Progressives support Husain to paint nude Islamic religious figures?
Rajul Misra
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Dilip N. Deodhar wrote:
> Many intellectuals, artists and self-professed secularists
> have taken up the cudgels for Mr Husain on the pretext
> that any action against the artist would tantamount to
> curbing creativity.
>
> A few years ago, the Indian Post had carried a sketch of
> Prophet Mohammed praying to Allah prior to Id/Moharrum.
>
> Though there was nothing offensive about the sketch, the
> Muslim community marched to the office of the newspaper
> at Ballard Estate, roughed up the editor/office bearers
> and forced them to publish an apology in the next day's
> issue.
>
> And when is he painting pictures of Islamic religious
> figures in similar fashion?
>
> So much for his artistic creativity.
>
> The simple truth is that the best way to flaunt one's
> secular credentials is whip to Hinduism, find faults
> with its culture and practices knowing fully well that
> there will be no violent backlash given its genuinely
> secular and tolerant approach.
>
I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own religion.
Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
Afterall, what right does he have to say anything -- good or bad -- about
a religion that is not his own ?
And as far as Hindu "intellectuals" are concerned, it was due to such
intellectuals only that we were ruled by muslims for 700 years and the
British for another 200. Till the time we continue to look down upon our
own social, cultural and religious heritage, India / Hindus can never
get any respect anywhere in the world.
I guess the whole issue is one of self respect and pride rather than
"creativity".
Rajul.
John Mitchell
A Hindu Ayotollah in the making?
Ashish Arora
Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.indian: 14-Oct-96 Re: Progressives
support Hu.. by Rajul Mi...@asimov.oit.u
>
> > Many intellectuals, artists and self-professed secularists
> > have taken up the cudgels for Mr Husain on the pretext
> > that any action against the artist would tantamount to
> > curbing creativity.
> > The simple truth is that the best way to flaunt one's
> > secular credentials is whip to Hinduism, find faults
> > with its culture and practices knowing fully well that
> > there will be no violent backlash given its genuinely
> > secular and tolerant approach.
> >
smashed and destroyed work by Hussain. This is not a "violent
backlash" (a convenient euphemism for vandalism)?
>
> I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own religion.
> Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
[Stuff about muslim occupation deleted]
> Rajul.
This is besides the point. If you don't like what M F Hussain has
done, don't buy his stuff. Feel terribly agitated, write a letter to
the newspaper (or to this ng). If you are even more agitated and
affronted, sue the man or the people who published the picture. But you
don't, in a civil society, go and break and destroy things. Else, it is
vandalism made worse by bigotry.
cheers
Dilip N. Deodhar
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Ashish Arora wrote:
> Rajul Mi...@asimov.oit.u wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Dilip N. Deodhar wrote:
> > > The simple truth is that the best way to flaunt one's
> > > secular credentials is to whip Hinduism, find faults
> > > with its culture and practices knowing fully well that
> > > there will be no violent backlash given its genuinely
> > > secular and tolerant approach.
> A contradiction in terms, since apparently the Knicker-Brigade went and
> smashed and destroyed work by Hussain. This is not a "violent
> backlash" (a convenient euphemism for vandalism)?
I think you will agree that the term 'violence' can have different
shades in different context.
The 'violence' mentioned with respect to the muslim artist Hussain
painting a nude hindu religous figure aimed at more than just burning
of some pictures. The ineffectiveness of burning the pictures is
already demonstrated: in England, Hussain again talked the usual
nonsense about artistic freedom.
Even a child will ask hussain why his freedom has only one
direction, towards the hindu gods and not the christian and muslim
and communist.
(yes, communism comes close to being a fanatic religion!).
If this painting was against the muslim rel. figures, the muslim
world may have issued a 'Fatwa' that asks for the life of the
offending human.
That is violence! Remember Salman Rushdie?
The point was: such a 'violent backlash' is not seen generaly in the
Hindu world but is abundantly seen in the muslim/communist world.
Remember the daily killings of Hindus in Kashmir? Remember the
killings and temple destructions after Ayodhya? There are infinite
such examples.
And absence of such a 'violent backlash' creates this 'feeling of
safety' in the minds of the criminals and encourages the acts of
killings and also the 'emotional vandalism' - as exemplified
by Hussain.
***
You seem to be very sensetive to the so called Knicker-Brigade.
Calling such names like 'Nicker-brigade' only shows your contempt
for the people who don't agree with your views. Such 'calling names'
to the opponents is also a common practice among the communists.
And what about the 'red-brigade' ? (this is what the leftists
called themselves).
In the first 100 days of the leftist rule in Kerala,
leftist killed 11 political opponents.
Two weeks ago, 3 ABVP students were killed. The list of people killed
also includes BJP and Congress workers.
Mr Arora this is violence!
I hope you do not agree with this violence and do feel like
writing against it.
> > I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own religion.
> > Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
> > Rajul.
> This is besides the point.
You may like to dodge it, but it is the exactly the point.
"all the BS of Hussain's unidirectional (to hindu gods) freedom of
artistry is hypocritical, sanctimonious and misleading".
> If you don't like what M F Hussain has done, don't buy his stuff.
> Feel terribly agitated, write a letter to
> the newspaper (or to this ng). If you are even more agitated and
> affronted, sue the man or the people who published the picture. But you
> don't, in a civil society, go and break and destroy things. Else, it is
> vandalism made worse by bigotry.
Give as much of your admonition as you want. Those happy days of
the red propaganda are over. The hindus have started to see through
the red game.
Reds may try very hard to tell Hindus that turning the other cheek
is the right thing to do and is also the prescribed(!) hindu custom
and anything else is bigotry. Not any more.
Hindus want to live and let live. No nonsense anymore please.
We respect you, you respect us.
Leftist will slowly start understanding this change in the Hindu mode.
They have always been slow to grasp such things:) or may be they are
waiting for the official 'line' from x-Moscow :)
Please wake-up, you may like the Hindus to write letters but the
things are changing! Destroying the pictures had no effect on
the attitude of Hussain, but I suppose such 'Hussains' are affraid
of a muslim 'fatawa' as only that fear can explain his avoidence of
letting his creativity fly in the muslim direction.
The leftists who selctively give advise to 'hindus only',
also share the primary responsibility of such acts of 'Hussains'.
Rajiv Varma
In article <UmN0iQu00iWWQ=Yt...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Ashish Arora <ash...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.indian: 14-Oct-96 Re: Progressives
>support Hu.. by Rajul Mi...@asimov.oit.u
>>
>> > have taken up the cudgels for Mr Husain on the pretext
>> > that any action against the artist would tantamount to
>> > curbing creativity.
>> > [...]
>> > there will be no violent backlash given its genuinely
>> > secular and tolerant approach.
>> >
>A contradiction in terms, since apparently the Knicker-Brigade went and
>smashed and destroyed work by Hussain. This is not a "violent
>backlash" (a convenient euphemism for vandalism)?
>
It only goes on to prove that when hypocrisy of psecism, nay "fradulent
secularism," goes beyond the lakshman rekha, even the meek can rise, and
the consequences can be ugly.
Only way to stop the likes of Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena is to be fair and
impartial.
But then the character-less psecs are not known for these virtues.
>>
>> I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own religion.
>> Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
>[Stuff about muslim occupation deleted]
>> Rajul.
>
>This is besides the point. If you don't like what M F Hussain has
>done, don't buy his stuff. Feel terribly agitated, write a letter to
>the newspaper (or to this ng). If you are even more agitated and
>affronted, sue the man or the people who published the picture. But you
>don't, in a civil society, go and break and destroy things. Else, it is
>vandalism made worse by bigotry.
>
In fact, *this* (the above) is beyond the point. The point being true
secularism, fairness and impartiality.
From a constitutional and political stand-point, _freedom of expression_
is a virtue, a basic fundamental right. This right MUST be religion-blind,
creed-blind, gender-blind, race-blind, etc.etc.-blind, for it to be
effective.
The perverted "fruit-of-the-loom brigade" that is shouting and hollering
over this incident, what happened to it, when Colin Maine's booklet on
Islam was banned in India? Where were these perverted Reds, when Ram
Swarup's "Understanding Islam..." was banned in India? Where were these
"fraud-o-seculars" when Aurobindo's "Koran and the Kafir" was banned in
India?
Did these perverts raise a hue and cry then?
If not, then these folks have forfeited all rights to protest now.
Politically, what Bajrang Dal activists have done is broght this
concern/issue, in the national spotlight, howsoever crude their methods
might be. After all, Bhagat Singh and Rajguru also made their point by
throwing a bomb in the assembly.
This is not to say that Dal activists, who were involved in the incident,
shouldn't be prosecuted for whatever laws they might have broken.
They MUST face prosecution for their acts by the law. Mahatma Gandhi also
had broken the salt laws to make a point. A point well made with the
(mlechha) rulers of yesteryears. This time, the rulers are our own
(self-alienated) people. That's the only difference.
>
>cheers
>
... keep cheering your "fradulent secularism."
--
regards,
Rajiv
Mallika Patlolla
In article <326329...@dial.pipex.com>, John Mitchell <nj...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
|> Rajul Misra wrote:
|> >
|> > On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Dilip N. Deodhar wrote:
|> >
|> > > Many intellectuals, artists and self-professed secularists
|> > > have taken up the cudgels for Mr Husain on the pretext
|> > > that any action against the artist would tantamount to
|> > > curbing creativity.
|> > >
|> > > Prophet Mohammed praying to Allah prior to Id/Moharrum.
|> > >
|> > > Though there was nothing offensive about the sketch, the
|> > > Muslim community marched to the office of the newspaper
|> > > at Ballard Estate, roughed up the editor/office bearers
|> > > and forced them to publish an apology in the next day's
|> > > issue.
|> > >
|> > > And when is he painting pictures of Islamic religious
|> > > figures in similar fashion?
|> > >
|> > > So much for his artistic creativity.
|> > >
|> > > secular credentials is whip to Hinduism, find faults
|> > > with its culture and practices knowing fully well that
|> > > there will be no violent backlash given its genuinely
|> > > secular and tolerant approach.
|> > >
|> >
|> > Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
|> >
|> > a religion that is not his own ?
|> >
|> > And as far as Hindu "intellectuals" are concerned, it was due to such
|> > intellectuals only that we were ruled by muslims for 700 years and the
|> > British for another 200. Till the time we continue to look down upon our
|> > own social, cultural and religious heritage, India / Hindus can never
|> > get any respect anywhere in the world.
|> >
|> > I guess the whole issue is one of self respect and pride rather than
|> > "creativity".
|> >
|> > Rajul.
|> A Hindu Ayotollah in the making?
You can call him whatever you want but you cannot refute what he is
saying. For some strange reason it is ok to trash symbols important
to Hinduism but not other religions. If you want to apply freedom
of expression, it should be done equally to all religions.
People trash Hindu symbols because they think they can get away with it.
It is time for Hindus to stand up. If this is considered being fanatic
by some pseudo intellectuals so be it. But vast majority of us know
better, if we don't appreciate our culture who else will?
Mallika
John Mitchell
Hitler also started with burning books and vandalising property. You seem
to have forgotten history. The US allied itself with the Soviet Union to
destroy the greatest enemy; Nazis and the fascists.
Curious alliance of Hindu fundamentalists and the Ayatollahs of Iran!
John Mitchell
Mallika Patlolla wrote:
>
> In article <326329...@dial.pipex.com>, John Mitchell <nj...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> |> >
> |> > On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Dilip N. Deodhar wrote:
> |> >
> |> > > have taken up the cudgels for Mr Husain on the pretext
> |> > > that any action against the artist would tantamount to
> |> > > curbing creativity.
> |> > >
> |> > > A few years ago, the Indian Post had carried a sketch of
> |> > > Prophet Mohammed praying to Allah prior to Id/Moharrum.
> |> > >
> |> > > Though there was nothing offensive about the sketch, the
> |> > > Muslim community marched to the office of the newspaper
> |> > > at Ballard Estate, roughed up the editor/office bearers
> |> > > and forced them to publish an apology in the next day's
> |> > > issue.
> |> > >
> |> > > And when is he painting pictures of Islamic religious
> |> > > figures in similar fashion?
> |> > >
> |> > > So much for his artistic creativity.
> |> > >
> |> > > with its culture and practices knowing fully well that
> |> > > there will be no violent backlash given its genuinely
> |> > > secular and tolerant approach.
> |> > >
> |> >
> |> > Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
> |> >
> |> > a religion that is not his own ?
> |> >
> |> > And as far as Hindu "intellectuals" are concerned, it was due to such
> |> > intellectuals only that we were ruled by muslims for 700 years and the
> |> > British for another 200. Till the time we continue to look down upon our
> |> > own social, cultural and religious heritage, India / Hindus can never
> |> > get any respect anywhere in the world.
> |> >
> |> > I guess the whole issue is one of self respect and pride rather than
> |> > "creativity".
> |> >
> |> > Rajul.
>
>
> |> A Hindu Ayotollah in the making?
>
> You can call him whatever you want but you cannot refute what he is
> saying. For some strange reason it is ok to trash symbols important
> to Hinduism but not other religions. If you want to apply freedom
> of expression, it should be done equally to all religions.
>
> People trash Hindu symbols because they think they can get away with it.
> It is time for Hindus to stand up. If this is considered being fanatic
> by some pseudo intellectuals so be it. But vast majority of us know
> better, if we don't appreciate our culture who else will?
>
> Mallika
... and you are standing up in US for Hinduism? Are you going to issue
your own "fatwa"?
Nagasimha Iyengar
rva...@stallion.jsums.edu (Rajiv Varma) wrote:
>Did these perverts raise a hue and cry then?
>
>If not, then these folks have forfeited all rights to protest now.
>
Rajiv,
But then, if we hindus support this act of vandalism, either directly or by
non-condemnation, then WE would forfeit all rights to protest such future
acts, which I'm sure will be carried out by the islamic fundamentalists with the
silent support of the psecs.
Naga
--
Disclaimer: Merck does not necessarily agree with the contents of this message.
The same goes for my shrink.
John Mitchell
Nagasimha Iyengar wrote:
>
> rva...@stallion.jsums.edu (Rajiv Varma) wrote:
> >Did these perverts raise a hue and cry then?
> >
> >If not, then these folks have forfeited all rights to protest now.
> >
>
> Rajiv,
>
> But then, if we hindus support this act of vandalism, either directly or by
> non-condemnation, then WE would forfeit all rights to protest such future
> acts, which I'm sure will be carried out by the islamic fundamentalists with the
> silent support of the psecs.
I am glad to hear such a clear condemnation of this vandalism.
lw4lawk@cr47c
// People trash Hindu symbols because they think they can get away with it.
// It is time for Hindus to stand up. If this is considered being fanatic
// by some pseudo intellectuals so be it. But vast majority of us know
// better, if we don't appreciate our culture who else will?
//
// Mallika
*chuckle*
' people trash hindu symbols because they think they can get away with
it'
exactly! the reason is because the hindu's have no defence
a set traditions of based upon the enslavement of hundreds of millions
because they are of the wrong race or black is weak
ever tried to justify the 'horse sacrifice'?
hindu fanatics should stand up
problem is they'll be knocked down intellectually!
Rajiv Varma
No, Mr. Chuckle. Hindus might be like Cows (at present) ... but do not
forget that even cows have two horns (for her tormentors).
--
regards,
Rajiv
Farhan Siddiqui
Rajul Misra <ra...@asimov.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own religion.
>Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
Islam is strictly iconoclastic religion. Which means that it prohibits
painting and sculpture of human figures. Masjids and other religious
places are decorated with calligraphy or tiles. M.F. Hussain do not
represent the Muslims idea about prohibition of painting and
sculpture.
>After all, what right does he have to say anything -- good or bad -- about
>a religion that is not his own ?
Good point. Why don’t you tell that to BJP, RSS, VHP, BD, SS, and
others so that they also stop bashing Islam.
>Rajul.
Farhan Siddiqui
Mallika Patlolla
In article <326599...@dial.pipex.com>, John Mitchell <nj...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
|> Mallika Patlolla wrote:
|> >
|> > In article <326329...@dial.pipex.com>, John Mitchell <nj...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
|> > |> Rajul Misra wrote:
|> > |> >
|> > |> > On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Dilip N. Deodhar wrote
|> > |> >
|> > |> > > Many intellectuals, artists and self-professed secularists
|> > |> > > have taken up the cudgels for Mr Husain on the pretext
|> > |> > > that any action against the artist would tantamount to
|> > |> > > curbing creativity.
|> > |> > >
|> > |> > > A few years ago, the Indian Post had carried a sketch of
|> > |> > > Prophet Mohammed praying to Allah prior to Id/Moharrum.
|> > |> > >
|> > |> > > Though there was nothing offensive about the sketch, the
|> > |> > > Muslim community marched to the office of the newspaper
|> > |> > > at Ballard Estate, roughed up the editor/office bearers
|> > |> > > and forced them to publish an apology in the next day's
|> > |> > > issue.
|> > |> > >
|> > |> > > And when is he painting pictures of Islamic religious
|> > |> > > figures in similar fashion?
|> > |> > >
|> > |> > > So much for his artistic creativity.
|> > |> > >
|> > |> > > The simple truth is that the best way to flaunt one's
|> > |> > > secular credentials is whip to Hinduism, find faults
|> > |> > > with its culture and practices knowing fully well that
|> > |> > > there will be no violent backlash given its genuinely
|> > |> > > secular and tolerant approach.
|> > |> > >
|> > |>
|> > |> > Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
|> > |> >
|> > |> > a religion that is not his own ?
|> > |> >
|> > |> > intellectuals only that we were ruled by muslims for 700 years and the
|> > |> > British for another 200. Till the time we continue to look down upon our
|> > |> > own social, cultural and religious heritage, India / Hindus can never
|> > |> > get any respect anywhere in the world.
|> > |> >
|> > |> > I guess the whole issue is one of self respect and pride rather than
|> > |> > "creativity".
|> > |> >
|> > |> > Rajul.
|> >
|> >
|> > |> A Hindu Ayotollah in the making?
|> >
|> > You can call him whatever you want but you cannot refute what he is
|> > saying. For some strange reason it is ok to trash symbols important
|> > to Hinduism but not other religions. If you want to apply freedom
|> > of expression, it should be done equally to all religions.
|> >
|> >
|> ... and you are standing up in US for Hinduism? Are you going to issue
|> your own "fatwa"?
Why do we need anything here in US? You don't seem to understand,
here there is no selective application of rules. US govt does not
ban MFHussain's painting nor does it ban Rushdie's Satanic Verses.
Either you apply rules equally on all communities or none at all.
Regarding fatwas you are getting mixed up. No one has religious authority
in Hinduism to issue fatwas. And we will keep it like that.
Mallika
Uday Reddy
Rajul Misra wrote:
> I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own religion.
> Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
Perhaps he found Hindus and Hinduism to be supportive of artistic
expression? Perhaps he didn't find Islam to be similarly supportive?
Perhaps he didn't find Mohammed to be an interesting subject? Who
knows?
> Afterall, what right does he have to say anything -- good or bad -- about
> a religion that is not his own ?
These lines, you are drawing. He didn't. The majority of Indians who
care about painting, appreciated Hussain's paintings for their beauty
and sensuality. We didn't regard him as a "Muslim painter". Shame on
you to have created these narrow and artificial distinctions.
> And as far as Hindu "intellectuals" are concerned, it was due to such
> intellectuals only that we were ruled by muslims for 700 years and the
> British for another 200. Till the time we continue to look down upon our
> own social, cultural and religious heritage, India / Hindus can never
> get any respect anywhere in the world.
Your snub of intellectuals shows your own pedestrianism. Nothing more.
> I guess the whole issue is one of self respect and pride rather than
> "creativity".
Self respect? Pride? Seeing India head towards Ayatollah's Iran is
supposed to give us pride? You are insane.
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
> You can call him whatever you want but you cannot refute what he is
> saying. For some strange reason it is ok to trash symbols important
> to Hinduism but not other religions. If you want to apply freedom
> of expression, it should be done equally to all religions.
>
> People trash Hindu symbols because they think they can get away with it.
> It is time for Hindus to stand up. If this is considered being fanatic
> by some pseudo intellectuals so be it. But vast majority of us know
> better, if we don't appreciate our culture who else will?
>
> Mallika
Mallikaji, I am waiting for the day when you are going to trash all
temples that have anything but fully clothed figures, to enact that all
women should remain indoors or only walk with a Ghoonghat firmly in
place, and to immolate themselves on the pyres of their dead husbands.
If we don't appreciate our culture who will?
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> > But then, if we hindus support this act of vandalism, either directly or by
> > non-condemnation, then WE would forfeit all rights to protest such future
> > acts, which I'm sure will be carried out by the islamic fundamentalists with the
> > silent support of the psecs.
>
> I am glad to hear such a clear condemnation of this vandalism.
Hi John, I didn't know you were capable of such sarcasm. One learns
something new everyday!
Uday Reddy
Dr. Jai Maharaj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In the article <54gj48$i...@hermes.synopsys.com>,
of 21 Oct 1996 19:32:24 UTC,
mal...@miwok.synopsys.com (Mallika Patlolla) wrote:
> Why do we need anything here in US? . . .here there is no
> selective application of rules. US govt does not ban
> MFHussain's painting nor does it ban Rushdie's Satanic
> Verses. Either you apply rules equally on all communities
Books are banned or censored in the U.S. by government
and other entities. To cite a few examples, some
excerpts from the Web site www.banned-books.com follow:
[...]
THE BOOK YOUR CHURCH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (1995)
by Tim C. Leedom, Editor
The book traces astrological and mythical origins of
modern day western religions. A Barnes & Noble bookstore
in San Diego refused to stock this book because of its
content.
[...]
THE VALACHI PAPERS (1968)
by Peter Maas
Asked by the Justice Dept. to edit the papers of Mafia
leader Joseph Valachi, Maas was later sued by the
Justice Dept. for trying to publish the memoirs. The
reason they said was that the book would hamper law
enforcement. The suit was settled and Putnam published
the book in 1968.
[...]
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (1969)
In 1978, an Eldon, Missouri library banned the
dictionary because it contained 39 "objectionable"
words. And, in 1987, the Anchorage School Board banned
the dictionary for similar reasons, i.e., having slang
definitions for words such as "bed," "knocker," and
"balls."
[...]
WOMEN ON TOP
by Nancy Friday
Would-be censors got their way in their demands to
remove this book from the public library. Before a final
vote was taken by the library board on the fate of Women
on Top, the book was borrowed and "accidentally"
destroyed. The board voted not to replace it.
[...]
THE CIA AND THE CULT OF INTELLIGENCE (1974)
by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks
The CIA obtained a court injunction against this
book's publication stating the author, a former CIA
employee, violated his contract which states that he
cannot write about the CIA without the agency's
approval. First amendment activists opposed this
ruling, "raising the question of whether a citizen can
sign away his First Amendment rights." After prolonged
litigation, the CIA succeeded in having 168 passages
deleted.
[...]
There are are many more examples available at the Web
site mentioned above.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi j...@eskimo.com j...@mantra.com
%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%
<a href="mailto:j...@eskimo.com">Dr. Jai Maharaj</a>
PGP information:
ftp://ftp.prairienet.org/pub/providers/pgp/pgpfaq.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Digital signatures verify author and unaltered content.
iQCVAwUBMmwZEelp/UA/8L65AQEwigQArYzhZgNsPno49GmWNg12E4g62//ar1wa
8q509Q9GrZXeDbI3qTAZmjAWP1ohZVzPEfkiB/UZ6RMrPttlmf1FfXMQ7pV2pR1J
uJujeQHfETS2WyjeHIGiRHw2OSOvbcORx4xxyGRW6XC5y7G9DTXgaFKtE9DzWbCk
vWEZ1d816Z8=
=7URU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
key...@speednet.com.au
For those who care to know, Islam does not permit the painting of others in the
nude, whether these are religious icons or not.
The further important point of note with respect to religious icons is: "Do
not ridicule those they call to aside from Allah, so they end up abusing Allah,
transgressing without knowledge." (sura 6; v 108)
If Mr MF Hussain painted your holy personalities in an offensive manner then
his actions are certainly condemned by islam. This should not surprise you,
Islam also condemned Rushdie who was also born a Muslim. The latter was not
only condemned for his blasphemies, but also for the rubbish he wrote about
those held dear by other religions.
Keysar
Gopal Saraswat
Farhan Siddiqui wrote:
>
> Rajul Misra <ra...@asimov.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> > I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own
> > religion. Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
>
> > about a religion that is not his own ?
>
> others so that they also stop bashing Islam.
>
Because Islam is the aggressor. The BJP, RSS, VHP, BD, SS, and others
are Hindus who have banded together and vowed to retaliate against
Islamic aggression. If this retaliation is ferocious enough to deter
Islamic aggression, then you will have peace. That is your only chance
for peace.
The Hindu cowards who use sophistry to justify their inaction simply
make matters worse. Appeasement invites aggression.
--
Gopal Saraswat sara...@netcom.com
satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
John Mitchell
> |> > |> > Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
> |> > |> >
> |> > |> > a religion that is not his own ?
> |> > |> >
> |> > |> > intellectuals only that we were ruled by muslims for 700 years and the
> |> > |> > British for another 200. Till the time we continue to look down upon our
> |> > |> > own social, cultural and religious heritage, India / Hindus can never
> |> > |> > get any respect anywhere in the world.
> |> > |> >
> |> > |> > "creativity".
> |> > |> >
> |> >
> |> >
> |> > |> A Hindu Ayotollah in the making?
> |> >
> |> > saying. For some strange reason it is ok to trash symbols important
> |> > to Hinduism but not other religions. If you want to apply freedom
> |> > of expression, it should be done equally to all religions.
> |> >
> |> > People trash Hindu symbols because they think they can get away with it.
> |> > It is time for Hindus to stand up. If this is considered being fanatic
> |> > by some pseudo intellectuals so be it. But vast majority of us know
> |> > better, if we don't appreciate our culture who else will?
> |> >
> |> > Mallika
>
>
> |> your own "fatwa"?
>
> Why do we need anything here in US? You don't seem to understand,
> ban MFHussain's painting nor does it ban Rushdie's Satanic Verses.
> Either you apply rules equally on all communities or none at all.
>
> in Hinduism to issue fatwas. And we will keep it like that.
>
> Mallika
Is that why BJP/ RSS/ VHP/ SS vandals take the law into their own hands?
Uday Reddy
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> Who knows ? You do, Uday. Hussain didn't paint Mohamad in the nude
> because he would have been murdered for it by Muslim fanatics. He knows
> that and so do you.
So?
> As for Hindus and Hinduism being supportive of artistic freedom, hats
> off to your sophistry. The truth is that Hussain is laughing his ass
> off, knowing that he can desecrate Hinduism and have spineless Hindus
> like you come to his aid. if you had any pride at all, you would atleast
> show some resentment at a non-Hindu desecrating Hinduism.
I don't think he desecrated anything.
> If your motive is artistic freedom rather than cowardice, why don't you
> support artistic freedom where it is lacking - in the Islamic world ?
I support artistic freedom in Islamic world too. But, what is closer to
home is more important to me.
> > Self respect? Pride? Seeing India head towards Ayatollah's Iran is
> > supposed to give us pride? You are insane.
> >
>
> To the contrary; you are a coward. You are using sophitry to hide your
> spinelessness.
Yeah, yeah. I know. To a goonda, every decent human being looks like a
"coward." If you think you can pique me by stupid epithets, you are
mistaken. Stick to the subject, if you can.
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
Dear B,
Sorry to hear about your kids. Both of them are suffering from an
inferiority complex. Teach them self-respect. Teach them to take care
of themselves and keep their goals firmly ahead. When people see them
succeeding, they won't dare make fun.
Hope this helps.
Anny
>
> Dear Ann Landers,
>
> I have never needed to ask your advice before, but these days
> one of my two children is behaving extremely badly, and I would like
> your help.
>
> I have two children: Slim, and Indu. Slim is a bit
> strong-willed, and everyone respects him! Not even his teachers can
> teach him anything that he doesnt want to learn. The children in his
> school? They respect him even more-- why, when one
> disrespectful fellow said bad things about Slim's uncle, the wretch
> had to leave the school because Slim threatened to kill him!!
>
> But I am not writing to you about Slim-- boys will be boys
> after all, dont you think?
>
> Lately I am getting concerned about Indu. All along she used
> to be such a nice girl, but these days does she throw tantrums!!
> She occasionaly behaves in a very unladylike manner, it is
> scandalous. I am beginning to be very ashamed of her-- all the
> learned people in our alley are beginning to warn me that her future
> is bleak if this continues. Can you believe it-- someone presented
> her a picture of her aunt, and Indu flew into a rage and burned it!!
>
> I have tried talking to Indu-- she had the temerity to ask me
> why shouldnt she burn things if Slim can force children to leave
> school. I try telling her that after all she is a lady, she doesnt
> listen. She wants me to treat her just like Slim-- that is what she
> says. Please tell me what I should do.
>
> Sincerely,
> Bharati
>
> -----
Uday Reddy
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> Because Islam is the aggressor. The BJP, RSS, VHP, BD, SS, and others
> are Hindus who have banded together and vowed to retaliate against
> Islamic aggression. If this retaliation is ferocious enough to deter
> Islamic aggression, then you will have peace. That is your only chance
> for peace.
I don't understand. What Islamic aggression is taking place now?
Uday Reddy
Gopal Saraswat
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Rajul Misra wrote:
>
> > I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own
> > religion. Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
>
> expression? Perhaps he didn't find Islam to be similarly supportive?
> Perhaps he didn't find Mohammed to be an interesting subject? Who
> knows?
Who knows ? You do, Uday. Hussain didn't paint Mohamad in the nude
because he would have been murdered for it by Muslim fanatics. He knows
that and so do you.
As for Hindus and Hinduism being supportive of artistic freedom, hats
off to your sophistry. The truth is that Hussain is laughing his ass
off, knowing that he can desecrate Hinduism and have spineless Hindus
like you come to his aid. if you had any pride at all, you would atleast
show some resentment at a non-Hindu desecrating Hinduism.
If your motive is artistic freedom rather than cowardice, why don't you
support artistic freedom where it is lacking - in the Islamic world ?
> Self respect? Pride? Seeing India head towards Ayatollah's Iran is
> supposed to give us pride? You are insane.
>
To the contrary; you are a coward. You are using sophitry to hide your
spinelessness.
--
Abhiram Ranade
Raja Vikramaditya
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
> > Farhan Siddiqui wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own
> > > > religion. Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
> > >
> > > > about a religion that is not his own ?
> > >
> > > others so that they also stop bashing Islam.
> > >
> >
> > are Hindus who have banded together and vowed to retaliate against
> > Islamic aggression. If this retaliation is ferocious enough to deter
> > Islamic aggression, then you will have peace. That is your only chance
> > for peace.
> >
> > make matters worse. Appeasement invites aggression.
>
OOOOHHHHH Mr. Mitchell, so there are no vandals in the US ? Not to
mention assorted members of the lunatic fringe such as the 3K, LF,
BP etc. ?
Of course, I agree with your opposition to the these people as well..
Raja
John Mitchell
John Mitchell
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> Uday Reddy wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own
> > > religion. Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
> >
> > expression? Perhaps he didn't find Islam to be similarly supportive?
> > Perhaps he didn't find Mohammed to be an interesting subject? Who
> > knows?
>
> Who knows ? You do, Uday. Hussain didn't paint Mohamad in the nude
> because he would have been murdered for it by Muslim fanatics. He knows
> that and so do you.
>
> As for Hindus and Hinduism being supportive of artistic freedom, hats
> off to your sophistry. The truth is that Hussain is laughing his ass
> off, knowing that he can desecrate Hinduism and have spineless Hindus
> like you come to his aid. if you had any pride at all, you would atleast
> show some resentment at a non-Hindu desecrating Hinduism.
>
> If your motive is artistic freedom rather than cowardice, why don't you
> support artistic freedom where it is lacking - in the Islamic world ?
>
> > Self respect? Pride? Seeing India head towards Ayatollah's Iran is
> > supposed to give us pride? You are insane.
> >
>
> To the contrary; you are a coward. You are using sophitry to hide your
> spinelessness.
I think you are the coward who barks from the US. Why don't make the
sacrifice and join the vandals in India?
John Mitchell
Raja Vikramaditya wrote:
>
> John Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> > >
> > > Farhan Siddiqui wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own
> > > > > religion. Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
> > > >
> > > > > about a religion that is not his own ?
> > > >
> > > > Good point. Why don’t you tell that to BJP, RSS, VHP, BD, SS, and
> > > > others so that they also stop bashing Islam.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because Islam is the aggressor. The BJP, RSS, VHP, BD, SS, and others
> > > are Hindus who have banded together and vowed to retaliate against
> > > Islamic aggression. If this retaliation is ferocious enough to deter
> > > Islamic aggression, then you will have peace. That is your only chance
> > > for peace.
> > >
> > > The Hindu cowards who use sophistry to justify their inaction simply
> > > make matters worse. Appeasement invites aggression.
> >
> > If you want to join the vandals, what are you doing in the US?
>
> mention assorted members of the lunatic fringe such as the 3K, LF,
> BP etc. ?
Vandals and criminals are dealt with by the judicial system in US. No
mainstream parties in US condone such criminal behaviour.
H.K.Datta
In article <326D73...@dial.pipex.com>, nj...@dial.pipex.com says...
>
>
>If you want to join the vandals, what are you doing in the US?
So you think that people whose opinion you
don't like or don't understand should not be in the US.
You have insulted others before with similar stupid
utterings. Is the US your father's or you
personal property?
Mallika Patlolla
In article <326C22...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> writes:
|> > You can call him whatever you want but you cannot refute what he is
|> > saying. For some strange reason it is ok to trash symbols important
|> > to Hinduism but not other religions. If you want to apply freedom
|> > of expression, it should be done equally to all religions.
|> >
|> > People trash Hindu symbols because they think they can get away with it.
|> > It is time for Hindus to stand up. If this is considered being fanatic
|> > by some pseudo intellectuals so be it. But vast majority of us know
|> > better, if we don't appreciate our culture who else will?
|> >
|> > Mallika
|>
|> temples that have anything but fully clothed figures, to enact that all
|> women should remain indoors or only walk with a Ghoonghat firmly in
|> place, and to immolate themselves on the pyres of their dead husbands.
|>
|> Uday Reddy
You are the one talking about trashing temples and so on and not me.
So you are equating sati ghoonghat and all other bad social customs
as culture. You have some twisted logic.So Ghoongat and sati justify
drawing nude paintings of Hindu religious figures hurting sentiments
of a large section of population. Is there any culture in the whole
world which has no bad social customs? If so show me one. If not why
is it then ok to draw only nude pictures of Hindu religious figures?
And don't call me ji, Mallika is just fine.
Mallika
brao
In article <326D20...@ix.netcom.com>,
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...
>To the contrary; you are a coward. You are using sophitry to hide your
>spinelessness.
Looking at this exchange, and in view of previous Hindutva
protestations that they are "truly secular", and supportive of
Bharatiya Muslims etc., would someone explain why decent, ordinary
Hindus should believe that the Hindutva people are anything other than
bile-spewing bullyboys who may be sweetness itself as long as normal
Hindus support them, but will turn into totalitarian mad dogs the
moment they are questioned in any way?
This is not a rhetorical question but a serious one for
freedom-loving Hindus to consider. After all, we have before us the
example of Pakistan, which, begotten in hatred and mistrust of Hindus,
has today turned its driving hatred on its own Muslim regional minorities,
women etc. in the most virulent fashion. Who wants to live in a Hindu
version of Pakistan?
My personal views.
Bapa Rao
Guzni & Naheed Palmerston North New Zealand
I entirely agree what Mr. Keysar wrote. Each religion MUST
be respected. Not only the religion itself, but also the
personalities belonging to these religions.
For example Pope MUST be respected under all circumstances,
similarly, Ayat Ullah(s) in Iran MUST also be respected, as
I heard they do not achieve that status just because of
their age. They have to get certain "religious" education,
research etc before they are entitled as "Ayat Ullah".]
----------------------------------------------------------
key...@speednet.com.au wrote:
For those who care to know, Islam does not permit the painting of others
in the nude, whether these are religious icons or not.
>The further important point of note with respect to religious icons is: "Do not ridicule those they call to aside from Allah, so t=
hey end up abusing Allah, transgressing without knowledge." (sura 6; v 108)
If Mr MF Hussain painted your holy personalities in an offensive manner
then his actions are certainly condemned by islam. This should not
surprise you,
Islam also condemned Rushdie who was also born a Muslim. The latter was
not only condemned for his blasphemies, but also for the rubbish he wrote
about those held dear by other religions.
Keysar
--
Regards
GUZNI
[Nothing depreciates a car faster than having a neighbour buy a new car]
PS:One of my friend commented about above saying that it can also be true
for WIFE too!!
brao
In article <326C20...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Rajul Misra wrote:
...
>> Afterall, what right does he have to say anything -- good or bad -- about
>> a religion that is not his own ?
Fascinating question. Perhaps my Hindutva friends will address this
question? For years I have been hearing that India's Muslims have to
be Hindu Muslims or Bharatiya Muslims meaning, as I understood, that
they have to embrace the symbols and values of their native land as
their own.
Well, here I see M.F. Hussain doing exactly that. After all, what
Hussain did in pictures, is on the samek lines as than what classical
poets like Kalidasa or the great Telugu Prabandha poets did with
words--made liberal use of sensuous and nude imagery of goddesses to
make an artistic point. So, here is the quintessential Bharatiya
Muslim; if he eschewed Muslim themes, isn't that all the better, since
those are "foreign" anyway.
Please explain this seeming paradox to me, before I dust off my copy
of the wolf and the lamb parable and commend it to my Muslim friends.
Raja Vikramaditya
Guzni & Naheed Palmerston North New Zealand wrote:
>
> I entirely agree what Mr. Keysar wrote. Each religion MUST
> be respected. Not only the religion itself, but also the
> personalities belonging to these religions.
err, WHY ? Are they GOD ? In any case, I don't respect that either ..
Raja
>
> For example Pope MUST be respected under all circumstances,
> similarly, Ayat Ullah(s) in Iran MUST also be respected, as
> I heard they do not achieve that status just because of
> their age. They have to get certain "religious" education,
> research etc before they are entitled as "Ayat Ullah".]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> key...@speednet.com.au wrote:
> For those who care to know, Islam does not permit the painting of others
> in the nude, whether these are religious icons or not.
> >The further important point of note with respect to religious icons is: "Do not ridicule those they call to aside from Allah, so they end up
abusing Allah, t
>
Dakshin
In article <326D74...@dial.pipex.com>,
>> >
>> > > I wonder why MF Hussain's creativity doesn't work with his own
>> > > religion. Has he ever painted Mohammed in the nude ?
>> >
>> > expression? Perhaps he didn't find Islam to be similarly supportive?
>> > Perhaps he didn't find Mohammed to be an interesting subject? Who
>> > knows?
>>
>> Who knows ? You do, Uday. Hussain didn't paint Mohamad in the nude
>> because he would have been murdered for it by Muslim fanatics. He knows
>> that and so do you.
>>
>> As for Hindus and Hinduism being supportive of artistic freedom, hats
>> off to your sophistry. The truth is that Hussain is laughing his ass
>> off, knowing that he can desecrate Hinduism and have spineless Hindus
>> like you come to his aid. if you had any pride at all, you would atleast
>> show some resentment at a non-Hindu desecrating Hinduism.
>>
>> If your motive is artistic freedom rather than cowardice, why don't you
>> support artistic freedom where it is lacking - in the Islamic world ?
>>
>> > Self respect? Pride? Seeing India head towards Ayatollah's Iran is
>> > supposed to give us pride? You are insane.
>> >
>>
>> spinelessness.
>
>sacrifice and join the vandals in India?
Time Out! We are in cyberspace that transcends boundaries. We all have equal
rights (privvies granted by the sys admins) to say and be rebutted on the
internet. So these statements of space relativity don't make much sense.
I believe if all warring factions in the world got together on internet and argued
the heck with one another, this world will be a much decent place (leaving
all the filth in the cyberspace).
Having said that, I'd like to know how Mr.Saraswat would feel if he
were to view Hussain's painting on a web browser.
Also, those who love Goddess Saraswati (I can recite several Sanskrit slokas
in HER praise, so you know what an effect she might have had on me from
my childhood), will you prefer if Goddess Saraswati appeared on currency notes,
all text books, every e-mail and browser article? After all, aren't all these
some forms of knowledge (all right, I can read languages on Indian
currency :-)?
I am sure some males will eventually begin to question
HER highnesse's exclusive dominance of knowledge. If not, some of us would
relegate her to the lower level knowledge and install another one as the
keeper of our philosophy and wisdom (Brahma for instance, had already
received this privilege). As well all know.
knowledge is relative. One man's knowledge is another one's garbage (time and
again it is proved on the internet; it holds true even for my articles ;-).
Hence, I submit, Goddess Saraswati has no exclusive dominance over all forms
of knowledge. It seems, she has dominance over the lowest form of knowledge
with the highest common denominator, at least among the Hindu populace.
Hussain's painting offended this demographic, but those who follow the higher/deeper
knowledge principles, heuristics, pragmatism, philosophy, logic (sophistry
included) and wisdom do not fall in that lowest common denomination trap.
I hope Goddess Saraswati will forgive me for saying all these awful things
(tongue in cheek).
Dakshin
--
Dakshin Gandikota, Ph.D.
Rm. 1D-260N, AT&T Labs
6200 E.Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43213 614-860-6006
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> I think you are the coward who barks from the US. Why don't make the
> sacrifice and join the vandals in India?
And I think you are a joker who thinks we should consider you an expert
on India just because you have a pink ass.
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
> > Because Islam is the aggressor. The BJP, RSS, VHP, BD, SS, and
> > others are Hindus who have banded together and vowed to retaliate
> > against Islamic aggression. If this retaliation is ferocious enough
> > to deter Islamic aggression, then you will have peace. That is your
> > only chance for peace.
> >
> > The Hindu cowards who use sophistry to justify their inaction simply
> > make matters worse. Appeasement invites aggression.
>
Kicking your pink ass.
When the holocast museum was opened in Washington DC, a muslim
protested. He was allegedly beaten up by two men wearing the star of
David. He filed a complaint. The police got on TV and stated that they
would treat this as a hate crime. No one was ever apprehended. Once this
muslim left the police station, everyone laughed a lot.
When the Rushdie incident happened, I got hold of a copy of Satanic
Verses. I soon found that Rushdie had the soul of an urchin. His book
was distinctly distateful. However, he, like Hussain, had every right to
express himself.
The Indian government was one of the first to ban Rushdie's book. It
also denied a visa to the Bangladeshi author who antagonized Islamic
nutcases. Our hypocritical "progressives" kept their mouths shut.
When another muslim of Rushdie's ilk creates trash, the Indian
government keeps quite and the slimy "progressives" fall out of the
woodwork. Hindus notice the duplicity.
I have heard rumours that the Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena have found
paintings of Mohamad done by Hussain. He has been too cowardly to
display them.
Would you, my pink-assed friend, alongwith the "progressives", crusade
to have them displayed ?
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Vandals and criminals are dealt with by the judicial system in US. No
> mainstream parties in US condone such criminal behaviour.
>
But of course, packaging in the US is far more sophisticated. The US and
Western Europe can impose an arms embargo on Bosnian muslims and let the
Bosnian Serbs decimate them, all in the name of brokering a peace.
The Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena should learn some of these techniques.
Suppose they get hold of a painting of Mohamad, preferably the one
allegedly done by Hussain, and display it. Will the spineless UF
government, the hypocritical "progressives", and pink-assed Johnny boy
still crusade for artistic freedom ? No way; that would be
"communalism"!
John Mitchell
I will buy it myself and have it displayed. Do you have the courage to do
the same for painting of Saraswati or do you only have courage to send in
your goons to destroy the paintings by the artist?
Only when one looses an argument, one turns to abuse. You seem to have
founded a new school of thought in Santana Dharma.
Samuel Johnson once said that Patriotism is the last refuge of
scoundrels. It seems to me that you are proving that additionally
religion is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Marlon E Menezes
>Guzni & Naheed Palmerston North New Zealand wrote:
>>
>> I entirely agree what Mr. Keysar wrote. Each religion MUST
>> be respected. Not only the religion itself, but also the
>> personalities belonging to these religions.
>> similarly, Ayat Ullah(s) in Iran MUST also be respected, as
>> I heard they do not achieve that status just because of
>> their age. They have to get certain "religious" education,
>> research etc before they are entitled as "Ayat Ullah".]
>>
>> in the nude, whether these are religious icons or not.
>> >The further important point of note with respect to religious icons is: "Do not ridicule those they call to aside from Allah, so they end up
>abusing Allah, t
This kind of dogmatic crap is sickening. If I wish to insult the pope or
whoever, it should be my choice, not that of my religion.
Marlon
>>
John Mitchell
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> John Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > sacrifice and join the vandals in India?
>
> And I think you are a joker who thinks we should consider you an expert
> on India just because you have a pink ass.
You don't need to consider me an expert on India. You are only exposing
your true colors to your fellow Indians that all this talk of Hindutva
and Santana Dharma is nothing but a ploy for a power grab.
>
> --
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
................................. indeed!
John Mitchell
Mallika Patlolla wrote:
>
> In article <326C22...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> writes:
> |> > You can call him whatever you want but you cannot refute what he is
> |> > saying. For some strange reason it is ok to trash symbols important
> |> > to Hinduism but not other religions. If you want to apply freedom
> |> > of expression, it should be done equally to all religions.
> |> >
> |> > People trash Hindu symbols because they think they can get away with it.
> |> > It is time for Hindus to stand up. If this is considered being fanatic
> |> > by some pseudo intellectuals so be it. But vast majority of us know
> |> > better, if we don't appreciate our culture who else will?
> |> >
> |> > Mallika
> |>
> |> Mallikaji, I am waiting for the day when you are going to trash all
> |> temples that have anything but fully clothed figures, to enact that all
> |> women should remain indoors or only walk with a Ghoonghat firmly in
> |> place, and to immolate themselves on the pyres of their dead husbands.
> |> If we don't appreciate our culture who will?
> |>
> |> Uday Reddy
>
> You are the one talking about trashing temples and so on and not me.
But according to your own logic the figurines in the temples demean
Hinduism as much as Hussain's paintings!
John Mitchell
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> John Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > mainstream parties in US condone such criminal behaviour.
> >
>
> But of course, packaging in the US is far more sophisticated. The US and
> Western Europe can impose an arms embargo on Bosnian muslims and let the
> Bosnian Serbs decimate them, all in the name of brokering a peace.
US turned a blind eye regarding arms smuggled in to Bosnia by Bosnian
government.
>
> The Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena should learn some of these techniques.
> Suppose they get hold of a painting of Mohamad, preferably the one
> allegedly done by Hussain, and display it. Will the spineless UF
> government, the hypocritical "progressives", and pink-assed Johnny boy
> still crusade for artistic freedom ? No way; that would be
> "communalism"!
All freedom of speech and expression is to be respected. I am against the
fatwa against Salman Rushdie or the attacks on Hussain's paintings by
BD and SS vandals.
>
> --
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
................................... Well, you could have fooled me!
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Dilip N. Deodhar
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 key...@speednet.com.au wrote:
> If Mr MF Hussain painted your holy personalities in an offensive
> manner then his actions are certainly condemned by islam.
> Keysar
Are you saying, all religions are equal, according to the Islam?
Please answer this:
For the muslim religion, is
'painting a Hindu God' equally bad as 'painting a Muslim God'?
If it is, then shouldn't the 'Ayat Ullah' pass the death sentence
- Fatwa - on MF Hussain's head? (as he did for S. Rushdie)
Unless one sees this imaprtiality,
how can one believe in what you say?
John Mitchell
Religions which can't stand any criticism will be looked upon with
contempt. Respect can't be demanded. It has to be earned. Any attempt to
impose religious edicts on unwilling people will be considered barbarism
and fanaticism. Freedom of speech and expression are paramount and can't
be stopped.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Guzni & Naheed Palmerston North New Zealand wrote:
>
> I entirely agree what Mr. Keysar wrote. Each religion MUST
> be respected. Not only the religion itself, but also the
> personalities belonging to these religions.
>
> For example Pope MUST be respected under all circumstances,
> similarly, Ayat Ullah(s) in Iran MUST also be respected, as
> I heard they do not achieve that status just because of
> their age. They have to get certain "religious" education,
> research etc before they are entitled as "Ayat Ullah".]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> key...@speednet.com.au wrote:
> For those who care to know, Islam does not permit the painting of others
> in the nude, whether these are religious icons or not.
> >The further important point of note with respect to religious icons is: "Do not ridicule those they call to aside from Allah, so they end up
abusing Allah, t
>
> If Mr MF Hussain painted your holy personalities in an offensive manner
Uday Reddy
Dilip N. Deodhar wrote:
>
> If it is, then shouldn't the 'Ayat Ullah' pass the death sentence
> - Fatwa - on MF Hussain's head? (as he did for S. Rushdie)
Oh, he considered. Just that he realized his alter-ego's in India were
entirely capable of the job.
Uday Reddy
P.S. I am waiting for the day when the Bajrang Dal is going to execute
the good Ayat-ullah's fatwa on Salman, the Sinner.
John Mitchell
brao wrote:
>
> In article <326D20...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >spinelessness.
>
> protestations that they are "truly secular", and supportive of
> Bharatiya Muslims etc., would someone explain why decent, ordinary
> Hindus should believe that the Hindutva people are anything other than
> bile-spewing bullyboys who may be sweetness itself as long as normal
> Hindus support them, but will turn into totalitarian mad dogs the
> moment they are questioned in any way?
>
> This is not a rhetorical question but a serious one for
> freedom-loving Hindus to consider. After all, we have before us the
> example of Pakistan, which, begotten in hatred and mistrust of Hindus,
> has today turned its driving hatred on its own Muslim regional minorities,
> women etc. in the most virulent fashion. Who wants to live in a Hindu
> version of Pakistan?
>
>
> Bapa Rao
Well, the so called Hindutva crowd is nothing but pseudo secular vandals.
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Is that why BJP/ RSS/ VHP/ SS vandals take the law into their own
> hands?
Johnny boy, why do you have to be an asshole who reproduces a hundred
lines from previous posts just to contribute a one line reply ?
Regarding the "vandals", does the Boston Tea Party ring a bell ? Or does
it just tickle your ass ?
The Indian government is selectively applying the rules. When Islam is
desecrated, it jumps into action. When Hinduism is desecrated, it
discovers freedom of expression. You are the only joker dense enough not
understand this.
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> But according to your own logic the figurines in the temples demean
> Hinduism as much as Hussain's paintings!
>
No, turkey, they don't. Ask yourself a question. If Hussain's depiction
of Saraswati was not offensive, why are so many people be offended ?
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
> > Suppose they get hold of a painting of Mohamad, preferably the one
> > allegedly done by Hussain, and display it. Will the spineless UF
> > government, the hypocritical "progressives", and pink-assed Johnny
> > boy still crusade for artistic freedom ? No way; that would be
> > "communalism"!
>
> All freedom of speech and expression is to be respected.
Absolutely.
However, when freedom of expression is used, by Islamists who themselves
do not believe in it or practice it, as a decoy to continue a thousand
year-old assault on Hinduism, then one must not be so dim-witted as to
not even catch on.
> I am against the fatwa against Salman Rushdie or the attacks on
> Hussain's paintings by BD and SS vandals.
Destroying a few patently offensive paintings that desecrate Hinduism
does not make one a "vandal". (Vandals, incidently, were a European
people.) Note that the BD and SS activists did not destroy any property
other than the offensive paintings. They limited their retaliation to
the specific offense.
Here's another scenario. Suppose the BD and SS activists decided to
retaliate by widely displaying offensive paintings of Mohamad ? Muslims
would resort to violence leading to riots which could quickly get out of
hand.
The correct resolution would be to protect everyone's right to freedom
of expression. After banning Rushdie's book and denying a visa to the
Bangladeshi author, the government's inaction in this case smacks of
hypocricy which Hindus cannot help noticing.
Can the UF gevernment protect someone who displays a nude depiction of
Mohamad ? Can any geovernment of any country do that ? I doubt it, with
the possible exception of the US.
Where does one draw the line ? Isn't there a riot act in the US ?
Suppose people displayed placards of a nude Mohamad on Friday in front
of mosques in the US ? Would they be arrested for trying to incite a
riot ? Or would the government let them continue and attempt to protect
them from attacks by outraged muslims ?
> > satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
>
> ................................... Well, you could have fooled me!
A fool being fooled is hardly a noteworthy event.
>
> He that would make his own liberty secure,
> must guard even his enemy from oppression;
> for if he violates this duty,
> he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
>
> Thomas Paine
He who is too dense to figure out the real issue should try to keep his
mouth shut.
The BD and SS are retaliating against Islamic aggression. They are not
against liberty. If Islamic aggression is permitted to succeed, there
will be no liberty of any kind for anyone.
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
> > paintings of Mohamad done by Hussain. He has been too cowardly to
> > display them.
> >
> > Would you, my pink-assed friend, alongwith the "progressives",
> > crusade to have them displayed ?
> >
> do the same for painting of Saraswati or do you only have courage to
> send in your goons to destroy the paintings by the artist?
>
I would neither buy nor display such trash, no matter which religion it
desecrated. What kind of an idiot would do such a thing ?
Religion is a matter of faith. It is not open to reason. If someone's
religion does not violate your rights, why would you attack it? If you
are happy with your own religion, just practice it. Why start pissing
contests with those who follow a different religion ?
> Only when one looses an argument, one turns to abuse. You seem to have
> founded a new school of thought in Santana Dharma.
You are the one who started the abuse. Your complaint is that you have
caught a tartar.
Sanatan Dharm certainly permits new thought. The one I emphasize -
retaliation against aggression - is not new.
Islam is, by defition, antagonistic towards all religions, especially
Hinduism. To have peace, one must deter such aggression by retaliation.
If haven't read several translations of the Koran, I would suggest you
shove your ignorant opinions where the sun don't shine.
>
> Samuel Johnson once said that Patriotism is the last refuge of
> scoundrels. It seems to me that you are proving that additionally
> religion is the last refuge of scoundrels.
And you are proving that you are a gas bag with too much free time. Why
don't you use that time to read and learn a little about the
blood-letting initiated by the "great" monotheistic religions.
John Mitchell
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> John Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > But according to your own logic the figurines in the temples demean
> > Hinduism as much as Hussain's paintings!
> >
>
> No, turkey, they don't. Ask yourself a question. If Hussain's depiction
> of Saraswati was not offensive, why are so many people be offended ?
Isn't this hate campaign whipped up by BD, SS for political purposes
twenty years after it was painted?
Uday Reddy
Dakshin wrote:
> Hence, I submit, Goddess Saraswati has no exclusive dominance over all forms
> of knowledge.
Doesn't matter. Gopal Saraswat has exclusive dominance over all forms
of knowledge.
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> John Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > But according to your own logic the figurines in the temples demean
> > Hinduism as much as Hussain's paintings!
> >
>
> No, turkey, they don't. Ask yourself a question. If Hussain's depiction
> of Saraswati was not offensive, why are so many people be offended ?
Elementary, my dear Watson. Because they are morons!
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
Mallika Patlolla wrote:
> So you are equating sati ghoonghat and all other bad social customs
> as culture. You have some twisted logic.
And, you call gutting Rs. 16 crore worth of paintings as "culture"?
Talk of twisted logic!
Uday Reddy
VB
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
> > John Mitchell wrote:
> > >
> > > But according to your own logic the figurines in the temples demean
> > > Hinduism as much as Hussain's paintings!
> > >
> >
> > No, turkey, they don't. Ask yourself a question. If Hussain's depiction
> > of Saraswati was not offensive, why are so many people be offended ?
>
> twenty years after it was painted?
Try showing the film "Ten Commandments" in India. If my memory serves me right,
I recall having heard many years back that Muslims agitated and got it banned as
offensive to tenants of islam. Nobody recalls our "progressive press" ever
questioning the decision.
VB
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> VB wrote:
> >
> > John Mitchell wrote:
> > >
> > > Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Mitchell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > But according to your own logic the figurines in the temples demean
> > > > > Hinduism as much as Hussain's paintings!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, turkey, they don't. Ask yourself a question. If Hussain's depiction
> > > > of Saraswati was not offensive, why are so many people be offended ?
> > >
> > > Isn't this hate campaign whipped up by BD, SS for political purposes
> > > twenty years after it was painted?
> >
> > Try showing the film "Ten Commandments" in India. If my memory serves me right,
> > I recall having heard many years back that Muslims agitated and got it banned as
> > offensive to tenants of islam. Nobody recalls our "progressive press" ever
> > questioning the decision.
>
> should be possible to show all these banned films to all those who wish
> to see them.
You appeared to have missed the point. The bastards in GOI who are ever
perpetuating the divide & rule hangover of the British, are responsible for
most of the countries troubles. If they bend over backwards to openly accommodate
Muslim extremism for ulterior and petty political gains with the pseudo-secular media
following suit, it is but natural for Hindu extremism to revive its ugly head, exploit
issues and demand an equal share of the pie. Between the two, country suffers and is
driven back to archiac ages.
Arun Gupta
You see, had M.F. Hussein undergone a "shuddhi" ceremony, and
formally "converted" to Hinduism, then his paintings would have
been OK, not constituting "Muslim aggression". At least that is what
one would gather from the arguments here.
People, the freedom of expression includes the right to be
offensive. Maybe Muslims don't agree with this, but that is
no reason to trash Hussein's paintings.
About the progressives -- yes, they are hypocrites, but who
cares about them ? "Progressive" is a term like "chosen people" --
an unjustified feeling of innate superiority.
-arun gupta
Arun Gupta
Paraphrasing a friend : "I would not support a division of India
based on religion. But given that Pakistan exists, with all its
faults, at least I did not grow up in a country where I would be
a despised minority. That is the positive thing about Pakistan."
-arun gupta
John Mitchell
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> John Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > hands?
>
> Johnny boy, why do you have to be an asshole who reproduces a hundred
> lines from previous posts just to contribute a one line reply ?
>
> Regarding the "vandals", does the Boston Tea Party ring a bell ? Or
Yes. They were protesting against British colonial taxation without
any representation of American citizens. They are comparable to Gandhi's
salt march.
does
> it just tickle your ass ?
>
> The Indian government is selectively applying the rules. When Islam is
> desecrated, it jumps into action. When Hinduism is desecrated, it
> discovers freedom of expression. You are the only joker dense enough not
> understand this.
That still doesn't excuse taking law into your own hands. How would you
feel if people take a similar action under a future BJP government? Once
you condone a lynch mob, where does it stop?
John Mitchell
VB wrote:
>
> John Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > John Mitchell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hinduism as much as Hussain's paintings!
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, turkey, they don't. Ask yourself a question. If Hussain's depiction
> > > of Saraswati was not offensive, why are so many people be offended ?
> >
> > Isn't this hate campaign whipped up by BD, SS for political purposes
> > twenty years after it was painted?
>
> Try showing the film "Ten Commandments" in India. If my memory serves me right,
> I recall having heard many years back that Muslims agitated and got it banned as
> offensive to tenants of islam. Nobody recalls our "progressive press" ever
> questioning the decision.
All censorship should be condemned. But with videos and satellite TV, it
should be possible to show all these banned films to all those who wish
to see them.
>
> > >
N. Tiwari
: John Mitchell wrote:
: >
: > But according to your own logic the figurines in the temples demean
: > Hinduism as much as Hussain's paintings!
Johnny: Have you ever gone to India. What is offensive changes with
time. THere might have been a time, when people were not offended by
nudity in India. Things have changed. Go to India, and take a poll
on this issue. And overwhelmingly large number of Indians, Hindus,
Muslims, Christians, Commies, Hindutva folks will agree on the issue
of nudity.
Secondly, even in the earliest of times, in the times of Kalidas,
in the days of Khajuraho, in the Vedic times, display of nudity was
not considered a very desirable thing. We have the legend that Kalidas
was cursed by Pravati, for he described the beauty of Uma in some
not so charitable terms. It is said that Kalidas became a leper. So,
learn and then start splashing your views.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
N. Tiwari
John Mitchell (nj...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: > Try showing the film "Ten Commandments" in India. If my memory serves me right,
: > I recall having heard many years back that Muslims agitated and got it banned as
: > offensive to tenants of islam. Nobody recalls our "progressive press" ever
: > questioning the decision.
: All censorship should be condemned. But with videos and satellite TV, it
: should be possible to show all these banned films to all those who wish
: to see them.
So please do us a favor. Save our souls by showing these films on this
John-TV thru the satellite dish. Afterall, it is the "white man's burden"
to save "us". Sarcasm aside, what do you say about the V-chip idea, which
Clinton recently introduced. I am of course assuming that you are an
American. Or for that sake, what about the restrictions on the peddling
of child pornography in the media. Could I call it as art too, and view
them in a very "artistic" way. Or is it that at all times, your notions
of "censure" are examples of restraints, and "my" notions of censure are
acts of tyranny.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
VB
Uday Reddy wrote:
(Snip)
> > No, turkey, they don't. Ask yourself a question. If Hussain's depiction
> > of Saraswati was not offensive, why are so many people be offended ?
>
> Elementary, my dear Watson. Because they are morons!
>
> Uday Reddy
Set a example, O' exalted one!
We saw Robert Mapelthorpe shove a fist up his ass and
with the other one dump a holy cross in a jar
of urine. Another one had a rat suckling on the
breasts of virgin Mary but these poor christian
"morons" need to become progressive and not feel
offended!
Hindu "morons", ever starved of celluloid sex need to
get their wet dreams by ogling at a nude Sarasawati!
And "morons" of other religions need to be made
progressive too. For example, Guru Nanak and Muhammad
should be shown giving each other golden showers with
Aiyesha sandwitched in-between, while Muhammad's
"progressive" christian concubine should be shown
teaching his eight other wives, the correct use of
dildos.
Now, if you would kindly set a personal example on a
social front to convert us morons, O'Exalted one!
Let Rohan Oberoi in nude take a video camera inside
your parents bedroom and beam via a dish, Mrs and Mr.
Reddy performing the positions from Kamasutra in
the buff.
And remember, O'Exalted one, progressives dont get
offended (You certainly shouldn't) and you do need to
teach us morons how to become progressive. dont you!
N. Tiwari
Uday Reddy (re...@cs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
How is it that you value the worth of paintings as 16 crore. WHy
not Re. 1. Why not a billion dollars. There is no measure to
assess the value of art. A Hariprasad Chaurasia concert's ticket
might cost anything between $ 3.00 and $ 100.00 On the other hand
the ticket for the concert of Pavarotti, might cost way too above
$ 100.00. Is it because Pavarotti's concert is of more "value" or
is it because the people in US for a variety of reasons (social and
economic) are prepared to pay more for Pavarotti. The same is about
Hussainic paintings. You can pay 16 corres for it. A lot of people
feel like trashing it. You can argue about the wise-ness of the act
of trashing. But you cannot hind behind a 16 crore rupees facade.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
Babar Rasheed Khan
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Dilip N. Deodhar wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 key...@speednet.com.au wrote:
>
> > If Mr MF Hussain painted your holy personalities in an offensive
> > manner then his actions are certainly condemned by islam.
>
> > Keysar
>
> Are you saying, all religions are equal, according to the Islam?
>
> Please answer this:
>
> For the muslim religion, is
> 'painting a Hindu God' equally bad as 'painting a Muslim God'?
>
> If it is, then shouldn't the 'Ayat Ullah' pass the death sentence
> - Fatwa - on MF Hussain's head? (as he did for S. Rushdie)
>
> Unless one sees this imaprtiality,
> how can one believe in what you say?
>
> Idolitary and images in any form are wrong in Islam wheather or
not someone issues a fatwa against them.
>
>
Uday Reddy
N. Tiwari wrote:
> Hussainic paintings. You can pay 16 corres for it. A lot of people
> feel like trashing it. You can argue about the wise-ness of the act
> of trashing. ...
If you have been actually reading my posts, you would know that that is
exactly what I am doing.
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> However, when freedom of expression is used, by Islamists who themselves
> do not believe in it or practice it, as a decoy to continue a thousand
> year-old assault on Hinduism, then one must not be so dim-witted as to
> not even catch on.
Who is, pray tell me, an "Islamist"? And, what basis do you have in
characterizing Hussain as an "Islamist"?
> Destroying a few patently offensive paintings that desecrate Hinduism
> does not make one a "vandal". (Vandals, incidently, were a European
> people.)
Surely, you can excuse John Mitchell for using a European metaphor. For
a desi like you, I call them Goondas, strip-joint hangers-on,
cultureless brutes, barbarians -- sorry, Mlecchas -- and the Scum of the
Earth. Satisfied?
> Note that the BD and SS activists did not destroy any property
> other than the offensive paintings. They limited their retaliation to
> the specific offense.
Your ignorance must be very comforting. Read the following (from THE
HINDU: Oct 12):
According to Mr. Balkrishna Doshi, the architect of the
famous Hussain-Doshi Gufa in the Centre for Environment
Planning and Technology campus in the university complex,
among the destroyed piece of art were 23 tapestry and 28
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^
paintings of Mr. Hussain which in monetary terms were
^^^^^^^^^
valued at over Rs. 6 crores. The works were brought to the
city from Delhi only a few days ago for display in an
exhibition.
As the word went round among the fanatics that some of the
controversial paintings of Mr. Hussain had been stored in
the
Herwitz gallery, eight Bajrang Dal volunteers brandishing
`trishuls' and shouting `Jai Bajrang Bali' entered the
gallery
last evening, brought down the tapestries and paintings
from
the wall and set them afire. What was worse, even the
watchman of the gallery was locked inside with the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
paintings, a mid the flames.
Some other artistes working at the nearby Hussain-Doshi
gufa heard the frantic cries of the watchman and rescued
him but by the time the works of art were all destroyed.
There was only one painting which fall in the category of
the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
controversial nude depiction and the rest were innocent
landscapes, paintings on Buddha, Mother Teresa, a series on
Hanuman and the much-talked about series of Madhuri
Dikshit.
> Here's another scenario. Suppose the BD and SS activists decided to
> retaliate by widely displaying offensive paintings of Mohamad ? Muslims
> would resort to violence leading to riots which could quickly get out of
> hand.
Irrelevant.
> The correct resolution would be to protect everyone's right to freedom
> of expression. After banning Rushdie's book and denying a visa to the
> Bangladeshi author, the government's inaction in this case smacks of
> hypocricy which Hindus cannot help noticing.
Irrelevant again. Take up your gripes with the government.
> Can the UF gevernment protect someone who displays a nude depiction of
> Mohamad ? Can any geovernment of any country do that ? I doubt it, with
> the possible exception of the US.
No depiction of Mohammad, nude or otherwise, has ever been made and
Muslims don't think it proper. On the other hand, nude depiction of
Hindu Gods and Goddesses is done all the time. The comparison is stupid
and ridiculous.
> Where does one draw the line ? Isn't there a riot act in the US ?
> Suppose people displayed placards of a nude Mohamad on Friday in front
> of mosques in the US ? Would they be arrested for trying to incite a
> riot ? Or would the government let them continue and attempt to protect
> them from attacks by outraged muslims ?
I don't know where I will draw the line. But, certainly not with the
strip-joint hangers-on that make up the BD/SS.
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
VB wrote:
>
> Set a example, O' exalted one!
> Hindu "morons", ever starved of celluloid sex need to
> get their wet dreams by ogling at a nude Sarasawati!
That shows what antshit the Scum of the Earth has for its brains,
O'Nameless One!
Uday Reddy
V...@umbc.edu
Uday Reddy wrote:
> That shows what antshit the Scum of the Earth has for its brains,
> Uday Reddy
That is exactly what lot of us think of your pea-brain, O'luckless one!
Thy behind the scenes antshit almost gave us soc. culture. Islamic
Kashmir with Majid Siraj as the moderator O, kiss-ass one!!
Uday Reddy
Arun Gupta wrote:
>
> About the progressives -- yes, they are hypocrites, but who
> cares about them ? "Progressive" is a term like "chosen people" --
> an unjustified feeling of innate superiority.
I thought "progressives" was a brand that you put on anybody that
doesn't agree with you? I guess that is not quite satisfying. So
"hypocrites" is added as an afterthought.
Didn't know you were "regressive," Arun. Wolf in a sheep's clothing,
perhaps?
Uday
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
>
> any representation of American citizens. They are comparable to
> Gandhi's salt march.
According to Jefferson, 'taxation without representation' is just one of
the reasons to resist an unjust government. What if a government is
hyper sensitive to the concerns of Muslims, but runs rough-shod over the
sensitivities of Hindus ? Is separation of religion and state less
important than freedom of expression ? Not according to Jefferson.
> > The Indian government is selectively applying the rules. When Islam
> > is desecrated, it jumps into action. When Hinduism is desecrated, it
> > discovers freedom of expression. You are the only joker dense enough
> > not understand this.
> That still doesn't excuse taking law into your own hands.
But violating 'no taxation without representation' justified the Boston
Tea Party ?
> How would you feel if people take a similar action under a future BJP
> government?
Equality before the law, irrespective of religion or gender. That,
atleast for me, is non-negotiable. If a BJP government violated that
most basic principal of civilization, I would be outraged, and would
oppose it the same way I oppose Islamism.
Gopal Saraswat
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
> > However, when freedom of expression is used, by Islamists who
> > themselves do not believe in it or practice it, as a decoy to
> > continue a thousand year-old assault on Hinduism, then one must not
> > be so dim-witted as to not even catch on.
>
> Who is, pray tell me, an "Islamist"? And, what basis do you have in
> characterizing Hussain as an "Islamist"?
Your entire self-concept depends upon denying the existence of
Islamists. If you acknowledged their existence and character, your
knowledge of your own cowardice, treason, and foolishness would
cause you to rot.
Incidentally, if don't know what an Islamist is, how do you know Hussain
is not one ?
> Surely, you can excuse John Mitchell for using a European metaphor.
> For a desi like you, I call them Goondas, strip-joint hangers-on,
> cultureless brutes, barbarians -- sorry, Mlecchas -- and the Scum of
> the Earth. Satisfied?
Are you trying to prove that 'you are not like other desis' ? Bend over
and look in a mirror, Uday, and you will find that your ass is very
desi.
This stuff that you have regurgitated from the deepest levels of your
sqaulid soul has no basis in reality. Its all yours. It IS you.
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think you are the coward who barks from the US. Why don't make
> > > the sacrifice and join the vandals in India?
> >
> > And I think you are a joker who thinks we should consider you an
> > expert on India just because you have a pink ass.
>
> You don't need to consider me an expert on India.
We don't, and you're not.
> You are only exposing your true colors to your fellow Indians that all
> this talk of Hindutva and Santana Dharma is nothing but a ploy for a
> power grab.
Actually, it's not. The Hindutva people understand that unless one puts
up a defense, Islamism will overrun South Asia. Then there will be no
freedom of any kind for anyone.
The best way to protect our freedoms is through the government. That's
why parties that consider defense against Islamism the highest priority
are becoming more popular.
If there was a way to defend against Islamism without the government,
people would do it. If you open your eyes and look, you will find that
people are doing just that: banding together in the BD, SS, etc.
If the government does not protect people's rights, people have to
take matters into there own hands.
Gopal Saraswat
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> >
> > > is supposed to give us pride? You are insane.
> >
> > To the contrary; you are a coward. You are using sophitry to hide
> > your spinelessness.
>
> Yeah, yeah. I know. To a goonda, every decent human being looks like
> a "coward."
Not true. Some decent human beings are able and willing to defend
themselves, and they don't look like cowards, definitely not to goondas
and Islmists.
If you really beleived I was a goonda, you would be sucking upto me the
same way you do to Islamists.
> If you think you can pique me by stupid epithets, you are
> mistaken. Stick to the subject, if you can.
So, you can call someone insane, but it bugs you when you are called a
coward. Perhaps because your epithet is inaccurate, but mine is apt.
Mallika Patlolla
In article <3272DD...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> writes:
|> Mallika Patlolla wrote:
|> > So you are equating sati ghoonghat and all other bad social customs
|> > as culture. You have some twisted logic.
|>
|> And, you call gutting Rs. 16 crore worth of paintings as "culture"?
|> Talk of twisted logic!
|>
You must be hallucinating, I was not talking about vandalism. Discussion
was not about vandalism, it was about hyprocricy of so called progressives.
Stick to the topics in discussion, why are you bringing up irrelevant incidents
instead of answering questions I raised in my post?
Where in my post did I say it is ok to destroy paintings. Banning someting
is not the same as burning it. Be ethical, don't attribute to me something
I never said.
Mallika
Uday Reddy
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
> > Who is, pray tell me, an "Islamist"? And, what basis do you have in
> > characterizing Hussain as an "Islamist"?
>
> Islamists. If you acknowledged their existence and character, your
> knowledge of your own cowardice, treason, and foolishness would
> cause you to rot.
>
> Incidentally, if don't know what an Islamist is, how do you know Hussain
> is not one ?
There were two questions that I posed. Neither of them has been
answered. You need to answer them first before posing other new
questions or making silly accusations.
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
>
> You must be hallucinating, I was not talking about vandalism. Discussion
> was not about vandalism, it was about hyprocricy of so called progressives.
> Stick to the topics in discussion, why are you bringing up irrelevant incidents
> instead of answering questions I raised in my post?
You must have been sleeping, because I have been addressing those
questions all along. First of all, nobody has produced any evidence to
show that Hussain was offending anybody's sensibilities. In fact, those
who know his work know quite the contrary. So, your statement that
"Hindu symbols have been trashed" is without any basis whatsoever.
Coming to trashing, I can't understand why nobody has thought of the
sleaze magazine Vichaar which published edited paintings of Hussain in
the first place to start this controversy. If anybody, it is they who
have "trashed Hindu symbols."
Regarding freedom of expression applying "equally" to all religions, you
would need to enlighten us about this notion of "equality." In some
religions, no depiction is permitted at all. Period. In others,
depiction is done all the time. In others, nudity is not an issue. So,
what kind of equal yardstick are you going to apply? If things are done
uniformly according to the customary traditions of each religion, is
that not "equal"?
> Where in my post did I say it is ok to destroy paintings. Banning someting
> is not the same as burning it. Be ethical, don't attribute to me something
> I never said.
Well, then, sorry I have misunderstood you. But, the time for "banning"
is long past, is it not? Our thugs took care of the "problem" for us.
And, regarding:
> So Ghoongat and sati justify
> drawing nude paintings of Hindu religious figures hurting sentiments
> of a large section of population.
I guess I am supposed to applaud your naivety in failing to see the
enormous pains this "large section of population" went to have its
"sentiments hurt". Check this out:
http://express.indiaworld.com/ie/daily/19961017/29150102.html
VB
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> VB wrote:
> >
> > Set a example, O' exalted one!
> > ...
> > Hindu "morons", ever starved of celluloid sex need to
> > get their wet dreams by ogling at a nude Sarasawati!
>
>
> Uday Reddy
All those lesser mortals in India who found Hussains
paintings offensive, were quickly deemed by your
pontificating Highness as morons based on your personal
"progressive" moral standards attained here in US.
It never seems to have dawned on you that these
paintings were exposed to a country where more than
half the people are poor and illiterate by any
standards and in an often corrupt and selfish system,
people find strength and salvation in their religious
beliefs and their religious Gods. To inadvertently
tread on these religious sentiments is but suicidal in
a country where religious passions run high and are
always prone to get exploited by unscrupulous
politicians.
And then there are those lesser mortals here on the net
who were also offended but were deemed by Your Highness
as goondas, strip-joint hangers-on, cultureless brutes,
barbarians, mlecchas, scum of the earth, ill-educated,
uncultured, wolf in a sheep's clothing, and
self-appointed upholders of the faith etc. Obviously,
these morons do not hold your high standards for freedom of
speech or understand progressive attitude of Your
esteemed Highness.
Then, when provoked by a rather Larry Flint ideological
post, gone is our yesterdays freedom of speech
upholder and the holier-than-thou apostle of progressive
culture. His Moronic Jackass now becomes a stuffed
up conservative and finally, this dipshit coward gets
to reveal his true level of "progression" !
So, you see my dear shyster Shyloch, oops Sherlock, it
is indeed Elementary to hold you to your "progressive"
standards and demonstrate what a pathetic and whining
hypocrite you are.
Btw. Whats so cultural about the paintings anyway?
Stylistically, they are poor plagiarization of Piccaso.
What is most offensive in the paintings is that this
pompous piece of facial hair is so unsure and so
insecure of his work, that he has to actually spell-out
the name of Hindu deities right on the convass to get
the attention. It seems to me that he is pandering
more to the people of lower denominations than to
actual purveyors of art. A Dali, who frequently mixed
religious imagery with scandalous situations, even at
his maverick worst, gave us the viewer, the privilege
of evaluation based on our level of appreciation of
art and not on our reading ability.
Your nameless teacher!
K.T. Narayana
In article <326C20...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>These lines, you are drawing. He didn't. The majority of Indians who
>care about painting, appreciated Hussain's paintings for their beauty
>and sensuality. We didn't regard him as a "Muslim painter". Shame on
>you to have created these narrow and artificial distinctions.
>
I think these words have bested hypocracy. First had it not been
the case that Hussain was a muslim, the progressives would not
have made such a fuss. Actually, many of these p-secular elements
are fundamentally communal and casteist. When it suits them they
use the caste and the religion of the person and when it does
not suit them, they don't use it. Further the above notes colors
the discussion on the religion of the person and distracts the
fundamental aspect of the abstract interpretation that MF Hussain
sought to deliver with his painting, namely, the vedas are obscene.
That said, everybody in the country has the freedom to say
anything that he likes so long as that exercise of the freedom
does not inflict injury to the civil rights of another citizen.
Going and saying vedas are obscene is not injuring the civil
rights of another citizen. At the same time, an injured
citizen has every freedom to say this fellows abstraction
injures his sentiments; whether he should take some action
based on those injured sentiments is another issue.
That said, if all that Hussain wanted to convey was beauty,
and nudity is divine, he could have chosen to paint
Anna-Marie_Smith in the nude and in the company of the
learned Saraswati. An abstraction of that kind is divinely
luscious.
...kt
>Uday Reddy
brao
In article <3277D2...@umbc.edu>, VB <V...@umbc.edu> wrote:
...
>All those lesser mortals in India who found Hussains
>paintings offensive, were quickly deemed by your
>pontificating Highness as morons based on your personal
>"progressive" moral standards attained here in US.
>It never seems to have dawned on you that these
>paintings were exposed to a country where more than
>half the people are poor and illiterate by any
>standards and in an often corrupt and selfish system,
>people find strength and salvation in their religious
>beliefs and their religious Gods. To inadvertently
>tread on these religious sentiments is but suicidal in
>a country where religious passions run high and are
>always prone to get exploited by unscrupulous
>politicians.
The toiling masses would probably better appreciate concrete efforts
to improve their lives than they would crocodile tears on behalf of
their delicate sensibilities. Hussain has been painting Indian
goddesses for ages; the Saraswati has been in existence for a decade
more or less. All this time the toiling masses quite rightly didn't
give a hoot one way or another. Even now, there is no evidence that
anyone other than the lumpenbourgeoisie gives an airborne coitus. That
too, only after busybody communalists took time off from handing over
taxpayer monies to Michael Jackson to look for fresh fuel for their
disreputable cause.
And you want normal, decent people to believe that your heart bleeds
for the toiling masses' delicate psyches? Pah. The only the thing your
heart bleeds for is your evidently frustrated yearning to be a totalitarian
control freak.
You'd better stay anonymous, pal; otherwise you'll be getting our bills for
lost lunches.
My personal views.
Bapa Rao
Gopal Saraswat
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> VB wrote:
> >
> > Try showing the film "Ten Commandments" in India. If my memory
> > serves me right, I recall having heard many years back that Muslims
> > agitated and got it banned as offensive to tenants of islam. Nobody
> > recalls our "progressive press" ever questioning the decision.
>
> All censorship should be condemned. But with videos and satellite TV,
> it should be possible to show all these banned films to all those who
> wish to see them.
Now there's a psec solution ! Muslims intimidate a spineless government
into banning a film ? Well, don't oppose the ban; that'll make you a
"communalist". Instead, just watch it on John-TV !
Gopal Saraswat
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> First of all, nobody has produced any evidence to show that Hussain
> was offending anybody's sensibilities.
I am reminded of the arguments used during the Ayodhya incident. The KKK
wanted "evidence" that a Raam temple existed in Ayodhya.
Providing such "evidence" would be playing into the KKK's hands. So,
instead, I relate this incident from the proceedings of the Kerala
Communist party.
Uday had offended the head comrade. In a fit of rage, the head comrade
shrieked, "Prove that you have an ass, comrade Uday !". Terrified, Uday
dropped his pants, bent over, and pointed to his ass. The head comrade
declared solemnly, "You have provided no evidence that you have an
ass!".
Gopal Saraswat
Arun Gupta wrote:
>
> You see, had M.F. Hussein undergone a "shuddhi" ceremony, and
> formally "converted" to Hinduism, then his paintings would have
> been OK, not constituting "Muslim aggression". At least that is what
> one would gather from the arguments here.
I hope this is more naive than insidious.
Let us consider the facts. The Govt of India bans Rushdie's book and
denies a visa to Taslima Nasreen, for fear of offending Muslims.
However, it does not ban Hussain's paintings; it has no fear of
offending Hindus. As it happens, India is only 12 percent Muslim and 83
percent Hindu, not the other way around. So, what gives ? Hindus notice
that Muslim intimidation works. Well, now the Bajrang Dal has introduced
the spectre of Hindu intimidation, thank you very much.
Did the BD do the right thing ? To answer that one must separate the two
distinct issues involved here: retaliation against Islamist aggression,
and freedom of expression.
Only effective retaliation can deter Islamist aggression. Could the BD
have retaliated in a better way ? In theory, yes. Hussain did not break
any laws; the BD could have retaliated without breaking any laws. For
example, they could have gone tit-for-tat and displayed material
offensive to Muslims. However, in practise, where would that lead ? To
violence, possibly riots, where both innocent Hindus and Muslims would
be hurt ? There is no easy answer to Islamist aggression. For these
reasons, I can neither condone nor condemn what the BD did. If I were
the judge and jury, I would find them guilty and fine them one penny.
> People, the freedom of expression includes the right to be
> offensive. Maybe Muslims don't agree with this, but that is
> no reason to trash Hussein's paintings.
Now let us deal with freedom of expression. If you believe in it, then
ask the GOI to lift the ban on Rushdie's book. If you can't do that,
then shove your hypocritical rantings vis-a-vis Hussain's rights.
A government that protects one person's right to freedom of expression,
but not another's, is tryannical.
> About the progressives -- yes, they are hypocrites, but who
> cares about them ?
You should. Not everyone can see through their sophistry. Besides, they
themselves need to learn that people can see them for the hypocrites
they are. That's not going to happen if you don't kick their ass.
Now lets deal with your original observation. What if a Hindu had made
the same paintings that Hussain did ? That obviously would not
constitute Islamist aggression and consequently would not offend as many
people. The considerations about the government's role in protecting
freedom of expression would remain exactly the same.
You can deny it till you're blue in the face. The fact is that Islamist
aggression is real, and has been for a long time. It is rooted in the
edicts of the Koran and cannot be wished away.
The psec cowards, traitors, and just plain fools who are ranting about
freedom of expression are flogging a dead horse. No one opposes freedom
of expression. What we oppose is tyranny - a govt that protects
Hussain's rights but not Rushdie's; a govt that censors things offensive
to Muslims but not those offensive to Hindus.
Uday Reddy
K.T. Narayana wrote:
>
> In article <326C20...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >These lines, you are drawing. He didn't. The majority of Indians who
> >care about painting, appreciated Hussain's paintings for their beauty
> >and sensuality. We didn't regard him as a "Muslim painter". Shame on
> >you to have created these narrow and artificial distinctions.
> >
> the discussion on the religion of the person and distracts the
> fundamental aspect of the abstract interpretation that MF Hussain
> sought to deliver with his painting, namely, the vedas are obscene.
Ah, KT. Nice of you to drop in.
Two points:
First, I did not bring in religion of the person. I was *objecting* to
bringing in religion. Please reread my message if you missed the point.
Second, I am sure the readers of SCI would be much obliged if you
explain how you came to the conclusion about the "fundamental aspect of
the abstract interpretation" that MF Hussain is doing.
Uday Reddy
P.S. I will disregard the stuff about "progressives" and "p-seculars".
Those people are entirely capable of defending themselves.
K.T. Narayana
In article <54rngn$6...@newsb.netnews.att.com>,
Arun Gupta <gu...@tlctest.mt.att.com.> wrote:
>Paraphrasing a friend : "I would not support a division of India
>based on religion. But given that Pakistan exists, with all its
>faults, at least I did not grow up in a country where I would be
>a despised minority. That is the positive thing about Pakistan."
>
Paraphrasing another friend:
"I would not support a division of India based on religion. But
given that Pakistan exists, with all its faults, I am certain that
I grew up in a country where I am a deprived majority. That is
the negative thing about Pakistan."
The problem with such personal impressions of friends is that
they are personal, rooted in emotion, and are not at all
objective.
What such people must lament about is a deep sense of separation
between the state and religion, and a firm and absolute
commitment to liberty, nondiscrimination of all forms,
an unrestricted right to vocation and an absolute limit
on taxation. So long as laws exist to enforce such rights
and the violations thereof, the lamentations of the
personal kind will be those of loosers.
...kt
ambit of
>-arun gupta
VB
brao wrote:
>
Pah. The only the thing your
> heart bleeds for is your evidently frustrated yearning to be a totalitarian
> control freak.
Bingo, O'Fruedian one!
Btw. Is this how all you progressive dimwit Hindu
cowards justify your Muslim ass-kissing actions?
Marlon E Menezes
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Let us consider the facts. The Govt of India bans Rushdie's book and
>denies a visa to Taslima Nasreen, for fear of offending Muslims.
>However, it does not ban Hussain's paintings; it has no fear of
>offending Hindus. As it happens, India is only 12 percent Muslim and 83
>percent Hindu, not the other way around. So, what gives ? Hindus notice
>that Muslim intimidation works. Well, now the Bajrang Dal has introduced
>the spectre of Hindu intimidation, thank you very much.
---
The fact that the GOI banned Rushie's book and refused a visa to Nasreen
is indeed hypocritical. To argue that indian secularists support the banning
of the book or the like is ridiculous.
>You can deny it till you're blue in the face. The fact is that Islamist
>aggression is real, and has been for a long time. It is rooted in the
>edicts of the Koran and cannot be wished away.
--
There may indeed be a current phase of islamic agressiveness - but it is
more out of weakness than anything else. Remember during the middle ages
it was the islamic nations that were the protectors of advanced learning
compared to the then backward christian west.
>The psec cowards, traitors, and just plain fools who are ranting about
>freedom of expression are flogging a dead horse. No one opposes freedom
>of expression. What we oppose is tyranny - a govt that protects
>Hussain's rights but not Rushdie's; a govt that censors things offensive
>to Muslims but not those offensive to Hindus.
--
If you oppose tyranny, then, why attack Husain's paintings. Attack the
government of India instead. An attack on Husain's paintings is eqivalent to
an attack on freedom.
Marlon
Gopal Saraswat
brao wrote:
>
> The toiling masses ....
>
> All this time the toiling masses quite rightly didn't give a hoot one
> way or another. Even now, there is no evidence that anyone other than
> the lumpenbourgeoisie gives an airborne coitus.
How proletarian. The smarter comrades have caught on that they are
despised nowadays, being purveyors of a thoroughly discredited ideology.
They now try to push their agenda without identifying themselves as
commies. Besides, you must be a real prole, using language that has been
out of fashion for atleast 10 years.
Say, is it true that commies just aren't getting it anymore, airborne or
otherwise ?
> The only the thing your heart bleeds for is your evidently frustrated
> yearning to be a totalitarian control freak.
How dumb do you have to be to believe that, in 1996, there actually is
somebody out there who does not know that it is the commies who are
totalitarian control freaks ?
Javed A Khan
In article <327905...@ix.netcom.com> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Arun Gupta wrote:
>>
>> You see, had M.F. Hussein undergone a "shuddhi" ceremony, and
>> formally "converted" to Hinduism, then his paintings would have
>> been OK, not constituting "Muslim aggression". At least that is what
>> one would gather from the arguments here.
>
>I hope this is more naive than insidious.
>
>denies a visa to Taslima Nasreen, for fear of offending Muslims.
>However, it does not ban Hussain's paintings; it has no fear of
>offending Hindus. As it happens, India is only 12 percent Muslim and 83
>percent Hindu, not the other way around. So, what gives ? Hindus notice
>that Muslim intimidation works. Well, now the Bajrang Dal has introduced
>the spectre of Hindu intimidation, thank you very much.
And how is this supposed to be a rebuttal to what Arun has written ?
In fact it only strengthens the argument that the Sangh Parivaar, you
and now Shourie are outraged not necessarily over the painting but over
the fact that a "muslim" did it.
So whats the response ? As Shourie puts it (and gives full approval)
the Sanghis are becoming "Islamic"; which I suppose Shourie, you and the
Sanghis believe is a term which is supposed to denote something undesirable.
Whatever you, Shourie or the Sanghis may offer as rationalization, the
fact that this saffron brigade has no qualms adopting the same methods,
displays the same hatred and ignorance as their counterparts among the
muslim community, demolishes any credibility and claim to a higher moral
ground which they ascribe to themselves and endorsed by their scholars.
So why shouldn't you and the Sanghis and Shouries be accused of hypocrisy?
If we aren't supposed to emulate what Shourie refers to as "islamic"
goondaism, how different and better is the path being shown by the
"saffron goondas" and their scholars ?
>
>Did the BD do the right thing ? To answer that one must separate the two
>distinct issues involved here: retaliation against Islamist aggression,
>and freedom of expression.
>
>Only effective retaliation can deter Islamist aggression. Could the BD
>have retaliated in a better way ? In theory, yes. Hussain did not break
>any laws; the BD could have retaliated without breaking any laws. For
>example, they could have gone tit-for-tat and displayed material
>offensive to Muslims. However, in practise, where would that lead ? To
>violence, possibly riots, where both innocent Hindus and Muslims would
>be hurt ? There is no easy answer to Islamist aggression. For these
>reasons, I can neither condone nor condemn what the BD did. If I were
>the judge and jury, I would find them guilty and fine them one penny.
And why shouldn't this hysteria over this alleged "islamist aggression"
be exposed for what it is; a carte-blanche to all to harbour hate aganist
muslims in general and justify aggression against muslims ?
>
>> People, the freedom of expression includes the right to be
>> offensive. Maybe Muslims don't agree with this, but that is
>> no reason to trash Hussein's paintings.
>
>Now let us deal with freedom of expression. If you believe in it, then
>ask the GOI to lift the ban on Rushdie's book. If you can't do that,
>then shove your hypocritical rantings vis-a-vis Hussain's rights.
So why didnt you just stick to berating the govt. over the ban ?
>
>A government that protects one person's right to freedom of expression,
>but not another's, is tryannical.
So work to bring down the govt. and replace it with a more just govt.
>
>> About the progressives -- yes, they are hypocrites, but who
>> cares about them ?
>
>You should. Not everyone can see through their sophistry. Besides, they
>themselves need to learn that people can see them for the hypocrites
>they are. That's not going to happen if you don't kick their ass.
>
>Now lets deal with your original observation. What if a Hindu had made
>the same paintings that Hussain did ? That obviously would not
>constitute Islamist aggression and consequently would not offend as many
>people. The considerations about the government's role in protecting
>freedom of expression would remain exactly the same.
>
>You can deny it till you're blue in the face. The fact is that Islamist
>aggression is real, and has been for a long time. It is rooted in the
>edicts of the Koran and cannot be wished away.
>
>The psec cowards, traitors, and just plain fools who are ranting about
>freedom of expression are flogging a dead horse. No one opposes freedom
>of expression. What we oppose is tyranny - a govt that protects
>Hussain's rights but not Rushdie's; a govt that censors things offensive
>to Muslims but not those offensive to Hindus.
And you do that by terrorising Hussain, why because he is a muslim ?
>
>--
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
--Javed.
---------------------
Opinions solely mine
--
Rajiv Varma
In article <327813...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>You must have been sleeping, because I have been addressing those
>questions all along. First of all, nobody has produced any evidence to
>show that Hussain was offending anybody's sensibilities. In fact, those
>
So why would Maqbool Fida paint his own mother fully clothed, while
painting a nude Saraswati and a Draupadi. Isn't this a double standard?
Had Maqbool Fida's intentions been artistic and impartial, he would have
"disrobed" his own mother on the canvas. But the fact of the matter is, he
didn't.
MF Hussain knows what are the civilizational consequences of disrobing
Draupadi! Last time it was attempted by Dushasan, everybody knows, what
were the consequences, and what happened to the evil side!
While Bajrang Dal's wild and improper actions are quite understandable in
light of of the apathy shown by the so called intelligentsia, instead of
burning the paintings, they should have used those to educate the masses
on this issue. They should have gone to every village and told the people
that, how the modern-day Dushasans (and their cohorts) have been disrobing
_their_ Draupadi and Saraswati for the past 20 years, and have gotten away
with it!
Mental condition of indian masses is just like that of Arjuna before
Mahabharata. Today, Indian masses need a Krishna who can enlighten them to
pick up the Gandeev towards the fulfillment of their Dharma.
Bajrang Dal's actions are flawed in the sense that instead of playing
Krishna, they tried to combine the roles of Krishna and Arjuna, and
therefore goofed.
--
regards,
Rajiv
Farhan Siddiqui
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>freedom of expression are flogging a dead horse. No one opposes freedom
>of expression. What we oppose is tyranny - a govt that protects
>Hussain's rights but not Rushdie's; a govt that censors things offensive
>to Muslims but not those offensive to Hindus.
Islam is strictly iconoclastic religion. Which means that it strictly
prohibits painting and sculpture of human figures. Masjids and other
religious places are only decorated with calligraphy or tiles. M.F.
Hussain do not represent the Muslims idea about prohibition of
painting and sculpture.
Farhan Siddiqui
brao
In article <55ij0m$1n...@stallion.jsums.edu>,
Rajiv Varma <rva...@stallion.jsums.edu> wrote:
...
>So why would Maqbool Fida paint his own mother fully clothed, while
>painting a nude Saraswati and a Draupadi. Isn't this a double standard?
>Had Maqbool Fida's intentions been artistic and impartial, he would have
>"disrobed" his own mother on the canvas. But the fact of the matter is, he
>didn't.
Rajeev Varma, you are right. Hussain is a fool. If he knew anything
about the state of Hindu intellectualism he would have painted
Saraswati in a Burqa. It would have made the moorkhaas (How nice that
it almost rhymes with Burkha) of all persuasions very happy and
delighted old Grandpa BhaRtRhari.
brao
In article <327A65...@ix.netcom.com>,
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[ mindless, knee-jerk spew of bile deleted ]
I know you are excited and all at your chance at commie bashing, but
no thanks. I happen to be a very comfortable free-enterpriser. I just
don't like hoodlums and crooks. Seems that you have a problem with
that.
Rajiv Varma
In article <3283B7...@ix.netcom.com>,
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Javed A Khan wrote:
>>
>> And why shouldn't this hysteria over this alleged "islamist
>> aggression" be exposed for what it is; a carte-blanche to all to
>> harbour hate aganist muslims in general and justify aggression
>> against muslims ?
>
>
>There are three distinct aspects to Islam.
>
>The first one is religious; it deals with the divine and modes of
>worship. A Hindu could not possibly have any querrels with this aspect
>of Islam. I sure don't. If you are a muslim in the sense that you
>practice Islam the religion, there is no reason for any person to harbor
>hatred against you.
>
>(However, if you believe in and practise the second and third aspects of
>Islam, you've got more serious problems than popularity !)
>
>The second aspect of Islam is political; the third is organized crime.
>These two aspects are together called Islamism.
>
>Islamism is the most virulent form of tyranny ever invented by man. It
>makes communism appear like the boyscouts by comparison.
>
Islam is a complete system. It is ALL or NONE. I don't think history tells
us that various aspects of Islam can be separated into mutually exclusive
sets.
Had it been easy to separate the "religion" out of Islam, "Ghazi" Akbar
wouldn't have started his own "Deen-e-Elahi". Hell, what to talk of Akbar,
once even Alauddin Khalji got fed up of the Ulama, and started his own
religion (but that did not materialize).
I wish a Renaissance could take place amongst Muslims, on lines of
European Renaissance, but it looks like a distant dream.
>
>--
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
--
regards,
Rajiv
Gopal Saraswat
Javed A Khan wrote:
>
> And why shouldn't this hysteria over this alleged "islamist
> aggression" be exposed for what it is; a carte-blanche to all to
> harbour hate aganist muslims in general and justify aggression
> against muslims ?
Your charges are baseless. Let me explain why.
There are three distinct aspects to Islam.
The first one is religious; it deals with the divine and modes of
worship. A Hindu could not possibly have any querrels with this aspect
of Islam. I sure don't. If you are a muslim in the sense that you
practice Islam the religion, there is no reason for any person to harbor
hatred against you.
(However, if you believe in and practise the second and third aspects of
Islam, you've got more serious problems than popularity !)
The second aspect of Islam is political; the third is organized crime.
These two aspects are together called Islamism.
Islamism is the most virulent form of tyranny ever invented by man. It
makes communism appear like the boyscouts by comparison.
Islamism does not permit equality for non-muslims and for women.
Islamism does not permit freedom of thought and expression. Sure, the
Koran tells you to "think" "freely", as long as your thoughts and
expressions do not contradict the Koran ! The same goes for parliaments
in Islamic countries lucky enough to have them; they cannot enact any
laws that contradict the Koran.
These edicts of the Koran are enforced by a system of organized crime
that makes the mafia look like a bunch of school boys. Any mullah can
order muslims at large to carry out a hit against anyone whom the mullah
thinks has violated his idea of Islam. For this reason, those who follow
the Koran most consistently will always have the upper hand.
And guess what, Javed, the first victims of Islamism are muslims ! For
this reason alone, you should think a little before you spew venom
against the opponents of Islamism.
--
Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
Javed A Khan
In article <3283B7...@ix.netcom.com> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Javed A Khan wrote:
>>
>> And why shouldn't this hysteria over this alleged "islamist
>> aggression" be exposed for what it is; a carte-blanche to all to
>> harbour hate aganist muslims in general and justify aggression
>> against muslims ?
>
Interesting thesis. Unfortunately, it can be explained by something called paranoia.
Muslims are not any different from other religious communities, more so hindus.
Your reaction and those of others who have such a flattering view about muslims are
typical of people with a defeatist mentality who need to find a scapegoat for all the
ills that frustrate them. And politicians just love such people.
--Javed.
--
Rajiv Varma
In article <55tddl$i...@pollux.usc.edu>, brao <br...@pollux.usc.edu> wrote:
>In article <55ij0m$1n...@stallion.jsums.edu>,
>Rajiv Varma <rva...@stallion.jsums.edu> wrote:
>
>...
>
>>So why would Maqbool Fida paint his own mother fully clothed, while
>>painting a nude Saraswati and a Draupadi. Isn't this a double standard?
>>Had Maqbool Fida's intentions been artistic and impartial, he would have
>>"disrobed" his own mother on the canvas. But the fact of the matter is, he
>>didn't.
>
>
>Rajeev Varma, you are right. Hussain is a fool. If he knew anything
>
Nope. In fact he is a clever man. He took the Hindu common for granted.
That's all.
>
>about the state of Hindu intellectualism he would have painted
>Saraswati in a Burqa. It would have made the moorkhaas (How nice that
>
There is no tradition of a burqa-clad Saraswati or Draupadi. If he had
done so, he would be hurting the Hindu sentiments the same way.
Maqbool Fida ji could have drawn his own mother either in the nude of
burqa clad, or for that matter Aiysha or Mary. No Hindu would have
objected. He could have drawn a nude (or burqa-clad) Madhuri or Zeenat
Aman. But, fact of the matter is that Saraswati, Lakshmi, Durga, Draupadi
have a special significance in the Hindu lore. The significance of
disrobing a Draupadi is that of inviting War. But then, Maqbool Fida ji
knows all this, so we might deduce that he did this deliberately. Who
knows?
>
>it almost rhymes with Burkha) of all persuasions very happy and
>delighted old Grandpa BhaRtRhari.
>
Intellectuals are Common man's servant, not his master.
>
>My personal views.
>
>Bapa Rao
>
--
regards,
Rajiv