An Artist in Exile Tests India’s Democratic Ideals

[Imran Khan]

agree respect all religuns even you not follow but respect.personaly i insaire lord buddha from long time i am a muslim but i like think of buddha.

 

[DarkStar]

After going through this thread, I cannot but marvel at the literary skullduggery of some of our Bhaaratiya posters.

They are upset and incensed, and have taken offense to an artists depiction of their Gods. These sorts of people have attacked his house, vandalised his home and burnt art galleries that house his painting. And on other online forums these same sorts of people have called for the said artist's punishment, even death.

While at the same time, arguing that Bharat has a 'secular' duty to protect writers like Tasleema, who are deemed as offensive by a religious minority.

If this is not Hypocrisy, then I do not know what Hypocrisy is. If these are not Hypocrites, then there is no Hypocrite on earth.

The Republic of India is in essence a 'Hindu State', masquerading as a 'secular' republic. You're just upset that we're pulling this facade off your faces.

 

[Flintlock]

After going through this thread, I cannot but marvel at the literary skullduggery of some of our Bhaaratiya posters.

They are upset and incensed, and have taken offense to an artists depiction of their Gods, and on other forums these same sorts of people have called for the said artists punishment, even death.

Who are "They"? Care to give us some names? Why are you bringing "other forums" into this?
If you want to point of specific cases of "literary skulduggery", please do so.

While at the same time, arguing that Bharat has a 'secular' duty to protect writers like Tasleema, who are deemed as offensive in a neighbouring country.

Really, deep hatred that you have for India and Indians is almost palpable, and I can see how hard it is for you to hide your contempt for the heathens.

Your undying love for the vitriol poured forth from Munshi's keyboard does nothing to change that impression.

the REpublic of India is in essence a Hindu state, masquerading as a 'secular' republic.

You are simply a fundamentalist muslim, masquerading as a moderate.

 

[Flintlock]

Most of the States based on Islam are failing to live up to the ideal in many ways but since it is an ideal conception no one expects perfection. As for corruption Islam is very severe on the issue but that severity has not been institutionalized. Our institutions remain weak and subject to malign influences but that only means that we have to strive harder and finds ways where we can live morally according to the teachings of the Holy Quran and the prophet. As Muslims we must try to uphold Islamic moral ideals but also practice tolerance as well. But Islam lays down certain limits to that tolerance and this cannot be crossed.
.

You are wrong again. The states based on Islam are actually performing as well as their ideology will allow them to.
Your medeival faith-based institutions cannot compete with the ones founded on rationalist thinking and post-enlightenment philosophy in the west.
Religious states have no place in the 21st century. It is self-evident.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For the umpteenth time, do not resort to personal attacks.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Thank god for what we are and this artificial , secular elitist version of Hinduism is much better then other system around us ..

Finally the admission I have been looking for or as darkstar puts it -

"The Republic of India is in essence a 'Hindu State', masquerading as a 'secular' republic. You're just upset that we're pulling this facade off your faces."

This is exactly my point. The Indians have failed to address this dichotomy and ideological contradiction in their world view.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are wrong again. The states based on Islam are actually performing as well as their ideology will allow them to.
Your medeival faith-based institutions cannot compete with the ones founded on rationalist thinking and post-enlightenment philosophy in the west.
Religious states have no place in the 21st century. It is self-evident.

Absolute rubbish.

The states based on 'Islam' are performing as well as the ideology of the ruling class allows them to perform. Just because a particular ruling class claims what they are enforcing is 'Islam' does not make it so.

Which ruling class's ideology are we to take as representative of an Islamic system?

Is it the Saudi system? Is it the Iranian system? The Malaysian system? The Taliban system? The UAE/Bahrain/Qatar/Kuwait system? Or is it the 'Islam of enlightened moderation' that Musharraf tried to implement, and that the PPP/ANP/MQM (the current ruling parties in Pakistan) essentially believe in?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Finally the admission I have been looking for or as darkstar puts it -

"The Republic of India is in essence a 'Hindu State', masquerading as a 'secular' republic. You're just upset that we're pulling this facade off your faces."

This is exactly my point. The Indians have failed to address this dichotomy and ideological contradiction in their world view.

The contradictions do not just end there - 'use brute force in Kashmir', 'forcibly remove everyone who disagrees to Pakistan', 'settle the land with immigrants from outside Kashmir to make them a minority' - all of these draconian and intolerant ideas, and advocates for them, abound in the 'tolerant and largest democracy of the world'.

It is all justified of course, under the ambit of some irrational nationalism and Pakistan hatred (how ironic, from the drum beaters of 'rationalist thinking, post-enlightenment philosophy') driving the occupation and annexation of a people and their land, against all legal and international obligations (IoA conditional to a plebiscite and the UNSC resolutions requiring a referendum).

 

[BanglaBhoot]

You are wrong again. The states based on Islam are actually performing as well as their ideology will allow them to.
Your medeival faith-based institutions cannot compete with the ones founded on rationalist thinking and post-enlightenment philosophy in the west.
Religious states have no place in the 21st century. It is self-evident.

I do not believe that there needs to be a disparity between Islam and rationalist thinking and post-enlightenment philosophy of the West. In some areas there certainly will be differences on some moral questions. But the question of science or on how to organize society and administer government Islam can take these ideas without contradiction with our own religious beliefs. Islam does not prohibit the separation of powers or the rule of law so Islamic societies can adopt them without contradiction. Why they fail to do so is another question. Remember that most of the Islamic countries are very young and the West has had several centuries to develop these concepts and ideas. At one time Islam was in the ascendancy but the West took many ideas from it and surpassed it. Similarly by learning some new techniques from the West Islam can regain its past glories. It does not have to sacrifice its moral standing or religious foundations to achieve this.

However, this is going off the track. Please return to my last comment on Indian dichotomies and ideological contradictions.

 

[Flintlock]

Finally the admission I have been looking for or as darkstar puts it -

"The Republic of India is in essence a 'Hindu State', masquerading as a 'secular' republic. You're just upset that we're pulling this facade off your faces."

This is exactly my point. The Indians have failed to address this dichotomy and ideological contradiction in their world view.

Bullshit. This is the Indian state, not some 14 year old kid trying to be Batman.

If at all Indians decide to become a hindu state in the future on the lines of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, rest assured there will be no attempts to masquerade it.

The clash between religion and secular thinking is played out in every country, including India, and to interpret this as some sort of "facade" and "pretense" is rather petty and dishonest.

I have said before, that people with your shallow thinking have no influence in this world, and rightly so.

 

[Goodperson]

Secularism or no-secularism if you paint God in nude be prepared to see your own God in nude. If you can to something be prepared to see the same from others too period.

Hussein is welcome to comeback GOI and Courts are with him he is hiding behind self conscience.

Regarding Tasleema GOI has given asylum on humanitarian grounds do a favour of requesting her back GOI will be too Obliged to get rid of her.

Tasleema has written against Hindu's too, But wonder why only Muslims feel offended.

 

[Flintlock]

I do not believe that there needs to be a disparity between Islam and rationalist thinking and post-enlightenment philosophy of the West.

There already are glaring disparities, and not just in terms of moral values or dress-codes, but on deeper philosophical levels, which ultimately decide the shape and colour of the state.

In some areas there certainly will be differences on some moral questions. But the question of science or on how to organize society and administer government Islam can take these ideas without contradiction with our own religious beliefs. Islam does not prohibit the separation of powers or the rule of law so Islamic societies can adopt them without contradiction. Why they fail to do so is another question. Remember that most of the Islamic countries are very young and the West has had several centuries to develop these concepts and ideas. At one time Islam was in the ascendancy but the West took many ideas from it and surpassed it. Similarly by learning some new techniques from the West Islam can regain its past glories. It does not have to sacrifice its moral standing or religious foundations to achieve this.

That does not make any sense. You are saying that "Islam does not prohibit the separation of powers". The moment you consult Islam to decide what shape your state will take, the separation between Mosque and state disappears.

The only way to achieve true separation between religion and state is to stop consulting religious authorities on matters of state policy.

Again, your language betrays the fact that this thinking is completely defunct. You say that at one time "Islam was in ascendancy". Your desire is for "Islam" to be foremost, and not society itself. If the answers for the betterment if society lay outside the rules Islam, would you be willing to accept them? More importantly, would you recognize that fact?

 

[Vinod2070]

After going through this thread, I cannot but marvel at the literary skullduggery of some of our Bhaaratiya posters.

They are upset and incensed, and have taken offense to an artists depiction of their Gods. These sorts of people have attacked his house, vandalised his home and burnt art galleries that house his painting. And on other online forums these same sorts of people have called for the said artist's punishment, even death.

While at the same time, arguing that Bharat has a 'secular' duty to protect writers like Tasleema, who are deemed as offensive by a religious minority.

I see as nothing but a manifestation of the person's identity crisis.

This is what you and others like you need to assure yourself every other day to feed your insecurities and deep rooted hatreds.

There are the followers of one religion that are synonymous with bigotry and intolerance in the world and you know who they are. Its a deserved recognition that has been earned through centuries of intolerance both within and without the religion. There is enough happening around the world right now to confirm that if ever a confirmation was needed.

The lessons of tolerance and artistic freedom from you and your ilk like Munshi are astonishing to say the least. Given the hatred that spews forth from every post. That alone says a lot about the hypocrisy that is built into the anatomy of some.

If this is not Hypocrisy, then I do not know what Hypocrisy is. If these are not Hypocrites, then there is no Hypocrite on earth.

I will tell you what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is when people who are some of the biggest bigots and certified as the most intolerant on earth, who for some reason can't tolerate even a non-offensive image of their religious figures talk of artistic freedom and justify the offensive work of an artist just because the artist has offended people of another religion.

What was the reaction of such people to some other examples of recent artistic freedoms, nothing to be proud of, I guess.

I know you can't understand any of this. I have seen people like you just don't understand the concept of doing unto others as you would like to be done unto. Just not in the grains of such people.

The Republic of India is in essence a 'Hindu State', masquerading as a 'secular' republic. You're just upset that we're pulling this facade off your faces.

Why don't you ever bother looking under the facade of your own country and other Islamic countries. I am sure it won't be a pretty image that you look at.

Why so much fascination with whether India is secular or Hindu or something in between? Its for us to decide and practice. Why should that justify the TNT every other day for you?

 

[Goodperson]

India is secular or not is not a Pakistani or Bangladeshi problem, One thing is for sure they themselves are not Secular and everyone is happy about it.

Should take lessons from these two and convert into Idealistic society ? Nope that is question for India not for others.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

There already are glaring disparities, and not just in terms of moral values or dress-codes, but on deeper philosophical levels, which ultimately decide the shape and colour of the state.

Would you care to list some Islamic philosophical sources from which you derived this information?

That does not make any sense. You are saying that "Islam does not prohibit the separation of powers". The moment you consult Islam to decide what shape your state will take, the separation between Mosque and state disappears.

The only way to achieve true separation between religion and state is to stop consulting religious authorities on matters of state policy.

Clearly you have no understanding of western constitutional matters. The Separation is between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Islam has no problem with this division of powers or checks and balances.

Again, your language betrays the fact that this thinking is completely defunct. You say that at one time "Islam was in ascendancy". Your desire is for "Islam" to be foremost, and not society itself. If the answers for the betterment if society lay outside the rules Islam, would you be willing to accept them? More importantly, would you recognize that fact?

I have already stated Islam can accommodate new ideas and concepts that do not overtly contradict Islamic principles. I do not see any contradiction between the ascendancy of Islam and that of society.