkat said:
“Most of the idols in temples are NUDE and only pujaris drape them with silk clothes and jewels to PLEASE those who look at the idols, pray and ask for marriage, money, jobs and other secret things etc!! Shiva lingam represents male genital organs”
Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance. Shiva Linga is Lord Shiva’s symbol just like Nike’s Swoosh or Microsoft logo. This has been the interpretation of Vedas and Shaiva Agamas. If some competing sects and Missionaries make outrageous claims, it does not make it so.
Below the Burka is a nude body, so what is your point?
Let MF draw them(Ayesha, Fatima) without clothes instead of in a burkha, Hindus could’nt care less.
You still did NOT answer if obscenity deserves free speech rights. Stick to the issue, do not try to change topic. Netizens can see through your agenda.
LikeLike
Amit ( a supposedly atheist said)
“Oh! you can be offended at just about anything you like. For example I am offended everytime I see a Muslim woman roaming around in a tent and when some Jesuit used to land up at my house early Saturday morning (when I was in US) and tell me how much I needed Jesus. However what I am trying to say is that my being offended should is not a reason enough to make someone stop from speaking their mind or painting whatever rocks their boat.”
Here you are talking about blasphemy, Hindus never have/had this concept, Semitic traditions do. We should say yes to blasphemy( dictionary meaning)NOT pornography/obscenity.
This brings back the question “Does obscenity/pornography deserve free speech rights?”.
LikeLike
Hello Malavika
Let me clarify something. I am not just an Atheist, I happen to be an antitheist.
Now coming to what you were saying
Here you are talking about blasphemy, Hindus never have/had this concept, Semitic traditions do. We should say yes to blasphemy( dictionary meaning)NOT pornography/obscenity.
>>>>>> What is wrong with pornography? There are many people who enjoy watching pornography and there are others who willingly participate in making pornigraphic movies. Just because you are bothered by pornography is not a sufficient reason for pornography to be banned.
This brings back the question “Does obscenity/pornography deserve free speech rights?”.
>>>>>>> I don’t agree with the grammar of this sentence. Could you kindly repose your question/ statement in a more literary manner so that I may respond to it, if you wish that I should do so.
LikeLike
@Sundried Atheist
“It’s better to worship an idol then to worship an another person’s mausoleum.”
Thats an logical action,
but if 99.999% believe in a thing and the remaining 0.001% didn’t believed in it and treat the remaining 99.999% are retarded then who is retarded here????
LikeLike
Malavika >> Does obscenity / pornography deserve free speech rights
Me >> Obscenity is not well defined, at least in Indian context. Police can arrest me for behaving in an “obscene” manner without actually defining what is obscene. Indian state hasn’t defined what is obscenity. For example, couples get booked under this law for even holding hands or kissing in public. So, no merit in arguing on obscenity. It is again left to interpretations.
About porn, it 100% deserves free speech as long as the actors are not forced into it. The same “choice” argument applies here too. If you don’t want to watch, for whatever reason, DON’T WATCH. But, don’t stop me from watching it. This is the reason why the pesky Indian state hasn’t been able to block porn on the internet.
To others questioning my right to freedom of expression
And please for (no) god’s sake, don’t compare other instances and say “why he was left scot-free, why he was left unpunished bla bla bla”. This is childish to say the least. I am purely arguing here for ALL cases, for FREEDOM FOR ALL ARTISTS irrespective of caste, religion or class. Are you getting hurt (for Hussain’s paintings) because Taslima’s anti-Islamic books hurt some Islamists or is your hurt independent of others getting hurt? You have NO RIGHT to ask Hussain to paint Ayesha or Mohammed nude or semi-nude. It is Hussain’s right to paint whatever he wants and you are granted the complete freedom to criticise and question it. On the other hand, you go ahead, paint Ayesha and Mohammed nude and I shall be there to defend your right to do so. You have complete right to critise Hussain’s painting too and do it in a legal democratic way. Please don’t bring in my mother, his mother etc into the debate. This mother based argument is superfluous. Sita may be “like” your mother, but is she your mother? Will Sita come down to testify she is “like” the mother of millions of Indian Hindus?
LikeLike
Comrade Venkat displays flashes of rational brilliance marred, unfortunately, by a streak of violent thought. The good part first:
>>Most of the idols in temples are NUDE and … Do female pilgrims (and oriented males) get aroused when they pray to Lingam?
Excellent question to ask but alas, Venkat doesn’t ask the followup question: why don’t the pilgrims get aroused? Let me put it this way (and I must thank Venkat for his sensible behavior of not taking offence at hypothetical questions advancing a debate): Suppose a likeness of Venkat’s mother (in the nude) is worshipped in the sanctum sactorum, will pilgrims get aroused? Same follow-up question: why not?
The point Venkat raised actually folds into the same point I was hinting at through this question: why do you get offended if your mother is depicted in the nude, when there are examples of social acceptance of nudity? Strangely, instead of exploring the import of the answer to that question, our friendS want to flee from it. I wish Pub Chick was back. She had balls.
Now to the dangerous part:
>>Why should they get hurt when an artist paints something that can be interpreted in multiple ways?
To illustrate with an example: it would take a prize idiot in these modern times to believe that a virgin can conceive all by herself. Suppose you walked up to devout Christian Briganza and told him that Jesus Christ was a bastard. Suppose Briganza replied that he was offended. Would you say, in the manner of an atheist liberal like Pat Condell, “I don’t care”, or would you say, “hey Briganza, if your wife got knocked up without your involvement the result would be a bastard, right? So why do you get offended when I say Christ was a bastard?”
In other words, to demand that people must or must not experience certain emotions is like the other side of the commie-nut deamnd of: “Why do you criticize Islam?” Indeed, commies embalmed their dead Chief Nuts and asked people to pay obeisance to corpses, much like death-cult religions, because the Big Brother culture was intrinsic to their psyche.
Except for that unfortunate note of control-freak fanaticism in his argument, Comrade Venkat made mostly good points.
LikeLike
@ kaffir
“I thought that art was open to interpretation, so how can you be so sure? ”
You can never be sure. So, either you can ban everything for everyone or you can depend upon your own discretion ( seeing what you like, avoiding what you don’t).
Your choice!
LikeLike
Oldtimer
Call me anything but comrade 😉
I am not a violent person either but I am surprised my comments appear violent.
Again, with regards to the mother argument, Many people I know and I can recognise my mother, if her picture is posted somewhere, but who can recognise Sita’s face if it is posted somewhere? Does Sita have a defined face or does Parvathi? Aren’t they mythological figures? Has anyone seen, recorded their faces for them to be recognised when displayed somewhere? Unless shown in full with a veena or a Tigress, can Durga be distinguished from Saraswathi? Kambar defines Sita in a different way in his version of Ramayana than the original. Did Bharatmata exist at all? Isn’t she another fictitious character?
The point I am trying to highlight is, art and books are open to interpretations unlike pictures of living beings. There can be no dispute on my photo or my father’s (why should only mothers have the privilege of being discussed in debates :-)) but photos of gods are open to interpretations for the obvious reasons discussed above.
I totally agree with you that one has the right to get offended and can take the artist to court, but threatening the artist and hounding him/her out of country is extreme. I agree Islamists are most violent when it comes to this attribute that they even go to the extent of killing people who display creativity in questioning Islam. But I am afraid the saffronites are eventually going there too, seeing the level of hatred expressed against Hussain. As we eventually tighten the screws around freedom of art and expression, one fine day, as I told above, everyone will object to everything and so everything will come to a grinding halt. thudddd.. and then they lived happily ever after!!!
LikeLike
Atanu:
I usually find something to disagree with in your posts. (I feel you try to use one hammer to fix all problems.) But this post, I completely agree with.
The comments here are interesting. Some points:
1. Some commenters are interested questions of the following sort: “Should people be offended by so and so?” I think these questions are irrelevant. People have the right to choose what to be offended by, and it doesn’t matter whether anyone else thinks they shouldn’t be offended.
2. Others are interested in this: “If someone supports freedom of expression in case A but not in case B, they are hypocrites. How should such hypocrites be dealt with?” Fair enough, but it doesn’t have immediate policy consequences. (Long term it does because such people end up influencing policy.)
3. Several commenters are concerned with this: “Given that people are offended sometimes, what should the state do?” I think this is the right question to ask.
LikeLike
dodo, your answer makes little sense, since my original question was in the context of your interpretation of art.
Let’s try this again.
You wrote:
1. “The paintings don’t have sexual or lascivious portrayal.”
I responded:
2. “I thought that art was open to interpretation, so how can you be so sure? Or is it that everyone has to agree with your interpretation of those paintings, and your interpretation is the only correct one, to the exclusion of all other interpretations?”
Your response:
3. “You can never be sure. So, either you can ban everything for everyone or you can depend upon your own discretion ( seeing what you like, avoiding what you don’t).
Your choice!”
–
So, you agree with me that your original statement (1.) was incorrect and that art is open to interpretation, and what you consider as not lascivious/not sexual, can be interpreted differently (sexual/lascivious) by someone else.
Keep in mind that I’ve not mentioned anything regarding banning art or not – which is a separate issue. My question was about (conclusive) interpretation of art/paintings.
LikeLike
dodo, perhaps your statement 1. could be rephrased as “I don’t find those paintings lascivious or sexual in nature. But it’s possible for others to interpret them that way, and that is also a valid interpretation (for them).”
Yes? No?
LikeLike
Comnrade Venkat is not offended if I call him Comrade by any chance, is he!?
There’s violence in insisting, Big Brother like, that people’s experiencing of emotions must follow one’s diktat. “Feeling offended” is a state of mind; we are trying to understand why and how people enter into that state. I’ve been asking questions to help unravel this very riddle but alas nobody even including Alpana Sadya is willing to enter into that debate.
If Venkat posts depictions of his womenfolk in the nude most people won’t be able to recognize. That point apart, the central question remains unanswered: “so what if she is recognized? why does that offend you?” It stands to reason that Big Brother should order himself not to get offended, but Big Brothers are irrational anyway, all fanaticism is. The person who midwifed Mary isn’t around either to put out a warranty claiming: “Manufactured in a Virgin’s Womb”. The fact that people do enter into the said state of mind may have little to do with logic, and all religious belief is irrational (but not necessarily equally dangerous. Eg: communism killed 80 million people).
If law is available, people will take advantage of it, why not? Big Brother should not get offended; instead get the law annulled. In fact, the greatest threat to freedom of expression today is coming from extremists like Comrade Hrishkamal Rajkesh Murthy, who are rallying to make criticism of religion — actually, make that “Islam” — illegal by defining it as “hate speech”. Hence, developments like the following are heart-warming:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8549155.stm
LikeLike
Hello Praveen
but if 99.999% believe in a thing and the remaining 0.001% didn’t believed in it and treat the remaining 99.999% are retarded then who is retarded here????
>>>>>> This is not even an argument. Let assume that your figure of 99.99% is correct then does it mean that what those 99.99% believe is true? I am quite sure that you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus or that Muhammad was physically lifted to the heavens. So does that make you retarded in comparison to Christians and Muslims.
LikeLike
I don’t want to say paragraphs after paragraphs. To some peoples it is not a problem if anybody drawn their mother or sister naked. The Hindus chant their goddess as “Maa” which mean mother. What about the “Bharatmata” our home land? We consider it as our mother and Husain see her as …..
Take a look at the comparison to pictures he drawn in this site
http://j4nature.blogspot.com/
and I will give one good example of what he meant by drawing naked.
Once he draw the picture of 4 peoples who influenced the world which consist of Gandhi, Einstein, Hitler, and Carl Marx.Out of the four leaders M. Gandhi is decapitated and Hitler is naked. Husain hates Hitler and has said in an interview 8 years ago that he has depicted Hitler naked to humiliate him and as he deserves it ! How come Hitler’s nudity cause humiliation when in Husain’s own statement nudity in art depicts purity and is in fact an honour ! This shows Husain’s perversion and hypocrisy.
M.F. Husain depicts the deity or person he hates as naked. He shows Prophet’s Mother, his own mother, daughter, all the Muslim personalities fully clothed, but at the same time Hindus and Hindu deities along with Hitler are shown naked. This proves his hatred for the Hindus. For other obscene paintings
LikeLike
@Sundried Atheist
Ha.. Ha.. Ha.. First you told you are an Atheist, then you are trying to categorize those among those who are against you (theists)..
Divide & Rule.. Nice policy 🙂
LikeLike