Indian writers guilty of double standards when it comes to dissent: Taslima Nasrin

[Joe Shearer]

Explains my doubt.

You completely misunderstood.

The writers in question are putrid suppurating pustules on a pigs anal rim.

Foul environs make for foul droppings.

I couldn't agree more with @scorpionx

 

[scorpionx]

Personally, I was enraged at the time, some eight years ago, just before I myself moved to Calcutta, and still feel resentful at the horrid demonstrations by rabid Islamists against her. As it happened, my circle of friends of the time were of the same mind. We really felt the pain of these violent events against free speech.

So was I. Despite being completely ignorant about what she wrote in Lajja or Meyebela, it seemed horrible to me to suppress one's freedom to speak. But In my humble opinion, while living in a traditionalist society like ours, we can not afford to have such sort of westernized liberalism yet. I was equally saddened and angry when I read synopsis of a book by Doniger most probably, which was filled with nonsense about Hindu Gods and Goddesses, went to an extent to call Ramakrishna a sexual pervert.

I, infact can not deny that I was happy when penguin decided to withdraw her controversial book. Don't you agree that freedom of speech, write should respect a barrier when it comes to hurting one's religious sentiments?

 

[Spectre]

So was I. Despite being completely ignorant about what she wrote in Lajja or Meyebela, it seemed horrible to me to suppress one's freedom to speak. But In my humble opinion, while living in a traditionalist society like ours, we can not afford to have such sort of westernized liberalism yet. I was equally saddened and angry when I read synopsis of a book by Doniger most probably, which was filled with nonsense about Hindu Gods and Goddesses, went to an extent to call Ramakrishna a sexual pervert.

I, infact can not deny that I was happy when penguin decided to withdraw her controversial book. Don't you agree that freedom of speech, write should respect a barrier when it comes to hurting one's religious sentiments?

Where does one draw a line? the expanse of freedom would keep restricting till we are in an Orwellian society where soon it won't be speech or action but even thought and intent which would invite censure.

The institutionalized barriers are slippery slope my friend, let the society correct itself.

I pity the faith which is so weak that it would be harmed by just words.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So was I. Despite being completely ignorant about what she wrote in Lajja or Meyebela, it seemed horrible to me to suppress one's freedom to speak. But In my humble opinion, while living in a traditionalist society like ours, we can not afford to have such sort of westernized liberalism yet. I was equally saddened and angry when I read synopsis of a book by Doniger most probably, which was filled with nonsense about Hindu Gods and Goddesses, went to an extent to call Ramakrishna a sexual pervert.

I, infact can not deny that I was happy when penguin decided to withdraw her controversial book. Don't you agree that freedom of speech, write should respect a barrier when it comes to hurting one's religious sentiments?

No. I believe that a traditionalist society like ours has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a free society, where these are no longer issues. Many of our values and attitudes are "legacies" from recent re-inventions of the past, re-inventions made for the purpose of creating a homogeneous seamless vision of a society that never existed. It is almost as dangerous as the vision of an Islamic society, with its lamentable attitudes to violence against those of another faith, its vileness towards women, its mediaeval attitudes towards crime and punishment. Both are abhorrent.

As far as Doniger is concerned, she is not right, and has made quite unjustified extrapolations in many areas, but that does not take away her right to free speech and to the liberty to write her view of things. This is precisely what I argued in favour of Mridu Rai, and her views on Kashmir, when there was a pack hunting for her blood, and for precisely the same reason: the scholar has to be given a chance to put forward her thesis, however obnoxious, for research and the refinement of knowledge to continue.

I think our societies, and the Americans too, to a lesser extent, are far too prone to taking offence. Frankly, I think we shouldn't have icons, whether of our own ethnic kind or any other, and we shouldn't lose our mental balance when 'icons' are criticised.

Where does one draw a line? the expanse of freedom would keep restricting till we are in an Orwellian society where soon it won't be speech or action but even thought and intent which would invite censure.

The institutionalized barriers are slippery slope my friend, let the society correct itself.

I pity the faith which is so weak that it would be harmed by just words.

Powerful!

 

[vsdoc]

The moral compass of a society will ultimately prevail.

The Constitution would remain a library book if the larger society did not buy into it.

If society affords the right to offend, then it also allows the right to be offended.

If it's a fringe being offended and overstepping the law, then eventually that fringe will lose favor and society's benign protection.

If not, then it can only mean that the "fringe" is a fringe only in the eyes of another fringe, which takes it upon itself the mantle of speaking for the whole.

It's a time of churn.

We'll eventually know who the real fringe is.

And where the whole comes to rest.

 

[Spectre]

No. I believe that a traditionalist society like ours has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a free society, where these are no longer issues. Many of our values and attitudes are "legacies" from recent re-inventions of the past, re-inventions made for the purpose of creating a homogeneous seamless vision of a society that never existed. It is almost as dangerous as the vision of an Islamic society, with its lamentable attitudes to violence against those of another faith, its vileness towards women, its mediaeval attitudes towards crime and punishment. Both are abhorrent.

As far as Doniger is concerned, she is not right, and has made quite unjustified extrapolations in many areas, but that does not take away her right to free speech and to the liberty to write her view of things. This is precisely what I argued in favour of Mridu Rai, and her views on Kashmir, when there was a pack hunting for her blood, and for precisely the same reason: the scholar has to be given a chance to put forward her thesis, however obnoxious, for research and the refinement of knowledge to continue.

I think our societies, and the Americans too, to a lesser extent, are far too prone to taking offence. Frankly, I think we shouldn't have icons, whether of our own ethnic kind or any other, and we shouldn't lose our mental balance when 'icons' are criticised.

The irony is that most of icons be it Jesus, Galileo, Muhammad, Krishna, Einstein or Gandhi themselves were speaking to protect socio-cultural sensitivities of the era.

Let there be provocations, questions and challenges to existing paradigm for that is the only way we will evolve. If the religion/ideology we defend are strong enough they will persevere or they won't - our infantile attempts to shelter them are futile.

The moral compass of a society will ultimately prevail.

The Constitution would remain a library book if the larger society did not buy into it.

If society affords the right to offend, then it also allows the right to be offended.

If it's a fringe being offended and overstepping the law, then eventually that fringe will lose favor and society's benign protection.

If not, then it can only mean that the "fringe" is a fringe only in the eyes of another fringe, which takes it upon itself the mantle of speaking for the whole.

It's a time of churn.

We'll eventually know who the real fringe is.

And where the whole comes to rest.

Society has to change - since time immemorial they have evolved when confronted with provocative actions. What once was the majority becomes minority and so on.

As you rightly said Churn Happens - the thing is both minority and majority are both part of it.

 

[vsdoc]

As you rightly said Churn Happens - the thing is both minority and majority are both part of it.

There is no monochrome majority or minority set in stone. It depends on the individual ideas and finally coalesces into a median whole.

I was disgusted by the Dadri lynching.

I am disgusted by the hatchetmen and women who pose as intellectuals.

It takes all kinds.

And India may well discover that the median has shifted, when the dust settles.

 

[Spectre]

There is no monochrome majority or minority set in stone. It depends on the individual ideas and finally coalesces into a median whole.

I was disgusted by the Dadri lynching.

I am disgusted by the hatchetmen and women who pose as intellectuals.

It takes all kinds.

And India may well discover that the median has shifted, when the dust settles.

True that! well said

 

[SarthakGanguly]

There is no monochrome majority or minority set in stone. It depends on the individual ideas and finally coalesces into a median whole.

I was disgusted by the Dadri lynching.

I am disgusted by the hatchetmen and women who pose as intellectuals.

It takes all kinds.

And India may well discover that the median has shifted, when the dust settles.

True. The median has shifted. The dust has settled from where I am standing.

So was I. Despite being completely ignorant about what she wrote in Lajja or Meyebela, it seemed horrible to me to suppress one's freedom to speak. But In my humble opinion, while living in a traditionalist society like ours, we can not afford to have such sort of westernized liberalism yet. I was equally saddened and angry when I read synopsis of a book by Doniger most probably, which was filled with nonsense about Hindu Gods and Goddesses, went to an extent to call Ramakrishna a sexual pervert.

I, infact can not deny that I was happy when penguin decided to withdraw her controversial book. Don't you agree that freedom of speech, write should respect a barrier when it comes to hurting one's religious sentiments?

Freedom of speech should be absolute. But the freedom to withdraw a book must also rest with the publisher. I agree with the rest of your post. One can throw a stone but should not expect the liberal secular government institution to always protect them from repercussions.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The moral compass of a society will ultimately prevail.

That is the point, Doc. However much your actions and those of your friends deny it.

The Constitution would remain a library book if the larger society did not buy into it.

Again, forgive my repeating this, but given their druthers, that is precisely what your friends want. An end to the rule of law, the beginning of the rule of brute force majority.

EVERY SINGLE ACTION that has been criticised points to the institution of the rule of brute force majority.

If society affords the right to offend, then it also allows the right to be offended.

No.

It does not.

Good and evil are not equal and opposite charges. You used the term moral compass. Cling to it.

If it's a fringe being offended and overstepping the law, then eventually that fringe will lose favor and society's benign protection.

Bullshit.

It applies, this 'rule' of yours, to both fringe and to majority. Not to include the majority in this is dishonest. Sorry, but it is.

If not, then it can only mean that the "fringe" is a fringe only in the eyes of another fringe, which takes it upon itself the mantle of speaking for the whole.

Specious and superficial. Just as applicable to the other side.

It's a time of churn.

We'll eventually know who the real fringe is.

And where the whole comes to rest.

We emphatically don't need to know who the real fringe is. It is not about a fringe. Or a minority. Even an individual, one individual, deserves the right to be heard, the right to civil liberties. It is this that your filthy friends attack.

 

[Mamsalaphala]

We emphatically don't need to know who the real fringe is. It is not about a fringe. Or a minority. Even an individual, one individual, deserves the right to be heard, the right to civil liberties. It is this that your filthy friends attack.

Why don't you start by showing us the way ?

You can ask your pakistani friends mods to open up this forum so that it matches the standards you set for others. ...... lets say the right to talk about muhammed or islam or balochistan etc ?



I now feel certain you will take a strong moral stand for it. Correct ?

Where does one draw a line? the expanse of freedom would keep restricting till we are in an Orwellian society where soon it won't be speech or action but even thought and intent which would invite censure.

The institutionalized barriers are slippery slope my friend, let the society correct itself.

I pity the faith which is so weak that it would be harmed by just words.

This is a wonderful argument.

So I assume you have no problems with lynching and riots while the society corrects itself ?

After all it would be a pity to have such a weak faith in the society that you need Laws to control it rather than let it correct itself.

 

[dray]

Another Voice.....

Literary secularists need to learn from Taslima: Bhyrappa
Rashmi Shrikant,TNN | Oct 19, 2015, 05.23 AM IST

Writers have been returning awards and quitting posts to register their protest against "rising intolerance", but eminent Kannada writer SL Bhyrappa calls it a "publicity stunt". He says the writers have a political agenda and the time has come to distinguish between "political litterateurs" and "pure litterateurs". Excerpts:

What is your response to writers returning awards and giving up posts?

It is nothing but a publicity stunt. Writers are doing it because returning the award will fetch them more publicity than getting the award. It is a ploy to destroy the democratic fabric of the country and the functioning of the Sahitya Akademi, which is an autonomous body.

Writers say their protest is against the BJP-led government and the growing intolerance indicated by MM Kalburgi's killing and the lynching of a Muslim man in Dadri. Do you think it is an effective way of exerting pressure on the Modi government?

I condemn Kalburgi's killing and the Dadri lynching. But what does the Modi government have to do with these incidents? Dadri is in Uttar Pardesh where Samajwadi Party is in power. Kalburgi's killing took place in Karnataka, which is under Congress rule. There is a political agenda behind what writers are doing which needs to be examined and publicly discussed. Why is it Nayantara Sahgal felt no guilt receiving the Sahitya Akademi award in the aftermath of the Sikh riots (in 1984) in which over 2,500 innocent people were killed? Where was her conscience then? Ashok Vajpeyi, who returned the award along with Sahgal, was the right hand of Congress leader Arjun Singh. It is time we distinguished between political litterateurs and pure %litterateurs.

In a recent interview to TOI, Taslima Nasreen said most secular people in India are pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree with her view. She is right in saying that 'secular' people here protest the acts of Hindu fundamentalists and defend the heinous acts of Muslim fundamentalists. I agree with her that politicians appease Muslims for votes in India and Muslims get so much favour that it angers Hindus. Taslima is the real secular writer. Indian literary secularists must learn from her.

Literary secularists need to learn from Taslima: Bhyrappa - The Times of India

 

[vsdoc]

@Joe Shearer hair split quoting is such a bore. That said ....

That is the point, Doc. However much your actions and those of your friends deny it.

You are my friend too Joe.

Again, forgive my repeating this, but given their druthers, that is precisely what your friends want. An end to the rule of law, the beginning of the rule of brute force majority.

For there to be a brute majority, the brute needs to join up with the majority.

EVERY SINGLE ACTION that has been criticised points to the institution of the rule of brute force majority.

Sure.

But most of us question why its being questioned only now.

And there has been a severe drought of credible answers.

Its like India has suddenly changed overnight.

BS.

India is still the same. The tide has turned. With a lot of moaning and hand wringing involved of the recently disfavored.

No.

It does not.

Good and evil are not equal and opposite charges. You used the term moral compass. Cling to it.

The moral compass will be offended (or not) regardless of which "side" is on top.

I see that more commonly than not. Both here and elsewhere.

Where the offense is contextual and circumstantial, is the abode of the fringe on either side.

Bullshit.

It applies, this 'rule' of yours, to both fringe and to majority. Not to include the majority in this is dishonest. Sorry, but it is.

My point was, that offense could have various shades of grey.

We (the large majority and a certain fringe alike) might all be offended.

Some may be offended enough to cringe in disgust.

Some enough to write pages with a poison pen on the same.

Some enough to blacken the offender's face.

Some enough to whack.

Some enough to kill.

Some may not be offended at all.

And their reaction to those that are offended might equally be in shades of grey running the entire spectrum similar to those that are - as a reaction to.

This is the churn of the whole and the calibration of the new median.

Where is the line going to be drawn is going to be decided by the majority in the middle, trending to both sides of the mean.

Not by the fringe outliers on either extreme.

Specious and superficial. Just as applicable to the other side.

Of course it is.

Both fringes take upon themselves the notion that they speak for the whole.

The whole eventually decides how it speaks.

The fringe is actually a continuum of a bell curve, and not a separate entity in of itself. Calling it the fringe itself is a form of intolerance of and by the supposed tolerant.

Society is a living thing. With 1.3 billion individual unique perspectives. And those perspectives are impacted by the living environment. And those of others.

We emphatically don't need to know who the real fringe is. It is not about a fringe. Or a minority. Even an individual, one individual, deserves the right to be heard, the right to civil liberties. It is this that your filthy friends attack.

An individual having the right to be heard is not the same as the larger whole needing to take cognizance of what he has to say. Either in acknowledgment or in agreement.

Its a lot of individuals saying a lot of things which finally gets distilled to a popular narrative.

Could that narrative be majoritarian? Sure.

But majoritarian how? On what basis? Religion? Caste? Region? Language? Economics? All of these would overlap, and you would have consonance and disagreement between people on different issues depending on where they fit into that particular parameter or metric.

The society evolves as a whole dynamically as a function of all of the above. And it would be way too simplistic to distill all of it into Hindu and Muslim. Because what we are seeing currently is largely the churn between the Non-Muslim.

Hindu and Non-Hindu.

The Muslims are just watching. And waiting.

Cheers, Doc

 

[dray]

Where does one draw a line? the expanse of freedom would keep restricting till we are in an Orwellian society where soon it won't be speech or action but even thought and intent which would invite censure.

The institutionalized barriers are slippery slope my friend, let the society correct itself.

I pity the faith which is so weak that it would be harmed by just words.

A couple of writers and intellectuals said it is okay to urinate on Hindu idols, one of them actually urinated on Hindu idols to prove his point...now they were murdered and it should be heavily condemned, and the culprits must be punished suitably as per the law of the land, there is no doubt about it.

But what about the other side, those writers may or may not have any respect for the Hindu religion and its gods, but there are millions who see the gods from a position of respect and worship them, I have seen people crying when the Durga idol is taken for Visharjan...as if their mother is leaving. What about their sentiments? Should freedom of speech (and action) be that absolute that it would be free to hurt others sentiments?

To put it bluntly and more realistically, is it okay for me to piss on anyone if I don't feel any sense of respect for that person? If you say idols are objects, then is it okay to piss on objects like photos of someones father or mother, or Mahatma Gandhi, or the national flag? How many will take my side even from the liberal western world if I say its is okay to piss on the Bible, or the on the statues of Jesus or Mother Mary, or draw Mother Mary in nude, or abuse Quran and Prophet Mohammad for that matter? If I am murdered in public beating for doing this, then it would be certainly condemnable, people shouldn't take law in their hands, but wouldn't my action will be condemnable also?

As far as Doniger is concerned, she is not right, and has made quite unjustified extrapolations in many areas, but that does not take away her right to free speech and to the liberty to write her view of things.

That was handled in a most civilized and law full manner possible, the aggrieved party lodged a court case against the book, which is a right guaranteed by the law of the land. The publisher could contest the case and let the court decide, but they choose to withdraw the book instead. This is a model that should be followed for all cases of dissent. And I don't agree with the stand of certain sections of the elite society who are/were not even ready to grant the aggrieved party their liberty and right to go to court, the very right that stand against the street justice.

Bujlam apnar ban time over hoice. Already 3-4 times opened this same thread. You are late in the party.

Nope.

Welcome back btw.

If our Bangladeshi friends are thinking that I was banned for a week because of my trolling in Bangladeshi section, then I would like to state that my right to troll the Bangladeshis as a Bengali of of Bangal variety is protected as per the constitution of PDF. However, I have decided not to troll Bangladeshis anymore unless the discussion doesn't concern me or my country.

This is for public notification to all Bangladeshis like @BDforever @Doyalbaba @chaanmia @UKBengali etc. also.

If anyone of you are curious about why I was banned, then you can look into my posts in this thread from page 9 onwards... How Bias in Text books fuels division in Pakistani society

However, let's not continue this discussion here, we are having some serious discussion in this thread.

 

[BDforever]

If our Bangladeshi friends are thinking that I was banned for a week because of my trolling in Bangladeshi section, then I would like to state that my right to troll the Bangladeshis as a Bengali of of Bangal variety is protected as per the constitution of PDF. However, I have decided not to troll Bangladeshis anymore unless the discussion doesn't concern me or my country.

This is for public notification to all Bangladeshis like @BDforever @Doyalbaba @chaanmia @UKBengali etc. also.

brother thak gaya