|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | INDIA CENTRAL | |||
|
October 9, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
How Readers reacted to Ashwin Mahesh's earlier columns
Date sent: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 15:45:08 +0530
Ashwin Mahesh's view in regard to the need for representatives of all faiths, denominations and regions to be representative of ALL of us Indians -- and not merely to serve the interest of the specific group s/he is elected by -- is very valid. The very fact that we find the need to address ourselves to this issue shows that this spirit is absent today. I am afraid, we built this serious shortcoming into the system the moment we adopted the federal structure and proportional representation as cornerstones of our Constitution. The question is, would it have been possible to have it any other way? I'm afraid not. One of the curious facts of life is that each public figure gets typed into a predictable mould and is expected to demonstrate his/her commitment to it repeatedly -- particularly when he is being nationally televised from out of the Lok Sabha. I am led to believe that s/he is a quite sensible person really, but forced to put on the facade whenever s/he sits in the House. I further understand that the law-makers of the country really have decent debates and friendly arguments when they are in the central hall of Parliament -- where the camera is not permitted! Is the national broadcast of parliamentary proceedings the real culprit? I wonder. N Srinivas
Date sent: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 16:20:05 -0400
Hi Ashwin, First of all, I commend you for writing a well-balanced non-Arundhati-Roysque, flag-shunning article. Unfortunately, it is left to people outside the Indian polity to raise such questions. The issues you have raised require immediate attention from us all. However, your observations raise one important question, and that is one of democracy and representation. Regardless of what the Constitution says (and I'm being country-non-specific here), if you have a 51 per cent of the popular vote, you are deemed to be the one whom the majority has selected for governance. Keep in mind that 49 per cent of the people didn't want you. They wanted either another individual or a myriad of others. Obviously, it is natural for them to feel unrepresented in the light of the fact that their representative lost. How is it then incumbent upon you to be their leader? In fact, they, by exercising their right of adult franchise, have, in fact, considered you unfit to represent them. How can you claim to be their leader and how can the Constitution be so naive as to expect you to be one? I know that you, as a leader, will derive your place and pension through the taxes that everyone pays. But is that the nature of relationship we want with our leaders? One of obligation than of true representation? Is this the democracy that a futuristic society should envision for itself? Western democracies have left this question at the door of the market forces. In such democracies, these questions are answered by the prosperity an individual enjoys in terms of capital wealth. Culturally speaking, we, as a people, have always considered the pursuit of knowledge as the most important aspect of our socio-professional lives. Hence, to leave such questions to the forces of time and forces of market would only be unfair to our own heritage. We have always considered the pursuit of knowledge as being greater than the pursuit of wealth, and in the most basic of forms, the single most formidable instrument in attaining happiness. On such a premise, questions as to how exactly democracy applies in India, cannot be expected to be resolved in the same ways as they have been (or partially have been) resolved in the West. The short-sightedness of our founding fathers is appalling on this account. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru considered the British model as the ideal one and it was applied without regard to our culture or our aspirations as a people, that is, not that of a newborn nation, but one that is several thousand years in the making. The existing social conflicts are a direct and an indirect result of this flawed democratic model that, unfortunately, exists even now. A centuries-old caste system cannot be demolished in a matter of decades. To justify the upheaval that such an exercise has caused as being fair in the name of social justice is myopic, to say the least. Dharma, that is the pursuit of that which is just, has been the guiding principle of our cultural life, and is so, to an extent, even now. Within the ambit of the pre-existing social system is where we need to seek change. People like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Kanshi Ram are modern day Kshatriyas, whether they like it or not, whether we like it or not. That is where the change has to be acceptable. To them as well as to the Kshatriya community. It is true that caste has been a basis for exploitation. But that is not the entire truth. It has been a vehicle for some of the most profound achievements that our society has made. Valmiki and Chandragupta Maurya both were Sudras and are yet revered. It is what has happened in the interim that needs to be examined and answered. We will not get answers by looking up the How To... of modern democracies. If you want Brahmins to stand up and accept non-Brahmins into priesthood, what you should really desire is a system wherein a non-Brahmin can turn into a Brahmin by a change of profession. That is how it used to be. It can be so once more. Caste (varna) is not about suppression alone. It is also about defining the Dharmic and Karmic limits of ones profession, and by consequence, one's life as a member of a society. The idea of self-governance is not alien to us. The Licchhavis were a republic but were conquered by Ajatshatru. The idea that democracy, more so western-style democracy, is the panacea for the world where all else has failed, is to be debunked. What you have aspired to in your column is a fair government. Do you not think it better to instead aspire to less government and more self-reliance? Dependence on authority decreases as an individual becomes aware of his/her duties towards society in conjunction with certain rights s/he comes to expect from it. That is the society that needs to be aspired to. Everything else will be a stop-gap solution and will not work in our country. Ashish Chandra
Date sent: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:51:16 -0400
This was really a beautifully and intelligently written article. I must congratulate Ashwin for writing this piece based only on sound reasoning and arguments and not losing his cool. I, for one, could not have written on the topic without losing my cool and would have surely taken pot shots at the "secularists". I would like to remind the proponents of the "right to free speech" of something they learnt in their political science classes and seem to have forgotten now: "Along with fundamental rights come fundamental duties." The fundamental duties are also part of our Constitution. Though the problem is that rights are enforceable and duties are not. Lalit
Date sent: 30 Jun 1998 22:34 EDT
This is in response to Ashwin Mahesh's column on Husain's painting. I would like to have the pleasure of dissecting our scientist's logic on Husain's actions. Firstly, if Husain had deliberately painted something insulting then, according to you, nobody including secularists, should defend Husain for his action is it. So were these people defending Husain against the government's action, a defamation case. No, they were defending an attack on an individual's life and property just because he expressed something on a piece of paper. Why didn't the boys of the Bajrang Dal sue Husain in the court for hurting religious sentiments and try and apply for a ban in the Indian courts to prevent display of such art in public? We already have heinous laws in our Constitution that prevents people from expressing their thoughts. Remember Azhar apologising in court for calling Biharis thieves in frustration when his favourite cap was stolen in Bihar? Secondly, when people, not only artists, strongly feel about a subject they have always expressed regardless of what the consequences will be. Think of Newton or Kepler holding themselves back, worrying about what the society would think. Think of Gandhi and Ambedkar holding back their thoughts, worrying about what the society would think? So, your slander that Husain is a man of minimal intelligence reflects more on you as a writer than on Husain's intelligence. What you are advocating is self-censorship that will dampen a nation's spirit to innovate and try new things. Granted that Husain's art may have hurt sentiments but that should not be a reason for blocking people from expressing their thoughts either through legal means. Thirdly, trying to define art as something defined by a majority really is childish. Well if 80 per cent of the population do not like it then it doesn't mean that it is not art. It is just that art is not popular. When Picasso started painting nobody hooked on to his bizarre interpretation of things. It took sometime before he had a massive following. So according to your logic the non-art became instantly art once lot of people bought it. What a leap in logic. If you don't know, art is art regardless of whether it is painted in a toilet seat or in a canvas and hung in a gallery. Art is called vandalism when it is done on somebody else's property and the owner doesn't approve of it. There are a lot of sundry things in your article need mention as well. Your example about protecting the graffiti sprayed on Husain's creation is laughable. Remember, such an action destroys somebody's creation. It will be classified as vandalism if the owner objects to it. I don't know about the collage of dismembered bodies you mentioned, but I personally prefer watching bikini Bharatnatyam. It will beat regular Bharatnatyam any day. Also, Bharatnatyam was danced by courtesans topless except for jewellery. The dancers were either mistresses of kings/landlords or were devdasis. Rukmini Arundale made it respectable in 1920s and 1930s. Know your history. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema hall, when there is no fire is not about freedom of speech, it is about attempting to cause loss of lives and property deliberately and will be considered as such. Don't tell me Husain is guilty because the boys from the Bajrang Dal will get agitated and cause destruction to life and property. The argument will not hold in a court of law unless you are in Pakistan or Iran. Let them stone their people for having a difference of opinion. Aren't we better people? Finally, what is your point? I am quoting your column's last line here: "If there is one reason to think Husain's painting just flat out stinks, it is that he has the temerity to call it art." So the whole point of that mindless drivel is that Husain stinks because he calls his creations art! Why don't you read your own statement again and again until you realise how dumb it sounds. Also you simple assert the lost paragraph: "Yes, his paintings are offensive " and list reasons why his paintings are NOT offensive but you never give reason for your assertion in your closing argument. So make up your mind before you type something with a grand introduction so that you really make a point. You could have simply said, "Husain sucks because I say so". You will join the exalted company of Beavis and Butthead right away. In my opinion there is a crucial issue here. And the Indian courts should decide on this issue, even if calls for an amendment in the Constitution. The point raised by both fanatics and moderate Hindus is simple: Being a Muslim, can Husain portray something offensive to Hindus? The following needs to be considered first before we come to this issue:
The core of all the above questions and action is simply this: As a nation which way do we want to take. The Western way or the Asian way, as followed by countries like Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. What does the West and the embodiment of it -- the US -- says about this issue? The right to express one's opinion is the highest of all values safeguarded by its Constitution. Prominent constitutional experts have time and again affirmed that a hurt feeling or a hurt sentiment should not be the reason for denying somebody the freedom to express his/her opinion. That's why you have so many hate-mongering groups in US, openly spreading their opinion. What does Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia do? They normally believe that peace and harmony in a society is more important than the right for free expression. They are proactive and ban things that may be offensive to a specific group of population. That's why people are always afraid of saying something that may land them in trouble. Where does India stand? India stands somewhere in between these two assertions and nothing is confirmed and therein lies the controversy. The Constitution protects the freedom of speech and expression but at the same time it also has many laws that restricts this freedom. This inevitably results in ad hocism and inconsistent rulings, making the society explode once in a while when a lack of fair-handedness is perceived. The Indian political establishment in the last fifty years has avoided this controversy by simply not raising it. But as society gets richer and people get more educated, there will come a point where these issues will need to be addressed whether the government likes it or not. I don't know any third way that is more acceptable and better than the SE Asian way or the Western way. I understand the stand taken by some SE Asian countries as it is the easiest way to get rid of controversies. But I personally side with the American view/the Western view that a hurt sentiment should not be the reason for denying somebody the freedom to express his/her opinion. For, this will bring out the issues in open and make the people to take a stand that is based on inputs from all sides instead of simply tow the official line. We all have to remember that the West went through a horrific period where the church killed lot of people and subdued them whenever it doubted that people were expressing opinion that were not in line with it's opinions. In India, Hindus and Muslims still tow the line, consciously and subconsciously, of their respective religious institutions and preachers, barring a small minority, of course. If any Hindus disagree with me just open the matrimonial column of a national newspaper and you will know what I mean. With exposure to various thoughts and systems around the world through media, people will question the social constraints and their religious dogma more openly and vehemently in a few years down the road. It will be a lot easier for people to choose their way of life if the laws of land tolerates free expression of opinion and thoughts, regardless of whether it hurts other's sentiment or not and tries to create an environment where a decent debate on issues can take place. The need of the hour is to make sure that people do not cause physical harm or property damage just because somebody expresses something offensive. Only such an environment can lead to questioning of beliefs and to checking whether they are valid. Europeans struggled to reach this point. We don't have to make the same mistakes and go through same sufferings they went through to deliver social justice to themselves. To paraphrase a cliche, people who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Nagaraj
Date sent: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 02:46:10 -0400
I haven't seen this painting of Saraswati in the nude. I would very much like to see at least a digital reproduction of it. If it's so scandalous that you cannot show it for fear of losing revenue, at least send me a link where I can see it. How am I to have any intelligent opinion of the work itself? Otherwise, it's just verbal acrobatics, and the basis of the conversation remains a mystery. I am given to understand that Husain depicted Saraswati nude. So? Perhaps Husain intends to say traditional deity clothing is not necessary, or perhaps even an obstacle, to understanding the essence of this goddess. Or perhaps he had no such lofty intention, but it is for the artist to communicate through his talent, or lack of it. The work can thus be judged -- applauded, criticised, or ignored as it may be. What we cannot encourage is the so-called right of everypujari, pundit or politician to demand retribution for the consequences of his insecurity -- his tendency to take offence at and attack what he finds distasteful. Your reaction to your world is your choice. Beyond physical threats to your person, you may take offence, or take joy, at whatever you will. I am not responsible for your emotional response when you read my words nor is any artist when you see her brush strokes. Again, you are responsible for your emotions. Any "religion" or "philosophy" which guides you otherwise is a power play, an attempt to dupe you out of your basic right and responsibility as a human creature -- your autonomous intelligence. I would encourage Ashwin to refrain from attempting conclusions like "Husain is lacking in average intelligence". It only makes painfully clear how that conclusion more likely applies to the writer, not the subject. Perspective is worth 50 points of IQ. Husain is also accused of "inexcusable audacity". Ashwin seems to think the comment is negative in content, but boldly challenging the conventional intelligence is the only noble path for an artist. The rest may more accurately call themselves draftsmen. Ashwin is free to prefer his artists to be high-class artisans, but I, and most who have a genuine appreciation of the power of art, do not. Furthermore, no artist takes any stock in opinion polls; only victims of fear and fashion do. I should be elated if my art is so provocative that 80 per cent of the public would deny me the right to call it art -- I've done a superb job of upsetting their traditional sensibilities and expanding the realm of art. Because whether they like it or not, all it takes for my piece to be "art" is for me to call it that. In my eyes, it is a tragedy that Husain has apologised for his work; he has been reduced from his high standing as a controversial artist to just another such victim. India is proving particularly adept at creating this type of person; apparently, one must either have total humility before tradition, or suffer humiliation by it. There seems to be no room for a genuinely creative artist, who appreciates tradition, but who also takes pride in his work and gives life to new directions in our culture. Ashwin gives voice to this claustrophobia admirably. But the entire Indian community, particularly the artists and those who believe in what they do, suffers dearly. It seems Indians are too emotionally insecure, too constricted by tradition, and too prepared to condemn what we may not personally appreciate, to really give life to this ideal of free expression, the basis of learning and knowledge. I imagine Saraswati would think it shameful. VC
Date sent: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 07:31:15 PDT
Ashwin, I have to hand you kudos for your excellent article! Keep up the good work. Keyoor
Date sent: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:51:58 +0530
Dear Ashwin, I've been thinking why I was not able to sympathise with Husain on this issue. You've hit the nail bang on the head. Rajesh John |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
|