Banned in Bangalore

[oFFbEAT]

Democratic system doesn't ''require'' me to believe anything. I have every right to express my opinion that a certain law is wrong. BTW in this case it is not even the court's judgement I am against, but the fact that such laws exist

So, it boils down to the fact that you are not against the court's judgement/order but the LAW that you think curbs 'freedom of expression'.....then you shouldn't have said, ."If the court ordered the books to be withdrawn, that is also a coercive act"...'cause the courts act according to the LAW, so the court's act is not coercive, the LAW is coercive.

Anyway, regarding the LAW being coercive, you say that there shouldn't be any LAW by which a writer could be dragged to Court....right? and you also said that if someone insults you and if you're in a bad mood you would insult him back...

If I'm in a bad mood, I might insult you back

Now tell me, what should happen if a writer is spreading false propaganda intentionally to incite people to take up violence in the name of religion/ideology etc........
what if you wish to defame a person/organisation/religion out of personal grudge and write something false and derogatory and publish it.....
The affected/aggrieved person/organization/group, 'if in a bad mood' should do the same because there is no LAW to drag the perpetrator to court i.e they'll spread counter propaganda, incite counter violence, write counter defamatory things.......and anyone can guess what the situation would be like!!

Isn't it much better to have a LAW so that the perpetrator could be taken to court and the court decides whether the writer wrote anything false, defamatory, blasphemous or inciting......

 

[GorkhaPride]

We Hindus don't want some uneducated American bitch to write about our religion, if she has balls then write a book about Islam.

 

[janon]

Now tell me, what should happen if a writer is spreading false propaganda intentionally to incite people to take up violence in the name of religion/ideology etc........
what if you wish to defame a person/organisation/religion out of personal grudge and write something false and derogatory and publish it.....
The affected/aggrieved person/organization/group, 'if in a bad mood' should do the same because there is no LAW to drag the perpetrator to court i.e they'll spread counter propaganda, incite counter violence, write counter defamatory things.......and anyone can guess what the situation would be like!!

Isn't it much better to have a LAW so that the perpetrator could be taken to court and the court decides whether the writer wrote anything false, defamatory, blasphemous or inciting......

Clearly, you haven't read the book. I suggest you read it, before posting such nonsense.

We Hindus don't want some uneducated American bitch to write about our religion, if she has balls then write a book about Islam.

She is far from being uneducated. In fact, she is a professor in one of the finest universities in the world, and a very reputed academic.
None of that is relevant anyway. Try to attack the work, if you disagree with it, rather than the person. This is classic ad hominem.

 

[oFFbEAT]

Clearly, you haven't read the book. I suggest you read it, before posting such nonsense.....

LOL........I wasn't talking about that specific book, I just gave few examples to show how the situation would be in the absence of the law that you think should not exist....

 

[janon]

LOL........I wasn't talking about that specific book, I just gave few examples to show how the situation could be in the absence of the law that you think should not exist....

Then it is irrelevant to the issue that the thread is about. I was not defending any incitement to violence. I was defending freedom of speech and expression. My earlier point about you having the right to call me a fool when I am not, is about just that - your right to voice your opinions. Not your right to punch me or encourage others to punch me, in which case I will call the police and take you to court.

BTW, this book is not even about the author's opinion. It is a scholarly analysis of hindu history, or to be more precise, various hindu histories from all over the subcontinent. It is a philological work, not political or persuasive - ie, not one that tries to push a certain viewpoint. No, there should not be laws banning such books.

Wendy Doniger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hindus: An Alternative History: Wendy Doniger: 9781594202056: Amazon.com: Books

It is also available on *********, a simple google search will get you there. I suggest people at least skim through the book, before spouting ad hominems at the author like somebody above has done. (I don't mean you @oFFbEAT .)

 

[shree835]

Not an issue may be secular countries with freedom of speech are alike in banning.

India is a secular countries with freedom of speech...It does not mean that people will take unnecessary advantage of this....

 

[takeiteasy]

Religious India(Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc etc) cannot tolerate books or comments or caricatures with resp. religion as the core subject. people are emotional. radical religious military (RSS, J-e-I) will come for you. come after atleast 200 years from now to see if 1% tolerance level has achieved.

 

[phylumchordata]

so the article degenerates to Modi's hardliner image ... I can see how and why UPA has a hand in this article.

 

[Thirdfront]

(An article by Wendy Doniger, who's book was recently banned in India.)
was a violation of India’s blasphemy law, which makes it a crime to offend the sensibilities of a religious person.

So much for her knowledge. India doesn't have a blasphemy law. This law applies against deliberately hurting the sentiments of virtually all the group including religious, political, linguistic etc.... she needs to get schooled...

 

[Sriram]

can anyone post any links to protests against the book...

cause i came to know about the book only after it was withdrawn..

I didnt see any protests, roadblocks etx

 

[Dillinger]

@janon You are absolutely right, ideally every woman and man in society would have understood that the "divine" mystery and purpose is actually self-actualization, self-actualization in its truest sense. That the wisdom of a life lived in the contexts that prevail outweighs often (NOT always) that which has been compiled in texts and tomes. If there be gods then they are mighty shy and care two twits about what's going on lest humanity is willing to volunteer for another deluge or bhishand mahayudh for their jollies.

All well and good. At such a point man would understand that god is simply a crutch. A coping mechanism which allows us to build a construct which is as "eternal" as we are fleeting. A construct through which we may overcome the over-bearing despair and angst that would plague us, for man alone can truly comprehend the bleakness that may and most probably does follow the inevitable result of our fleeting nature. That inevitable result being death, man can prophesy his demise with the most certainty among the things which live, for man has striven as in other things to comprehend death and attempts constantly to intellectually and emotionally reconcile with it. Such a greater awareness of one's impending doom if left un-softened by the belief (however strong, patchy or farcial) that one's "source" is eternal and therefore one does not truly cease to exist would lead to such an overwhelming sense of fatalism that life itself would become a burden, akin to a condemned man's walk to the gallows.

Ergo, faith and belief are like the proverbial life-support system for the many and legions more. Is it any surprise that there are those who are intimidated by the very notion that someone might decide to punch a leak in the oxygen tank?

In summation, yes we should have been mature enough to let the book hit the markets and then let the vidwaans and gyaanis dismantle it bit by bit with their intellect. That is the mettle of true wisdom which survives through the ages. BUT, given our history with regard to such affairs let us be happy that the man who took offence also had the wisdom to understand that his right to be offended and to act upon said feeling extended only up to the limits set by the law of the land and that he could not form up a lynch mob to express his displeasure with more vigor. That alone is a rare feet, notice the lack of embassies being set aflame and authors being greeted with bounties on their heads.

 

[Durrak]

India is a secular countries with freedom of speech...It does not mean that people will take unnecessary advantage of this....

He was taking unnecessary advantage because he was talking about you people ..

 

[Developereo]

I have read the book. From cover to cover(literally) -

Just to confirm -- since you mentioned "literally" -- did you read the pages in between also, or just the two covers?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I have read the book. From cover to cover( - it screams - "Hinduism is soft ****"

Just to confirm -- since you mentioned "literally" -- did you read the pages in between also, or just the two covers?

Yes read it - including the cover pages
But I did not pay for it

 

[GorkhaPride]

Clearly, you haven't read the book. I suggest you read it, before posting such nonsense.


She is far from being uneducated. In fact, she is a professor in one of the finest universities in the world, and a very reputed academic.
None of that is relevant anyway. Try to attack the work, if you disagree with it, rather than the person. This is classic ad hominem.

Stop trying to act "holier than thou", the book is making a mockery of our religion.