Logwritten
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2009 7:02 AM IST

I was 15 when Bajrang Dal goons tried to smear saffron paint over M.F. Husain’s art. Free speech, censorship, tolerance and secularism were big words I didn’t fully understand then, but even I knew the Bajrang Dal was wrong and Husain had rights. By the time the Danish cartoons were banned, I was a vocal defender of free speech, but I found myself walking on eggshells in an attempt to be culturally sensitive. My reactions to the two are not separated only by age: I could openly support Husain against the Bajrang Dal, but when it came to the Danish cartoons, my reaction was muted by my own cultural identity and the need to tolerate; after all, I was Hindu.

The victim: The numerous attacks on artist M.F. Husain by Hindu fundamentalists raise questions similar to those debated in this series. Sebastian D’Souza / AFP

The victim: The numerous attacks on artist M.F. Husain by Hindu fundamentalists raise questions similar to those debated in this series. Sebastian D’Souza / AFP

So, the question arises, does the Bajrang Dal have a right to be offended? Does Husain have the right to free speech? Do I have a right to comment on them irrespective of my cultural identity? Questions such as these are taken up in a collection of six books published by Seagull Books in collaboration with the Index on Censorship. Each book is a long-form essay discussing offence from the perspective of the offender, the “victim”, and the religious context of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians.

Casper Melville in Taking Offence gives an overall perspective of the growing “culture of complaint and oversensitivity”, identifying offence and silence across religions and regions in the post-9/11 world. In particular, he charts out a five-point plan for the media on how to handle offensive material using good judgement without compromising on freedom.

The most entertaining book in the series, Giving Offence is by writer and cartoonist Martin Rowson, written from the perspective of the offending party. Interspersed with cartoons, the book discusses the role of those in the business of challenging and offending powerful interest groups, and concludes that historically, the powerful control the minds of thinking individuals and the role of those in the business of challenging and offending powerful interest groups.

In Offence—The Christian Case, Irena Maryniak chronicles the sacred and the blasphemous in the post-Soviet world and the role of the Church in perpetuating silence. Brian Klug discusses how free speech is off-limits when it comes to Israel and how censorship is used to bolster a nation state riding on Judaism in Offence—The Jewish Case.

Tags - Find More Articles On:
READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
Prarabdha Said:


The profitability of business of violence depends to a great extent on the political treatment of dissent. The appetite for non-reading makes it all the more attractive to be offended. The shrinking socio-cultural space and the waning debate on..., well, debating are adding to the culture of imitating intolerance. An interesting review.

Posted On 7/11/2009 10:51:28 AM
Re: Rangaswamy Said:


Tolerance/dissent etc are typically applicable to a matured culture-the less matured and more barbaric the society is ,the more intolerence is settled through violent means.Social history is repletete with incidents on this issue. Mankind is continously taught by nature to dissent logically and whenever this is not adhered to the society destoys itself by violence;sanity soon returns to reaffirm that logical dissent is the only means social survival Adi Sankara and Ramanuja are the typical examples of teachers who challenged serious religious differences through dissent and logical persuation (their techings always started with "let us assume that the poorva pakshsa(the opponent view) as right" and continued with logic to prove that the poorva paksha is indeed wrong.

Posted On 7/12/2009 1:17:12 PM
anil Said:


conclusion of this is that all citizens should be proud to an indian first and then be hindu or muslim,(if i talk about india only) why all education to hindu only ?

Posted On 7/11/2009 4:20:12 PM
Dev Said:


For anyone to think that Husain will paint or draw anything to insult any religion is absurd. I have known Husain since 1960. I know him well. He is an artist and loves Humanity. He expresses his feelings about subjects and issues through him paintings and sometimes the world at large does not see it his way. However, I can assure all the readers of this post that Husain will never do anything to insult any religion. He believes and respects all religion. So whynot enjoy his paintings and celebrate life. I know Husain beleives that.

Posted On 7/12/2009 4:57:50 PM
Re: Subbarao Said:


While M.F. Hussain may be a talented and well known artist, his artistic freedom and license which caused offense to atleast some Hindus seems to leave religious symbols of Christianity and Muslim faith alone. If you wish to express your artistic freedom why not try to enthuse and offend all. Perhaps the reality that all "back lash" is not the same and some of it is rather drastic will not spare the artist to continue their free exercise.

Posted On 7/14/2009 9:58:34 PM
Gita Said:


All I have to say is that it is better to have your offending paintings smeared by saffron goons than meet the fate of Danish author Theo Von Gogh for treading on the sensibilities of a community. This reason the vastly different fate M. F. Hussain and the Danish author met with should make the supposedly Hindu author take a second look at the way she views her co-religionists.

Posted On 7/13/2009 11:41:57 PM
Re: Prarabdha Said:


'...we tend to reduce everyone else to the limits of our own mental universe and begin privileging our own ethics, morality, sense of duty and even our sense of utility. All religious conflicts arose from this propensity to judge others. If we indeed must judge at all, then it must be `according to his own ideal, and not by that of anyone else'. It is important, therefore, to learn to look at the duty of others through their own eyes and never judge the customs and observances of others through the prism of our own standards.' (Swami Vivekanand as quoted by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. in Maqbool Fida Husain Vs. Raj Kumar Pandey)

Posted On 7/17/2009 2:45:48 PM
VIJAY Said:


First you must respect others values, beliefs, relegion and then talk of free speeches, arts and views. M.F.Hussein have never talk of his religion but attack other's sentiments. This is not Democracy and right of free expression or speech.

Posted On 7/15/2009 9:07:23 AM
lohit Said:


Freedom is something which should be enjoyed by a lot of people and certainly a pleasant one for the receivers, Mr MF if he wants to be free to paint let him hang it in his house, not in public which hurts the majority. Well when it comes to group or sects, nowhere in world the mouth speaks but its the muscles, and it is called struggle to protect the group or sect interest which is more important than individual. And the article speaks of your confused mind.

Posted On 7/21/2009 9:01:14 PM