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

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Yousuf
 
1. ON EXPECTING REACTIONS 'within minutes'
 
You are a bit confused about what I wrote in which mail. There were two.
 
I never asked why the SARAI Liberals; Secularists etc are 'selectively silent' on the Vir Sanghvi article I had posted. So, no question of my expecting reactions 'within minutes'.
 
I did however wonder about there being no reaction (except from Taraprakash) to a 12 day earlier posting (on 12/02/09) "Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions? (Muslims protest)"
 
As it happens to be, Vir Sanghvi's article picks up on the same issue that I had highlighted in my 12 day earlier (on 12/02/09) post.
 
So, since it was a 12 day earlier post, I had every reason to wonder  ".....why the usual bunch of Liberal/Secular voices on SARAI Reader List selectively (and with obvious bias) practice their Liberalism/Secularism/Expression-Freedomism."
 
I stand by my judgement "Would it have been any different if in an analogous situation it had be "Hindus" protesting instead of "Muslims"? Undoubtedly Yes."
 
2. ON SOME OF YOUR OTHER COMMENTS
 
- I agree with you that the sensitivities of "The Liberals" should also be considered. I believe that they should be as much respected (or disrespected) as the respect (or disrespect) accorded to the sensitivities of "religious people" (as exampled by you).
 
  It is not a question of only 'respecting sensitivities' but also 'disrespecting sensitivities'. Each organised society has to choose for itself the extent of and norms for both "respect" and "disrespect" of sensitivities. There cannot be any Universal Standards for this because there is no universality in the make-up of societies. Each one has it's own specifics. 
 
  The extremism in Liberalism which might desire a 'free for all' disrespecting will be destructive for organised society. It will be a 'jungle Raj' as it will also be if there is no organised society. There is no absolutism in any Freedom. All Freedoms are conditional.
 
  Similarly, selectivity in 'disrespecting' some of choice and demanding 'respect' for others of choice is nothing but hypocrisy.It is pseudo-Liberal or pseudo-Conservative. 
 
  In the above if you replace "liberal" by "secular", you have an analogous paradigm for Secular.
 
  The problem with most of those in India who profess to inhabit the Liberal and Secular space and champion themselves or are championed as being Liberal and Secular, is the hypocrisy of the "selectivity" I mentioned above. We have many such clones on the SARAI Reader List.
 
  Until I became privy to writings on SARAI Reader List, I had never properly understood the dimensions of the much used "Pseudo-Secular" term. 
 
  What astounds me is the arrogance and shamelessness of these pseudo-Secularists and pseudo-Liberalists. That is their business but they are a curse for India. If there is the spark of conflict in a 'situation' almost invariably these pseudo-Secularists and pseudo-Liberalists seems to ensure that the spark becomes a roaring conflagration.
 
  Consequently, this kind of so called "Liberals" are the last people I would trust to bring about rapproachment bertween conflicting positions or to dissuade people from "extremist"
ideologies.
 
  These pseudo-Liberals and pseudo-Seculars are not the "Liberals" that you speak of who "know and appreciate history and society better". If they did then such an appreciation would reflect itself in measured articulation that shows understanding even if it comes from a position of disagreement.
 
- You have made a specific mention of Islam  and wondered " why do we have to always prove in the end that Islam is really a religion of peace"    
 
  You (We) have no choice in that until Islam is propagated and practiced as a religion of peace without a substantial number of Muslims preaching and practicing violence in it's name.
 
   There have been good starts (in India) in the All India Anti-Terrorism Conference organised by the Islamic Madrassa Association (Dar-Ul-Uloom, Deobandh) in Feb 2008 and the Anti-Terrorism Conference of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in Nov 2008. But not good enough. Both had declarations with a lot of qualifications and conditionalities. Some that made a mockery of the intended spirit. That is politics and not a desire to reform.
 
   The condemnation has to be as frequent, as voluble, as brazen, as fearless as many Hindus saying "we do not accept the nonsense about caste distinction in the Manu Smriti"
 
   The problem for Muslims is more deep rooted. I do not consider those who practice violence in the name of Islam as a bunch of crazies. That is what they have been taught from childhood with quotations from the Quran and Hadeeth. That is how deeprooted the problem is. What are you going to do? Expunge passages from the Quran? 
 
   Hadeeth can easily be dismissed if preachers are unified in doing so and in not quoting them. (It will be the toughest for Shias since the Shia version of Mohammed's Last Sermon has 'Jihad" as one of the "Pillars of Islam")
 
   The Quran is a different matter altogether especially since it is supposed to be the Instruction Manual for each Individual. But since it does not 'descend' on the individual and has to be taught, it is in the teaching that proper perspectives can be provided.  It would require for the teachers to first understand themselves that specific passages have specific contexts and are not meant as advisories for eternally afterwards. Start today and it would take a few generations of such modified teaching and preaching of the Quran and practice thereof (and dismissing of contradicting Hadeeth) before Muslims could claim that Islam is a religion of peace.
 
   Let me give an analogy. I could claim and do claim that Dharma (known as Hinduism) has the concept of the Divine as a Consciousness that encompasses all that exists (animate or inanimate), all that existed,all that will exist, time past, present, future, the known and the unknown all bound together. That entities like Ram and Krishna are mere mortals who have been deified. That Bramha, Vishnu, Mahesh are mere concepts. That you Yousuf and I are equally a part of the Divine. I could and do claim that. But, Hinduism will be judged and seen as Idol Worship with a whole stable of Gods because that is how Hindus preach and practice it.
 
- How tough it is from Muslims to redefine Islam can be seen in your words " Islam is really not against the pictures of the Prophet"
 
  Islam is against Pictures. Period. The Taliban are not heretics. Mohammed is quoted in Hadeeth as saying that Gabriel told him that the Angels do not visit houses that have images of life forms (and have dogs) in them. What do the Muslims do now? Where is the courage to dismiss such Hadeeth or find and preach figuratively/metaphorically alternate meanings? There are scores and scores of such retrograde Hadeeth.
 
   At the same time there are some glorious Hadeeth. My favourite is of Mohammed telling the story of one who was admonished for destroying a colony of ants instead of just the one specific ant which had bit him. Or about the Jewish prostitute who had a place in paradise for quenching the thirst of a dog. 
 
(My turn to say) I do not know if I made any sense.
 
Kshmendra
 
 
--- On Wed, 2/25/09, Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] "Stand up to the mullahs" - Vir Sanghvi
To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 8:20 PM

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/>