[Reader-list] Gandu world, words, Ajay and Raju

[kirdar singh]

You guys are trying to put me into a slot. You simply want to figure
out on whose side I am. Well I am on niether side. I said it earlier I
have no problem with Inder's original post on its own merit, but its a
problem if its language  leads to this reaction: "every time a Salim
talks like this...he'll be answered like this" This is a sentence that
usually comes from the mouth of Bal Thakre, Modi and so on.

Of course we shouldn't compromise on "our" art and poetry, and we
shouldn't care at all on what our art leads to on the street. If those
guys can't understand our art and mistake it as provocation, its their
problem, not ours.

So Vivek, since you keep asking me to quote directly from the text
what's my problem, here is the quote from the text which is my
problem:

"Behenchod, Chootiya, Gandu, Ma-ki choot"

I know I am boringly conservative, but I don't see why we shouldn't
equate someone who uses these terms on this list with those whose
emails go into your bullshit folder....

Kirdar



On 3/4/08, inder salim <indersalim at gmail.com> wrote:
> dear  Kirdar and dear MRSG
>
> Ghalib says, "Aasan kahnay ki kartay hain farmaish, Goyam Mushkil va
> garna goyam muskil " ( The popular demand is that I ought to be
> simple, but it is difficult for me if it is not difficult)
>
> I am certainly not in that league of  sheer complexity of gifted poets
> like Ghalib .  They had the capacity to be simple and complex at the
> same time with an amazing grace.  Mr. Kirdar appreciates my neither
> being Muslim nor Hindu, but he sees me meritless. I also appreciate
> the idea of my being as neither Hindu nor Muslim, but I see a profound
> merit in this idea, unlike Mr. Kirdar.
>
>  Mr. Kirdar writes: " we do not want to simplify and straighten our
> communication since it would no longer be creative"  Well said, but in
> the very next line, you  demand that I should clarify why I wrote the
> provocative piece in the first place.  You found sheer creativity in
> that piece, which again is flattering, but irresponsibly provocative.
> Now please elucidate upon the significance of ' creative' in our lives
> lest it might be futile to employ ' the creative' in removing the
> misunderstanding between the two: Hindu and Muslims. It is as you see
> it. But  I understand that only creativity can heal the aching
> humanity, and I believe, that everybody is potentially a creative
> person, and must be provided with necessary confidence to realize
> that.  That is political, isn't that?
>
> Respected  MRGS, your way of looking at History is little different
> from what I see it should be.  I believe, history is a little more
> deeper than what we learn from history books. It is  vastly embedded
> in the archival material scattered all over the world. I believe, a
> good historian studies painting, poetry, architecture, garments, food
> habits besides written material while arriving at a conclusion about a
> particular historical event or era. Here, again, I guess a good
> historian never concludes .  Now, for example, you know everything
> everything everything  about Islam and its history, then even you can
> not say what it is as it was. Islam is popular not because of it is
> history, but because it has its own spirituality which is not
> different from other forms of religion.
>
> Now, the problem is that we have a Maulana  sahib from a small town in
> UP versus a Pandit ji who is a pujari of a small temple in Bihari
> colony, shahdara, Delhi. Now both of them have their own opinions on
> history, and their own ways of observing religion; and both have ample
> time and energy to spew venom on Taslima Nasreen and MF Hussain
> respectively.
>
> Now, how come I am supposed to limit my creativity ( of whatever
> intensity ) to suit the above  so called representative faces of
> Hindus and Muslims.   I have my own way of looking at history and
> mythology. I like some fragments, here and there. I mix the fragments
> with my own imagination and do something else and call it my own
> religion. I am  a boring artists, you may like my product or not, but
> I believe that every body should indulge in this kind of
> chutnification ( a phrase coined by Salman Rushdie ).  Two imaginary
> characters Ajay and Raju are also free to mix what they want. Why Ajay
> and Raju should listen to you only, and not to me. What is interesting
> that they have their own  way of looking at things, and we rarely care
> to know what it is.
>
> In short, it is between me and my subject. It is like between  Prophet
> Mohammad and the Mountain. It is like between the poet Valmiki and
> Lord Ram. What is between you and me should have some intensity, if
> not as intense as that, and less than that is a time wasting prose.
>
> love and regards
> inder salim
>