I have been grappling with this question myself and was quite hesitant to post anything related to this on our blog simple because any religious statement is always laden (no pun intended) with fervor.
"One's pain is someone else's entertainment" - rough translation of a dialogue from Hindi movie 'KALYUG'
"Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" - old saying.
So were the caricatures of Prophet Mohammed (may peace be upon him) someone's pain to entertain someone else or is it that the beholder's have not seen the beauty.
The reason I am in this doubt is because of another, though not as publicized, episode of our own M F Hussain. This indian painter has painted, nude paintings of Hindu gods and godesses and further more a nude representation of the India. Well a minority of Sanatan (=hindu) organizations have objected and made some attempts to make the public more aware of this. But that is being touted as Art and Beauty, while something else is insulting.
Someone help me understand the difference.
DISCLAIMER: This post is not intended to offend or criticize anybody's sentiments and neither to denounce any religion. Its only intention is to help understand the actions.
A
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
All people of India shall be guaranteed and secured social, economic and political justice; equality of status and opportunities before law; and fundamental freedoms - of talk, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action - subject to law and public morality -Objectives Resolution (Jawaharlal Nehru).
We have also been a secular country since 1976, when the 42nd amendment was introduced; according to which all citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs are held equal in the eyes of the law. The government is not supposed discriminate among its citizens on the basis of religion.
However, we have seen that secular rules are not applied to certain minority communities; the shah bano divorce case being a perfect example; where the prime minister overturned the supreme court decision to win favor within the minority community.
More recently, a UP minister (a representative of the state in a secular nation) had announced an award of 51 crores for anyone who beheads the danish cartoonist who illustrated prophet muhammad (p.b.u.h)in bad-taste.
The point i am trying to make is that fundamentalism and excessive religious-fervor based vandalism is inherently wrong; but what is worse is targetting a few communities while letting others go scot free.
Certain quarters of the world have always been biased in its perspective; they have always taken liberty with asian and middle eastern cultural identities.
What if the danish cartoonist had published something funny about the holocaust?
Would the western/european media portray that in good-light or bad-light; David Irving, an author (who supposedly is a racist and antisemite) was sentenced to three years in an austrian prison for (hold your breath...) denying a certain aspect of the holocaust.
I am not in favor of people like david irving or even the danish-cartoonist,for i do not agree with what they are doing; but in a free-society people have the right to voice their opinion, irrespective of what i think.
In conclusion, all i can say is that everyone deserves to be treated fairly, you cannot punish a neo-nazi sympathizer and then claim a religiously offensive cartoon as a freedom of expression.
Double-standards have no place in an equal society.
I guess I was leaning towards understanding the difference shown here by 1 religous group vs another, as the same muslims have a firm view the nude paintings by MF Hussain (including depicting a nude India) as non-derogatory.
A
A free spirit knows no pain, no misery.Free will/spirit-The true key to happy living.
Digressing?
nice.. very well written
Post a Comment