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

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Shuddha
 
I have often expressed my admiration for you. That includes (in some measure) your meticulously researched references. Sadly, not this time. My admiration though does not lessen. 
 
You have picked the words 'Sarai liberals and secularists' from Yousuf's mail. I never wrote them.
 
My words were:
 
"""" 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 was clearly talking about the (SARAI) Reader List and not SARAI. 
 
Subsequent to this mis-recognition by you, your follow-up comments on SARAI and "SARAI positions" and admonishments directed at me, become academic. 
 
As far as the inmates of the SARAI Reader List are concerned, my wonderment is undiminished about the "usual bunch of Liberal/Secular voices" who "selectively (and with obvious bias) practice their Liberalism/Secularism/Expression-Freedomism"
 
Also, I stand by my judgment "Would it have been any different if in an analogous situation it had be "Hindus" protesting instead of "Muslims"? Undoubtedly Yes."
 
Incidentally, I found very interesting two positions articulated by you:
 
1. "I am not committed to any state form"
 
    That is a dismissal of organised societies as they exist today. But only a dismissal. It would be interesting to know what is the alternate 'system' or 'non-system' you propose. Otherwise the alternate that suggests itself is one of a "Jungle Raj"
 
     From my point of view, without the State there is no provisioning possible of a Regulatory Environment. Without a Regulatory Environment there can be no protection for the Freedoms one can avail of. Without Freedoms, humans are just caged animals. But, Freedoms cannot be absolute and unbridled. The balancing off between the Freedoms of each individual so that each one can avail of them in equal measure, can only be ensured by the Regulated Environment through governance. For governance you need specified territorial domain. A Territorial Domain is the State. 
 
2. "I  support the right to be heretical, blasphemous, and subversive in any context with reference to anything that is held sacred or sacrosanct by anybody, including myself."
 
    The stated by you rights (excluding 'subversive') can certainly function in a society that has evolved to such levels of tolerance. Their availability cannot be imposed on people unless the people are comfortable in accepting such rights as being available to another person. 
 
    The right to be "subversive" will never be made available by the State. It is self-destructive.
 
There is a contradiction in these two positions of yours.
 
You are not committed to the State and yet you want rights. Only the State can make available your rights and regulate their protection. Without the State there will be anarchy.
 
Each individual allowed to decide his/her own set of 'Rights' may, in fact will, lead to conflict between individuals. That is "Jungle Raj".
 
I am sure you have a different and non-foreboding scenario in mind.    
 
Take care
 
 
Kshmendra


--- On Thu, 2/26/09, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:

From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] "Stand up to the mullahs" - Vir Sanghvi
To: ysaeed7 at yahoo.com
Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:43 PM


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