[Reader-list] Absence of Husain at Art Summit

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

In that case, it is up to the diabetic to not eat the sweet dish, or  
eat them and risk his or her health. Why prevent the non-diabetic  
from eating the sweets.

I think all threats to the freedom of expression, be they of Salman  
Rushdie,Taslima Nasrin or M F Husain or whosoever else,, and to the  
freedom of readers, viewers and audiences to access their works  
should be opposed by anyone who loves liberty.

On 15-Aug-09, at 4:37 PM, Murali V wrote:

> What is legitimate to one may not be the case with the other. A sweet
> is perfect dish for a non-diabetic, but for a diabetic it is a poison.
>
> I guess a writer also comes under the definition of artisits and we al
> know the kind of life threats that Salman Rushdie is facing.
>
> Regards,
> V Murali
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Rakesh  
> Iyer<rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Murali ji
>>
>> Let me answer some of the questions you and Mr. Rajen have asked  
>> or raised:
>>
>> 1) First of all, it's perfectly legitimate according to me, at a  
>> personal
>> level, if any God or Prophet is painted nude, whether it be Christ,
>> Mohammed, Ram, Shiva, Durga or anybody else. The reason for my  
>> argument is
>> simple. When you stop or restrict someone from making a painting,  
>> it's a
>> restriction on the freedom of a person from painting something.  
>> And more
>> importantly, assuming the nude painting is made, it's not a  
>> restriction or
>> infringement on the freedom of someone who has been depicted in the
>> painting, as far as Gods or Prophets are concerned.
>>
>> This is important to note, because in case of say someone's mother  
>> or wife
>> being painted nude, it could be a kind of restriction or infringement
>> because it may depict someone in a certain manner. This is also  
>> why MMS
>> clippings of heroines or girls is strictly abhorred.
>>
>> 2) The way a person takes such issues is for him/her to decide.  
>> The Gods are
>> not subjected to unfreedom. And as far as the person is concerned,  
>> if the
>> person feels that such a painting is not right form of depiction  
>> of his/her
>> beloved Lord, he/she has a right to protest (though that does not  
>> mean
>> indulging in violence, which I believe all of us will agree on).  
>> Similarly,
>> the person has the freedom of seeing or not seeing such paintings,  
>> and
>> therefore that right has also not been usurped upon.
>>
>> Therefore, again this means that people have the right to depict  
>> Gods in the
>> way they wish to. And those who don't like it equally have a right to
>> protest. But that shouldn't mean indulging in violence. So the  
>> protests
>> against Danish cartoons, as also that against Hussain's paintings  
>> are ok,
>> (and even those against paintings made in MSU) are fine, with me,  
>> as long as
>> no violence takes place. In all the three cases, it has taken  
>> place leading
>> to beating up of the student to burning of embassies, which should  
>> not be
>> tolerated in a civilized society.
>>
>> So, therefore if someone feels he/she is offended by such  
>> paintings, either
>> ignore them or protest against them subject to conditionality of
>> non-violence, and thereby ensure you don't usurp the freedom of  
>> others.
>>
>> Is that so difficult to accept?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rakesh
>>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with  
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net