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

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Kshmendra,

I am  surprised at your insinuation that there is a selectivity on  
the part of what you call 'Sarai liberals and secularists' to respond  
to matters that have to do with one confession of faith as opposed to  
another.

First of all, who is a 'Sarai liberal or secularist'? Can you  
identify one, because I can't. Sarai is not a party with an official  
position. It does not have cadre who stick to one position, or even a  
cluster of positions.

As individuals we all (everyone on the list, including you) may have  
different postions on different matters, but none of these are  
'Sarai' positions.

I do not make it my business to respond to each and every posting  
that appears on the Sarai Reader List. I am sure you do not either.  
If we were all constantly responding to every posting that occurred  
on the list then we would have very little time to do anything else.  
If I have once made a position clear, I do not see it necessary to  
repeat myself ad nauseam. I have made my position against Muslim  
fundamentalism, hindu fundamentalism, torture, the death penalty and  
forms of military occupation (whererever they may occur) abundantly  
clear on more than one occasion on this list, I do not therefore find  
it necessary to respond repetitively on the same set of issues.

I would probably count as one of those who is often pilloried on this  
list as a 'liberal secularist' (though both presume a commitment to  
the project of the state, in its specifically liberal or secularist  
avatars, which I do not share, simply because I am not committed to  
any state form).

That being said, I might remind you that there have been several  
instances where I (and others) have been sharply critical of the  
positions and politics of Islamic fundamentalists, exactly as we have  
been sharply critical of anyone or any tendency (be they of the  
right, left or centre) which has an authoritarian and repressive agenda.

I personally recall having made postings and responses on the banning  
of Taslima Nasrin that were extremely critical of the Islamic  
Fundamentalist position on her freedom of speech and exprssion. I  
have said before and say so again, I support the right of any  
individual to express any statement through word, speech or image  
that is or can be read or understood as being offensive to Islam or  
somebody's interpretation of Islamic precepts and doctrines,  
precisely because I support the same right when it pertains to any  
religion, ideology or position, be it Hinduism, Christianity,  
Judaism, Buddhism or any other doctrine. I support the right of  
people to make and publish what might be considered (by themselves,  
or by others) offensive cartoons or ther representations of any  
religious figure (without exception).

This has nothing to do with my personal taste or agreement with what  
is made or deemed offensive. I especially support the right of the  
freedom of speech and expression of those I disagree with (provided  
it is not defamation or libel), because it is actually meaningless to  
only root for the freedom of those who agree with your own views. I   
support the right to be heretical, blasphemous, and subversive in any  
context with reference to anything that is held sacred or sacrosant  
by anybody, including myself.

So please refrain from making these blanket generalizations, a) about  
'Sarai liberals or secularists'  (an irrelevant category) or b) about  
what people might or might not have said in the past, without an  
adequate sense of what the archives of the list actually hold as a  
record of opinions and expressions by list members,

My understanding of religious doctrines and practices does however  
demonstrate to me that no religion or ideology can claim (or have  
claimed on its behalf) a monopoly on repressiveness or on liberty.  
Every faith has been intolerant, and at the same time the adherents  
of every faith have been open and understanding and tolerant. No  
particular faith has been more intolerant or repressive in its  
history than any other. While I remain committed to being sharply  
critical of intolerance within Islam, I am equally critical of any  
effort to represent Islam and Islamicate cultures as being 'more'  
repressive and authoritarian than others, this tendency betrays a  
shallow understanding of the well established traditions of tolerance  
and liberality within Islamicate cultures (which compete with  
authoritarianism and repression within Islam/Islamicate culture), and  
the the authoritarian tendencies in other traditions, which are  
usually neglected by those who seek to exclusively focus on the  
career of repression within Islam and Islamicate cultures.

I do not think this blame game is productive.

regards

Shuddha



regards

Shuddha


On 25-Feb-09, at 8:20 PM, Yousuf 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:
>> &lt;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: &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