[Reader-list] "Stand up to the mullahs" - Vir Sanghvi

[Santhosh Kumar]

all hardliners are objecting to all kinds of things!
no one can compromise on basic human rights!
this has precedence over all the so called sentiments and traditions.

i agree with with Yousuf, let us start a dialogue with all hardliners.

santhosh

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Dear Kshmendra
> Thanks a lot for forwarding the article by Vir Sanghvi. Since the Sarai
> list has been behaving strangely, I got your message only today (and from
> the sarai archives I also found out that within minutes after posting your
> message you have started asking why the Sarai liberals and secularists etc.
> are selectively silent on this) Please allow everyone to see the mail.
>
> I agree with Vir Sanghvi that the "liberal people" have given in too much
> to the sensitivities of the "religious people". We have to always remain
> extra cautious about not hurting the sensibilities of the fundamentalists.
> And why can't they be sensitive about the hurt of the liberals. And why do
> we have to always prove in the end that Islam is really a religion of peace
> and so on. I think we have discussed this issue many times on this list as
> well as other forums, with examples such as MF Hussain and the Prophet
> cartoons. One really doesn't know what could be done about it except to
> condemn the people who get provoked at the slightest pretext. But I would
> like to go back to some of the interesting debates we had last year after
> one of Hussain's art exhibits was attacked in Delhi. Please see this
> particular one:
>
> http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2008-August/014282.html
>
> The same month also has some interesting posts on Hussain by Inder and
> others.
>
> I think in most cases, as we have seen in the past, the provocation doesn't
> really arise from the artwork or a write-up itself (or an individual reading
> of it). A problem starts mostly when the subject matter is exploited for
> political gains by a religious/political leaders. But Vir's distinction that
> so and so community is prone to more hurt than the other community is
> debatable, since we have seen all kinds of people get provoked on small
> matters (it doesn't always have to be art or literature).
>
> Vir says that if Muslims are banned from making the picture of the prophet,
> let them not do it. But why should the non-Muslims refrain from it. What I
> would like to add here is that Islam is really not against the pictures of
> the Prophet - his images have been made in the Islamic world itself
> throughout the history (besides the production of plenty of other liberal
> forms of arts and literature which is not imaginable in today's Islamic
> world). And so is the case with the history of liberal arts in all
> religions, communities and countries. But this fact (about our liberal
> history) is probably known and appreciated more by today's liberals than by
> the ultra-sensitive mullahs. So, my question is: should the liberals and
> fundamentalists continue to remain on an offensive by hurting each other, or
> should the liberals (who probably know and appreciate history and society
> better) play a proactive role in trying to inform the extremists about the
> more liberal
>  history we had.
>
> I don't know if I am making sense here, but this idea of "educating" people
> about the sensitivities of the liberals (when I proposed it) was criticized
> a lot by people on this list.
>
> Yousuf
>
>
> --- On Tue, 2/24/09, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: [Reader-list] "Stand up to the mullahs" - Vir Sanghvi
> > To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 3:02 PM
> > Vir Sanghvi seems to have been provoked into writing this
> > piece by the protest by Muslims against The Statesman which
> > had reproduced an article by Johann Hari "Why should I
> > respect these oppressive religions?" first published in
> > The Independent (UK).
> >
> > EXTRACTS:
> >
> > - It is now clear that the liberal society has been
> > suckered into relaxing its standards for free speech by
> > militant Islamists.
> >
> > - But so what if Muslims cannot visually represent their
> > Prophet? Why should non-Muslims be bound by their religious
> > edicts? Why should non-believing Muslims be forced by
> > liberal society to obey the restrictions of their religion?
> >
> > - Believers should follow what the Holy Book and the
> > mullahs say. But why should the rest of us? Why should we
> > abandon our right to free expression?
> >
> > - Nobody I know has ever explained why the double standards
> > are justified.
> >
> > - The real reason we give in to Islamic fanatics is the
> > desire for a peaceful life or, to put it another way,
> > cowardice.
> >
> > - Every one of their objections is always framed in terms
> > of violence. Ban The Satanic Verses or we will kill Salman
> > Rushdie. Apologise for the Danish cartoons or we will offer
> > a reward for the head of the cartoonist. Arrest the editor
> > of the Statesman or we will shut Calcutta down by rioting in
> > the streets.
> >
> > - Faced with these threats, we abandon our principles and
> > say things like, “Come on, is a single article worth the
> > death of so many people?” or “Let’s just ban the book,
> > otherwise these guys will keep rioting.”
> >
> > - The fanatics know this. They have identified the
> > cowardice at the heart of our liberalism. So every demand is
> > a) pitched in terms of protecting the religious sentiments
> > of the Muslim community or b) facing murder, mayhem and
> > more.
> >
> > - Almost every single time, we cave in. Either we say that
> > Islam is a peaceful religion.
> > Or we get death threats.
> >
> > -  Isn’t it time to finally stand up to these thugs and
> > blackmailers? It is up to the Muslim community to rein in
> > its fanatics and some moderates are indeed trying to do
> > this.
> >
> > - But as far as secular society is concerned, our position
> > should be clear. We believe in free speech as guaranteed by
> > our Constitution, not as defined by the mullahs.
> >
> > Kshmendra
> >
> >
> > "Stand up to the mullahs"
> > Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
> > February 21, 2009
> >
> > If you have missed the controversy that led to the arrest
> > of the editor of The Statesman in Calcutta for offending
> > religious sentiments — which you might have, because the
> > national media downplayed the issue — then here’s what
> > it is about.
> >
> > The Statesman reproduced an article by Johann Hari, the
> > young liberal British commentator, from The Independent.
> > Hari’s politics are clear: he stands up for secularism
> > (for which he has won awards), tolerance (he has defended
> > Islam against such critics as Mark Steyn) and environmental
> > concerns.
> >
> > The column in question was about attempts by the
> > governments of some Islamic states to alter the UN’s
> > commitment to free speech. These governments argue that free
> > speech must be restricted on grounds of offence to religion
> > and that discussions of certain issues relating to the
> > rights of women must be curtailed because they could be
> > anti-Islamic.
> >
> > Hari makes the obvious objections to all of this and then
> > says that religion can often be oppressive. So, why should
> > people be stopped from speaking out against it? He quotes
> > examples of regressive practices from all religions and says
> > that just because these occur in accounts of the lives of
> > gods, messiahs or prophets, that does not make them above
> > criticism.
> >
> > Who could possibly object to that?
> >
> > Well, a small section of politically-motivated Islamic
> > fanatics in Calcutta, that’s who.
> >
> > As the people who rioted did not seem like typical
> > Statesman readers (they were not genteel Bengalis, aged 60
> > and above), it is a fair assumption that some cynical leader
> > of an extreme faction of the Muslim community told his
> > followers about the ‘grave insult to Islam” and sent
> > them off to riot.
> >
> > The CPI(M) government then arrested The Statesman’s
> > editor and publisher. But the arrest — though clearly
> > unjustified — seems to have been largely symbolic. They
> > were quickly released and the mobs, satisfied that “action
> > had been taken”, melted away.
> >
> > Several points need to be made about the incident.
> >
> > First: The article itself. There is not one line in
> > Hari’s piece that I would disagree with. If religions
> > deserve respect, then so does atheism. Followers of
> > religions have every right to their views and practices. But
> > so do atheists have the right to criticise religion. Nothing
> > in this world is above criticism.
> >
> > Two: The rioters said they were offended by a passage in
> > the article where Hari referred to the Prophet’s marriage
> > to a much younger woman and his directive to burn Jewish
> > villages. (In all fairness, he was as critical of other
> > religions and of the Israeli assault on the West Bank.)
> >
> > The rioters say that nobody can criticise any aspect of the
> > Prophet’s life.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > There’s no shortage of books and articles criticising
> > Jesus, suggesting that he might have been secretly married
> > (as in The DaVinci Code), arguing that the resurrection was
> > a hoax or that Mary was never a virgin.
> >
> > Similarly, would mainstream Hindus be offended if somebody
> > wrote that Hindu mythology features practices that we would
> > find abhorrent today: one wife for five husbands as in the
> > Mahabharat, the compulsive philandering of Krishna or the
> > appalling mistreatment of Sita (the agni pariksha etc)?
> >
> > Some Hindu extremists may protest but I doubt if they would
> > get very far with their objections. The community, as a
> > whole, would shrug its shoulders and many Hindus will agree
> > with the critics.
> >
> >
> >
> > And yet, it is an article of faith with Muslims — even
> > moderate ones — that the Prophet’s life is beyond
> > reproach.
> >
> > Does this make any sense?
> >
> > Three: It is now clear that the liberal society has been
> > suckered into relaxing its standards for free speech by
> > militant Islamists.
> >
> > Let’s take the most obvious example. Every liberal I know
> > is outraged by the attacks on MF Husain. Why shouldn’t he
> > paint nude Saraswatis? That’s his right. If people are
> > offended by the paintings, they shouldn’t see them.
> >
> > So far, so good. But now imagine that Husain had painted an
> > extremely reverential portrait of the Prophet. (Never mind
> > cartoons, nude pictures etc.)
> >
> > There would have been riots. And even secular liberals
> > would not have supported him.
> >
> > We would have said: Islam prohibits any visual
> > representation of the Prophet so Husain has committed a
> > great crime.
> >
> > But so what if Muslims cannot visually represent their
> > Prophet? Why should non-Muslims be bound by their religious
> > edicts? Why should non-believing Muslims be forced by
> > liberal society to obey the restrictions of their religion?
> >
> > Believers should follow what the Holy Book and the mullahs
> > say. But why should the rest of us? Why should we abandon
> > our right to free expression?
> >
> > Nobody I know has ever explained why the double standards
> > are justified.
> >
> > Four: The reason we are suckered into accepting these
> > double standards is because Muslim politicians play good
> > cop-bad cop.
> >
> > Look, they say, we are all for freedom of speech. But if
> > you say anything that the fanatics object to, then they will
> > take to the streets, burn property and hurt innocent people.
> > We will do our best to pacify our community, but you must
> > remove any provocation that will cause the hardliners to
> > revolt.
> >
> > Turn this around. How would Muslims have reacted if Hindu
> > moderates had said to them: Look, we think this whole Ram
> > Janmbhoomi thing is nonsense. But the BJP will gain support
> > on this platform. So why don’t you agree to move the Babri
> > Masjid? It’s not even a functioning mosque. That way, we
> > remove the provocation and rid the hardliners of their issue
> > and ensure communal harmony.
> >
> > Well, Hindu moderates did say this. And we know how
> > moderate Muslim politicians reacted.
> >
> > Five: The real reason we give in to Islamic fanatics is the
> > desire for a peaceful life or, to put it another way,
> > cowardice.
> >
> > Every one of their objections is always framed in terms of
> > violence. Ban The Satanic Verses or we will kill Salman
> > Rushdie. Apologise for the Danish cartoons or we will offer
> > a reward for the head of the cartoonist. Arrest the editor
> > of the Statesman or we will shut Calcutta down by rioting in
> > the streets.
> >
> > Faced with these threats, we abandon our principles and say
> > things like, “Come on, is a single article worth the death
> > of so many people?” or “Let’s just ban the book,
> > otherwise these guys will keep rioting.”
> >
> > The fanatics know this. They have identified the cowardice
> > at the heart of our liberalism. So every demand is a)
> > pitched in terms of protecting the religious sentiments of
> > the Muslim community or b) facing murder, mayhem and more.
> >
> > Almost every single time, we cave in.
> >
> > Either we say that Islam is a peaceful religion.
> >
> > Or we get death threats.
> >
> > And finally: Isn’t it time to finally stand up to these
> > thugs and blackmailers? It is up to the Muslim community to
> > rein in its fanatics and some moderates are indeed trying to
> > do this.
> >
> > But as far as secular society is concerned, our position
> > should be clear. We believe in free speech as guaranteed by
> > our Constitution, not as defined by the mullahs.
> >
> > Anything less would be a betrayal of the liberal, secular
> > values we hold dear.
> >
> >
> http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=630b8c69-4672-4e12-ac2a-a9073f5165d4
> >
> >
> http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=630b8c69-4672-4e12-ac2a-a9073f5165d4&MatchID1=4932&TeamID1=7&TeamID2=8&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1247&PrimaryID=4932&Headline=Stand+up+to+the+mullahs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > 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:
> > <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>