jun 15th, 2011 CE
kudos, arvind.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arvind
http://www.dailypioneer.com/345883/Freedom-equality-and-Husain.html
From: Arvind
http://www.dailypioneer.com/345883/Freedom-equality-and-Husain.html
Freedom, equality and Husain
June 15, 2011 4:50:08 PM
Arvind Kumar
Exaggerating minor acts of vandalism and portraying them as issues related to free speech despite such acts of vandalism not being state-sanctioned makes a mockery of the concept of the right to free speech. Nor should Hindus be criticised for contesting misleading claims by liberal journalists by posting their comments on the Internet. For that would be an assault on free speech
Ashok Malik's article ("Vanvaas from Ram's India", June 11) betrays a lack of understanding of the principles underlying the issues of equality and the freedom of expression. When the state abridges the rights of the individual's freedom to freely express one's views, it is a serious assault on one's liberty. In the cases of vandalism against MF Husain's paintings, they were just that — minor acts of vandalism against which proper safeguards must be taken.
Exaggerating every minor act of vandalism and portraying them as issues related to free speech despite such acts of vandalism not being state-sanctioned makes a mockery of the concept of the right to free speech. What is really alarming is that the author brushes away the more serious assaults on our freedoms using the full force of the state's power.
The Government has never pretended to defend the individual's right to the freedom of expression. Instead, it has always used the excuse of maintaining public order to infringe on the basic rights of individuals. Some of the most egregious examples of the violation of the freedom of Indians include the censorship during the Emergency, the ban on Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, the ban by eight States on the movie The Da Vinci Code, the ban on the reproduction of the works of a Danish cartoonist, the arrest of individuals who set up websites and mailing lists expressing their views against the Communists and Ms Sonia Gandhi, and most recently, the vicious attack on Baba Ramdev and his supporters who dared to oppose corruption in the Government. In each of these cases, it was either a case of targeting Hindus or pandering to Muslims and Christians.
The protests by Hindus against MF Husain's works were clearly a demand for the equal application of the law. For more than a decade after MF Husain painted his first provocative works, Hindus demonstrated their tolerance for his right to paint whatever he wanted. They began their protests only after the Government pandered to Muslims in quick succession on the twin issues of the Shah Bano case and the ban on Salman Rushdie's book.
The author uses a clever bait-and-switch ploy to compare Hindus to Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran who had issued a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie. Hindus who protested against MF Husain's works were not asking for the implementation of fatwas similar to those issued by the Ayatollah. They were asking for the law to be applied to Hindus in the same manner that Rajiv Gandhi had applied it to Muslims. Their objection was to the Government's application of the law in a partisan manner to favour Muslims. The author has conveniently replaced Rajiv Gandhi with Ayatollah Khomeini so that he can demonise Hindus.
The author bemoans the fact that there were lawsuits filed against MF Husain and calls this an abuse of the system. Filing lawsuits is a peaceful way of dealing with the issue. If he has a problem with the law, he should oppose the law, and he will find that Hindus support him in the quest for equality and freedom. Indeed, Hindus have consistently demanded that the Government implement a Uniform Civil Code. To keep the current law and selectively use it on Hindus while bemoaning it when used against a Muslim is unacceptable.
In a country like India with a population of around 1.2 billion people, there are bound to be all sorts of people. While some like the author may have attended charm school and are articulate, others have not been so fortunate to be literate and are rough around the edges. Their method of articulation is in the form of protests and may not be palatable to the author, but it would be sheer arrogance to reject their views on the grounds that they do not speak English.
Sometimes their methods may have crossed acceptable boundaries, but it is clear that they understand the principle of equality better than smooth-talking journalists who seem smitten by inferiority complex and want to be accepted by those in the West who call themselves liberals. It is very common for Westerners who call themselves liberals to support the equal application of the law in their countries while opposing the Uniform Civil Code in India. Many Indian journalists who are inferiority-ridden seek to boost their self-esteem by gaining acceptance among this category of Westerners and simply adopt their views without a proper analysis of the issues at hand.
The most disconcerting part in Ashok Malik's article is his objection to Hindus making their views known on the Internet. In India, as well as elsewhere, the flawed arguments of journalists and the many fictitious claims perpetrated by them have been confronted by facts posted on the Internet by ordinary people. In response, many insecure journalists have clamoured for imposing controls on the Internet and have lost no opportunity to criticise the Internet. It is this advocacy of imposing controls that should concern the advocates of free speech.
The author must realise that expressing one's views on the Internet is a right that must not be infringed upon even if such views are expressed by Hindus. Abridging such rights would make India a totalitarian state and cannot be accepted. Individuals must always have a right to their freedoms, while it must be the Government's duty to treat everyone in an even-handed manner. That is the crux of the issue that the author fails to grasp.
The author also makes a gross exaggeration when he claims that MF Husain quit India due to harassment by Hindus. Even after the lawsuits against MF Husain were filed, he continued to live in India for several years, including the years when his political opponents were in power. He quit India only after eyebrows were raised in certain quarters when it became known that his customers were always wealthy business houses based in India, but they conducted their financial transactions with MF Husain in a foreign country and channelled the money back to India. Sometimes, MF Husain has donated the proceeds of his sales to charities operated by members of business families. Such patterns in financial transactions are bound to raise suspicions as these patterns are usually associated with money-laundering schemes.
It is not inconceivable that the authorities in India were hot on his heels making him leave the country for good. Even if he left the country due to the lawsuits filed against him, it is wrong to blame Hindus since Hindus have always opposed draconian laws.
It is thus clear that it is Hindus who have been consistently correct on the twin issues of equality and freedom while their opponents have consistently presented wrong arguments to buttress their flawed positions.
-- The author can be reached at arvind@classical-liberal.net.
June 15, 2011 4:50:08 PM
Arvind Kumar
Exaggerating minor acts of vandalism and portraying them as issues related to free speech despite such acts of vandalism not being state-sanctioned makes a mockery of the concept of the right to free speech. Nor should Hindus be criticised for contesting misleading claims by liberal journalists by posting their comments on the Internet. For that would be an assault on free speech
Ashok Malik's article ("Vanvaas from Ram's India", June 11) betrays a lack of understanding of the principles underlying the issues of equality and the freedom of expression. When the state abridges the rights of the individual's freedom to freely express one's views, it is a serious assault on one's liberty. In the cases of vandalism against MF Husain's paintings, they were just that — minor acts of vandalism against which proper safeguards must be taken.
Exaggerating every minor act of vandalism and portraying them as issues related to free speech despite such acts of vandalism not being state-sanctioned makes a mockery of the concept of the right to free speech. What is really alarming is that the author brushes away the more serious assaults on our freedoms using the full force of the state's power.
The Government has never pretended to defend the individual's right to the freedom of expression. Instead, it has always used the excuse of maintaining public order to infringe on the basic rights of individuals. Some of the most egregious examples of the violation of the freedom of Indians include the censorship during the Emergency, the ban on Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, the ban by eight States on the movie The Da Vinci Code, the ban on the reproduction of the works of a Danish cartoonist, the arrest of individuals who set up websites and mailing lists expressing their views against the Communists and Ms Sonia Gandhi, and most recently, the vicious attack on Baba Ramdev and his supporters who dared to oppose corruption in the Government. In each of these cases, it was either a case of targeting Hindus or pandering to Muslims and Christians.
The protests by Hindus against MF Husain's works were clearly a demand for the equal application of the law. For more than a decade after MF Husain painted his first provocative works, Hindus demonstrated their tolerance for his right to paint whatever he wanted. They began their protests only after the Government pandered to Muslims in quick succession on the twin issues of the Shah Bano case and the ban on Salman Rushdie's book.
The author uses a clever bait-and-switch ploy to compare Hindus to Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran who had issued a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie. Hindus who protested against MF Husain's works were not asking for the implementation of fatwas similar to those issued by the Ayatollah. They were asking for the law to be applied to Hindus in the same manner that Rajiv Gandhi had applied it to Muslims. Their objection was to the Government's application of the law in a partisan manner to favour Muslims. The author has conveniently replaced Rajiv Gandhi with Ayatollah Khomeini so that he can demonise Hindus.
The author bemoans the fact that there were lawsuits filed against MF Husain and calls this an abuse of the system. Filing lawsuits is a peaceful way of dealing with the issue. If he has a problem with the law, he should oppose the law, and he will find that Hindus support him in the quest for equality and freedom. Indeed, Hindus have consistently demanded that the Government implement a Uniform Civil Code. To keep the current law and selectively use it on Hindus while bemoaning it when used against a Muslim is unacceptable.
In a country like India with a population of around 1.2 billion people, there are bound to be all sorts of people. While some like the author may have attended charm school and are articulate, others have not been so fortunate to be literate and are rough around the edges. Their method of articulation is in the form of protests and may not be palatable to the author, but it would be sheer arrogance to reject their views on the grounds that they do not speak English.
Sometimes their methods may have crossed acceptable boundaries, but it is clear that they understand the principle of equality better than smooth-talking journalists who seem smitten by inferiority complex and want to be accepted by those in the West who call themselves liberals. It is very common for Westerners who call themselves liberals to support the equal application of the law in their countries while opposing the Uniform Civil Code in India. Many Indian journalists who are inferiority-ridden seek to boost their self-esteem by gaining acceptance among this category of Westerners and simply adopt their views without a proper analysis of the issues at hand.
The most disconcerting part in Ashok Malik's article is his objection to Hindus making their views known on the Internet. In India, as well as elsewhere, the flawed arguments of journalists and the many fictitious claims perpetrated by them have been confronted by facts posted on the Internet by ordinary people. In response, many insecure journalists have clamoured for imposing controls on the Internet and have lost no opportunity to criticise the Internet. It is this advocacy of imposing controls that should concern the advocates of free speech.
The author must realise that expressing one's views on the Internet is a right that must not be infringed upon even if such views are expressed by Hindus. Abridging such rights would make India a totalitarian state and cannot be accepted. Individuals must always have a right to their freedoms, while it must be the Government's duty to treat everyone in an even-handed manner. That is the crux of the issue that the author fails to grasp.
The author also makes a gross exaggeration when he claims that MF Husain quit India due to harassment by Hindus. Even after the lawsuits against MF Husain were filed, he continued to live in India for several years, including the years when his political opponents were in power. He quit India only after eyebrows were raised in certain quarters when it became known that his customers were always wealthy business houses based in India, but they conducted their financial transactions with MF Husain in a foreign country and channelled the money back to India. Sometimes, MF Husain has donated the proceeds of his sales to charities operated by members of business families. Such patterns in financial transactions are bound to raise suspicions as these patterns are usually associated with money-laundering schemes.
It is not inconceivable that the authorities in India were hot on his heels making him leave the country for good. Even if he left the country due to the lawsuits filed against him, it is wrong to blame Hindus since Hindus have always opposed draconian laws.
It is thus clear that it is Hindus who have been consistently correct on the twin issues of equality and freedom while their opponents have consistently presented wrong arguments to buttress their flawed positions.
-- The author can be reached at arvind@classical-liberal.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment