[Reader-list] Ways of Life and Transgressions

Yousuf ysaeed7 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 2 11:03:15 IST 2008


Dear Rahul
Why are you so scared of the word "education", and why are you seeing it in such limited terms. If you look at my last mail, I agreed that your solution #3 is good and I'd be happy if it works. But I emphasized about dialogue as part of the education. Don't you think dialogue and communication between the two conflicting parties would be an integral part of even your solution? 

What would you have to say about a counselor/psychiatrist who tries to resolve conflicts say between two spouses. His/her main role is to (a) know each side's story, and then (b) inform each spouse about the other's problem which was actually missing between them due to long gaps of non-communication. Most conflicts in the family or society occur because of the distance we create between two parties - we fear each other, imagine all sorts of strange notions about each other and strengthen the hatred about each other. If only we talked, we could have realized that much of our fears were baseless. 

Hence I am simply talking about creating bridges between two parties through communication. Why can't we for instance have a meeting/workshop between Hussain and the religious fanatics where they tell each other's story and try to explain why each party needs to be sensitive to others' feelings. I know this will not entirely remove either party's deep prejudices, and may lead to further flaring up, but some moderation may also happen. But I would again emphasize that those thoughts and ideas of both sides which are required for the dialogue should at least be available for everyone to see and understand. For instance, we only get to see a lot of hate-propaganda from the religious fanatics against the artist, but never see any effort from Hussain or the art fraternity to explain what this art is all about, and why he makes what he makes. The artist thinks that he/she doesn't need to explain anything.

I am sorry, but I don't follow terms like reductionism, teleology, deontology, so maybe I am sounding a bit rigid to you.

Yousuf

--- On Tue, 9/2/08, Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Ways of Life and Transgressions
> To: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>, ysaeed7 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 2:01 AM
> Dear Yousuf,
> Your argument is  what I call reductionist (from
> dictionary.com=2.the practice of simplifying a complex idea,
> issue, condition, or the like, esp. to the point of
> minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.).
> When you talk about "millions of issues in our society
> which people used to take with orthodox attitude",you
> are basically creating a straw man.Many orthodox practices
> have to be given up;we have no difference on that.
> When two deontologies collide,we have to present a
> teleological argument in favor of one or the other.In other
> words,when two value frameworks reach conflicting position
> on an issue,we have two ways we can approach the
> conflict.The one who favors one value framework should
> present a comparison of the two frameworks in terms of
> social cost-benefit,or,The one who favors one value
> framework tries to educate the other one to their system
> just because its "better".Do you see the
> difference between the two?
> Now, in an engagement of two groups on perceived social
> cost-benefit,there will be conflicts.Its hard to imagine how
> two groups will have same perception of social
> cost-benefit.But at least we would be trying to resolve
> issues within a teleological framework which is a lot better
> than "my way is better than your way and you have to be
> educated to my way".
> 
> Regards
> Rahul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gate social cost-benefit,and not on the basis of what one
> group thinks is right.
> 
> --- On Mon, 9/1/08, Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Ways of Life and
> Transgressions
> > To: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta"
> <shuddha at sarai.net>, rahul_capri at yahoo.com
> > Cc: "Sarai list"
> <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > Date: Monday, September 1, 2008, 9:12 AM
> > Dear Rahul
> > I understand your logic, but I think your alternative
> no.3
> > is too idealized and utopian to achieve, although I
> would
> > love if it works. Also, it may apply only to some
> > situations, not all. For instance, if a group of
> people
> > thinks that women are inferior and should remain
> inside
> > homes, or that we should ruin the environment by
> cutting
> > trees, wasting water and fuel, would you allow them to
> > believe and act on this? You may call it my
> condescending
> > attitude, but why is it that we have managed to bring
> an
> > awareness and "reform" today about so many
> > millions of issues in our society which people used to
> take
> > with orthodox attitude. I am talking about gender
> equality,
> > environment, education, health issues (although it is
> still
> > not enough). Nobody is born with politically correct
> genes -
> > we all acquire things as we grow. So what's the
> big deal
> > for instance about having arts appreciation as part of
> the
> > school curriculum or TV programmes. Should we allow
> our
> >  mainstream media to remain condescending then? Why is
> > television changing the attitude of people - why is
> our
> > society becoming more consumerist and aggressive and
> > prejudiced? 
> > Look my condescending solution doesn't involve
> simply
> > education - I am talking about dialogue and awareness,
> and
> > not talking down somebody's throat which the TV
> does
> > today.
> > 
> > Yousuf
> > 
> > --- On Sun, 8/31/08, Rahul Asthana
> > <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Ways of Life and
> > Transgressions
> > > To: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta"
> > <shuddha at sarai.net>, ysaeed7 at yahoo.com
> > > Cc: "Sarai list"
> > <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 11:54 PM
> > > Yousuf, 
> > > 
> > > I think i failed in getting my point across.No
> amount
> > of
> > > "education" would make Hussein's
> art
> > > appreciated by some,and those who are offended by
> > > Hussein's art are no less
> "educated"
> > than you
> > > or me.
> > > Unless you get rid of your condescension about
> > educating
> > > people about what they should or shouldn't
> get
> > offended
> > > by,any discussion about solution to conflicts
> like
> > this is a
> > > non-starter.
> > > 
> > > I am going to make one last try though.
> > > 
> > > Say there are two groups A and B,with different
> value
> > > systems.A is offended by an act X and B is
> > not,apparently
> > > due to their different value systems. B
> encourages X
> > and
> > > this increases tensions in a society where A and
> B
> > live
> > > together.Lets see what are the possible
> solutions.
> > > 
> > > 1.Both A and B tell each other to go take a hike
> and
> > they
> > > would do according to how they feel fit. 
> > > 2.Both A and B are sure that their value systems
> are
> > > superior and they try to convert each other to
> their
> > own
> > > view points through dialog etc.
> > > 3.Both A and B recognize that there are
> irreconcilable
> > > differences in their world views.They also
> recognize
> > that
> > > they would respect the differences and try to
> honor
> > them to
> > > the extent possible while also trying to achieve
> their
> > own
> > > goals through whatever means possible.
> > > 
> > > If liberal fanatics like you will keep on
> engaging in
> > > #2,(which in my opinion is even worse than #1
> because
> > #1
> > > does not involve condescension) that you are
> doing
> > right
> > > now,you will always enable religious fanatics
> from the
> > other
> > > side who will try to convert you to their view
> > point.Why is
> > > their stand less valid than yours? 
> > > If you engage in #3 ,you will enable moderates
> from
> > the
> > > other side who will listen to you if you listen
> to
> > them.
> > > The big leap of understanding that you need to
> make is
> > that
> > > there can be two internally consistent value
> systems
> > which
> > > will lead to opposing positions on many
> issues,and
> > both
> > > these value systems are equally valid.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Rahul
> > > 
> > > --- On Sun, 8/31/08, Yousuf
> <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Ways of Life and
> > > Transgressions
> > > > To: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta"
> > > <shuddha at sarai.net>, rahul_capri at yahoo.com
> > > > Cc: "Sarai list"
> > > <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > > Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 9:40 AM
> > > > When I mention education, I primarily
> include
> > media in
> > > it.
> > > > But the media is careless and works only on
> the
> > > diktats of
> > > > industry and politicians. So the prime
> > responsibility
> > > (of
> > > > making sure that their art is appreciated)
> falls
> > on
> > > the arts
> > > > fraternity itself. At least until we find a
> > better
> > > solution.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- On Sat, 8/30/08, Rahul Asthana
> > > > <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > From: Rahul Asthana
> > <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Ways of Life
> and
> > > > Transgressions
> > > > > To: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta"
> > > > <shuddha at sarai.net>, ysaeed7 at yahoo.com
> > > > > Cc: "Sarai list"
> > > > <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > > > Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 9:58
> PM
> > > > > "They have not been educated to
> > appreciate
> > > the
> > > > nuances
> > > > > of the medium or the message."
> > > > > Yousuf, I am sorry but that's
> > > condescending.By the
> > > > same
> > > > > token a religious person can say that
> the
> > artist
> > > has
> > > > not
> > > > > been taught the nuances of religious
> > > sensibilities.My
> > > > point
> > > > > is that if two groups having different
> > values
> > > have to
> > > > > coexist in a society,they have to be
> > tolerant
> > > towards
> > > > each
> > > > > other.
> > > > > I do not advocate any limit to the
> freedom
> > of
> > > > > expression,but there should not be
> complete
> > > > callousness
> > > > > towards the feelings of groups.Painters
> like
> > > Hussein
> > > > and
> > > > > other heretics would always keep
> producing
> > works
> > > that
> > > > would
> > > > > offend,and perhaps thats necessary
> too;but
> > if
> > > some of
> > > > the
> > > > > people in the media,and I do not mean
> the
> > media
> > > which
> > > > > actually represents these groups, can
> > understand
> > > and
> > > > voice
> > > > > their feelings,then emotions would
> probably
> > not
> > > flare
> > > > up to
> > > > > that extent.
> > > > > That is the middle way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- On Sat, 8/30/08, Yousuf
> > > <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > From: Yousuf
> <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Ways of
> Life
> > and
> > > > > Transgressions
> > > > > > To: "Shuddhabrata
> Sengupta"
> > > > > <shuddha at sarai.net>,
> > rahul_capri at yahoo.com
> > > > > > Cc: "Sarai list"
> > > > > <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > > > > Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008,
> 9:31
> > PM
> > > > > > Dear Rahul
> > > > > > I had difficulty following your
> first
> > > sentence
> > > > (and a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > others), but yes, to put it in
> simple
> > > language,
> > > > people
> > > > > have
> > > > > > been offended by Hussain's
> > paintings,
> > > and
> > > > they are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > always at fault. They have not
> been
> > educated
> > > to
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > the nuances of the medium or the
> > message.
> > > And the
> > > > art
> > > > > > fraternity doesn't have the
> urge to
> > go
> > > to the
> > > > > people and
> > > > > > explain what they do and why they
> do.
> > The
> > > > politician
> > > > > of
> > > > > > course is too happy to cash in on
> the
> > > ignorance
> > > > of the
> > > > > > public. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Incidentally, countless
> > > provocative/blasphemous
> > > > art or
> > > > > > statements have been made in the
> past
> > but
> > > not all
> > > > of
> > > > > them
> > > > > > led to a public outcry. Almost all
> > known
> > > cases
> > > > where a
> > > > > piece
> > > > > > of art/literature has led to
> violence,
> > are
> > > those
> > > > where
> > > > > > somebody (or some political party)
> used
> > them
> > > to
> > > > spread
> > > > > the
> > > > > > flames. In most cases, the
> protesters
> > > haven't
> > > > seen
> > > > > or
> > > > > > read what they have been
> protesting
> > against.
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, should the artists make such
> > provocative
> > > > works
> > > > > only for
> > > > > > themselves or their closest
> friends,
> > and
> > > never
> > > > allow
> > > > > them to
> > > > > > go public. Or should they (and
> their
> > > > institutions)
> > > > > create an
> > > > > > atmosphere of awareness where the
> > public can
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > their art and not tear it apart? I
> > don't
> > > find
> > > > a
> > > > > third
> > > > > > alternative.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yousuf
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- On Sat, 8/30/08, Rahul Asthana
> > > > > > <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > From: Rahul Asthana
> > > > <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list]
> Ways of
> > Life
> > > and
> > > > > > Transgressions
> > > > > > > To: ysaeed7 at yahoo.com,
> > > "Shuddhabrata
> > > > > > Sengupta"
> > <shuddha at sarai.net>
> > > > > > > Cc: "Sarai list"
> > > > > > <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > > > > > Date: Saturday, August 30,
> 2008,
> > 8:42
> > > PM
> > > > > > > Dear Yousuf,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think the classic liberal
> stand
> > of
> > > > reductionist
> > > > > > > extrapolation,in which one
> > develops
> > > certain
> > > > set
> > > > > of
> > > > > > canonical
> > > > > > > principles and expects them
> to
> > govern
> > > all
> > > > > discourse on
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > certain topic, is not
> necessarily
> > > > philosophically
> > > > > > incorrect
> > > > > > > from their point of view,but
> > > insufficient
> > > > and
> > > > > improper
> > > > > > if we
> > > > > > > want to live in a tolerant
> liberal
> > > society.I
> > > > will
> > > > > try
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > elaborate:
> > > > > > > The point is not that Hussein
> as a
> > > Muslim
> > > > can
> > > > > paint
> > > > > > Hindu
> > > > > > > deities,nude orotherwise or
> > whether
> > > his
> > > > > intention was
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > insult,or not.The point is
> also
> > not
> > > that the
> > > > his
> > > > > > paintings
> > > > > > > can be artistic and break new
> > grounds
> > > of
> > > > > expression
> > > > > > > etc.Neither is it the point
> that
> > he
> > > should
> > > > have
> > > > > the
> > > > > > freedom
> > > > > > > of expression to paint
> whatever he
> > > wants.The
> > > > > point is
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > not that the people who
> attacked
> > him
> > > were
> > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The point that I have been
> trying
> > to
> > > make is
> > > > that
> > > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > above things are true;but
> still a
> > > painting
> > > > that
> > > > > he has
> > > > > > made
> > > > > > > can be offensive to many
> > people.Now,the
> > > > classic
> > > > > > reductionist
> > > > > > > line here is that,offense is
> > > > > subjective.Obviously,we
> > > > > > > can't be bothered about
> every
> > > person who
> > > > > takes
> > > > > > offense
> > > > > > > at any random stuff, can
> we?To
> > that I
> > > would
> > > > say,
> > > > > using
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > own personal
> judgment,depending
> > upon
> > > our
> > > > > interactions
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > people, we can make out most
> of
> > the
> > > times 
> > > > if
> > > > > > something is
> > > > > > > truly offensive to a large
> group
> > of
> > > people
> > > > or
> > > > > not.If
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > can't,we should talk to
> > > people.IMHO,I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > think I
> > > > > > > should take the easy way out
> of
> > hiding
> > > > behind the
> > > > > > principles
> > > > > > > of freedom of expression and
> > visual
> > > > metaphors
> > > > > etc.We
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > always support freedom of
> > > expression,but if
> > > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > surmise
> > > > > > > that a particular act of art
> was
> > > done,when
> > > > it was
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > apparent that it would hurt
> the
> > > > sensibilities of
> > > > > a
> > > > > > large
> > > > > > > group of people,we should
> call it
> > for
> > > > "bad
> > > > > > taste".
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If we have respect for and
> engage
> > in
> > > dialog
> > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > moderates of groups we may
> not
> > have to
> > > deal
> > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > extremists.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Dear Shuddha,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think you mentioned earlier
> how
> > > religious
> > > > > people
> > > > > > offend
> > > > > > > the sensitivities of
> > atheists.Could you
> > > > please
> > > > > > elaborate?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Rahul
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- On Sat, 8/30/08,
> Shuddhabrata
> > > Sengupta
> > > > > > > <shuddha at sarai.net>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > From: Shuddhabrata
> Sengupta
> > > > > > <shuddha at sarai.net>
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re:
> [Reader-list]
> > Ways of
> > > Life
> > > > and
> > > > > > > Transgressions
> > > > > > > > To: ysaeed7 at yahoo.com
> > > > > > > > Cc: "Sarai
> list"
> > > > > > > <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > > > > > > Date: Saturday, August
> 30,
> > 2008,
> > > 2:44
> > > > AM
> > > > > > > > Dear Yousuf, dear all,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > thank you very much,
> Yousuf
> > for
> > > your
> > > > mail. I
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > appreciate your  
> > > > > > > > point of drawing
> attention to
> > the
> > > > available
> > > > > > > vocabularies of
> > > > > > > > visual  
> > > > > > > > representation and the
> way in
> > > which
> > > > they
> > > > > > determine or
> > > > > > > > influence the  
> > > > > > > > universe of visual
> > > repsesentatiation,
> > > > if
> > > > > only to
> > > > > > > underline
> > > > > > > > the fact  
> > > > > > > > that no visual artist is
> ever
> > > divorced
> > > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > context tat
> > > > > > > > they are  
> > > > > > > > born into.  I have
> nowhere
> > written
> > > > about why
> > > > > > Husain
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > not choose  
> > > > > > > > to represent themes from
> the
> > > Islamic
> > > > canon,
> > > > > and I
> > > > > > > totally
> > > > > > > > agree with  
> > > > > > > > you that he does not do
> so
> > because
> > > they
> > > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > to him in  
> > > > > > > > his cultural miieu,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > As for apparently 
> > transgressive
> > > cases
> > > > like
> > > > > > Husain or
> > > > > > > Dillu
> > > > > > > > Ram  
> > > > > > > > Kausari, I cannnot see
> why
> > they
> > > should
> > > > not b
> > > > > > > celebrated.
> > > > > > > > Hindus  
> > > > > > > > should honour Husain and
> > Muslims
> > > should
> > > > > honour
> > > > > > Dillu
> > > > > > > Ram.
> > > > > > > > In this way  
> > > > > > > > they would ensure that
> acts
> > of
> > > > 'road
> > > > > > crossing'
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > not necessarily  
> > > > > > > > end in lethal accidents,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > warm regards, and hoping
> for
> > many
> > > more
> > > > road
> > > > > > crossings,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Shuddha
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On 29-Aug-08, at 8:25
> PM,
> > Yousuf
> > > Saeed
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Dear Shuddha,
> others
> > > > > > > > > I really appreciate
> your
> > > > highlighting
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > fact
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > Hussain's  
> > > > > > > > > intention may not
> be of
> > > insulting
> > > > the
> > > > > Hindus
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > drawing the deities  
> > > > > > > > > in the nude or
> > otherwise. I
> > > am not
> > > > a
> > > > > > defender of
> > > > > > > > Hussain, but would  
> > > > > > > > > like to put across
> a few
> > > points.
> > > > Many
> > > > > people
> > > > > > (on
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > list and  
> > > > > > > > > elsewhere) have
> pointed
> > out
> > > that
> > > > > Hussain
> > > > > > never
> > > > > > > drew
> > > > > > > > any Muslim  
> > > > > > > > > character (such as
> the
> > > Prophet) in
> > > > this
> > > > > > manner,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > therefore his  
> > > > > > > > > intention must be
> to
> > insult
> > > the
> > > > Hindus.
> > > > > They
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that such an  
> > > > > > > > > act by any artist
> in a
> > Muslim
> > > > country
> > > > > (like
> > > > > > Saudi
> > > > > > > > Arabia) would  
> > > > > > > > > result in death
> penalty,
> > and
> > > so
> > > > on. But
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > Hussain
> > > > > > > > did not draw  
> > > > > > > > > an Islamic
> character in
> > an
> > > > > > "immodest"
> > > > > > > > posture simply because
> such  
> > > > > > > > > an image or icon
> > doesn’t
> > > exist
> > > > in the
> > > > > > > Islam's
> > > > > > > > visual cultural  
> > > > > > > > > tradition. If he
> does
> > it,
> > > then
> > > > that
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > > > deliberately  
> > > > > > > > > provocative
> (although I
> > am
> > > not
> > > > saying
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > be done). But he  
> > > > > > > > > could draw a Hindu
> deity
> > in
> > > the
> > > > nude
> > > > > because
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > tradition  
> > > > > > > > > exists in our
> Indian
> > visual
> > > > culture. I
> > > > > doubt
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > avoids
> > > > > > > > >  the depiction of
> Muslim
> > > themes
> > > > because
> > > > > he
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > scared
> > > > > > > > of the  
> > > > > > > > > Islamists. Maybe he
> > simply
> > > > can't
> > > > > relate
> > > > > > to it
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > an Indian.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If I as an artist
> cannot
> > > express
> > > > my
> > > > > certain
> > > > > > > feelings
> > > > > > > > in the  
> > > > > > > > > language that has
> been
> > taught
> > > to
> > > > be me
> > > > > by my
> > > > > > > parents,
> > > > > > > > and I  
> > > > > > > > > suddenly discover a
> new
> > > language
> > > > that
> > > > > allows
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > express that  
> > > > > > > > > peculiar feeling in
> a
> > much
> > > better
> > > > way
> > > > > than
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > mother tongue  
> > > > > > > > > did, I would be
> happy to
> > use
> > > the
> > > > new
> > > > > > language.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > are thousands  
> > > > > > > > > of poets and
> artists who
> > > found a
> > > > new
> > > > > way of
> > > > > > > expression
> > > > > > > > in a  
> > > > > > > > > language which
> every one
> > in
> > > their
> > > > midst
> > > > > had
> > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > "inferior" –
> I am
> >  
> > > > > > > > > talking for example
> of
> > the
> > > > tradition of
> > > > > > Persian
> > > > > > > poets
> > > > > > > > of South Asia  
> > > > > > > > > who also wrote
> verses in
> > > Hindi or
> > > > > Hinduvi.
> > > > > > While
> > > > > > > poets
> > > > > > > > such as  
> > > > > > > > > Masud Sa'd
> Salman,
> > Amir
> > > > Khusrau,
> > > > > > Abdurrahim
> > > > > > > > Khane-khana, Ghalib, or 
> 
> > > > > > > > > Iqbal became famous
> for
> > their
> > > > exquisite
> > > > > > verse in
> > > > > > > > Persian, their  
> > > > > > > > > heart pours out
> better
> > in
> > > their
> > > > > Hinduvi,
> > > > > > Urdu or
> > > > > > > Braj
> > > > > > > > poetry where  
> > > > > > > > > they can come down
> to
> > the
> > > earth
> > > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > lofty
> > > > > > > royal
> > > > > > > > palaces. We  
> > > > > > > > > often say,
> "Unki
> > Hindi
> > > > shayeri
> > > > > mein
> > > > > > mitti ki
> > > > > > > > khushbu aati hai"
> (one  
> > > > > > > > > can smell the earth
> in
> > their
> > > > vernacular
> > > > > > poetry).
> > > > > > > And I
> > > > > > > > >  think Hussain is
> no
> > > different
> > > > from
> > > > > them. He
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > draw an Islamic  
> > > > > > > > > character in the
> nude
> > because
> > > > it's
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > not in
> > > > > > > > his palette, or  
> > > > > > > > > doesn't touch
> his
> > heart.
> > > (And
> > > > we
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > force
> > > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > to do it to  
> > > > > > > > > become more
> politically
> > > correct).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You may say that a
> lot
> > of
> > > > > semi-pornographic
> > > > > > > scenes
> > > > > > > > have been drawn  
> > > > > > > > > in Mughal or
> Persian
> > > miniatures,
> > > > and he
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > followed that.  
> > > > > > > > > But that's not
> the
> > point.
> > > > Hindu
> > > > > deities
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > flexible enough for us  
> > > > > > > > > to turn them around
> the
> > way
> > > we
> > > > wish, to
> > > > > > express a
> > > > > > > > certain feeling  
> > > > > > > > > that cannot be
> expressed
> > any
> > > other
> > > > way.
> > > > > So
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > appreciate and  
> > > > > > > > > celebrate that
> fact. (I
> > know
> > > such
> > > > a
> > > > > > statement
> > > > > > > from me
> > > > > > > > might raise  
> > > > > > > > > some eyebrows). I
> maybe
> > a
> > > Muslim
> > > > but I
> > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > fact that you  
> > > > > > > > > can literally play
> with
> > many
> > > Hindu
> > > > > deities.
> > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > other day I  
> > > > > > > > > heard Pandit Jasraj
> sing
> > a
> > > khayal
> > > > in
> > > > > which
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > lyrics
> > > > > > > > repeatedly  
> > > > > > > > > referred to Krishna
> as a
> > chor
> > > > (thief).
> > > > > Does
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > insult a Hindu? Or  
> > > > > > > > > would it insult a
> Hindu
> > if
> > > this
> > > > khayal
> > > > > was
> > > > > > sung
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > Ustad Amir Khan?  
> > > > > > > > > (Incidentally, a
> large
> > number
> > > of
> > > > > traditional
> > > > > > > Hindu
> > > > > > > > devotional  
> > > > > > > > > lyrics sung in
> classical
> > > music
> > > > have
> > > > > reached
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > Muslim gharana  
> > > > > > > > > musicians, and much
> of
> > > devotional
> > > > Hindu
> > > > > > visual
> > > > > > > > mythology has come  
> > > > > > > > > to us via patwa
> artists
> > of
> > > Bengal
> > > > who
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >  all Muslim. Can
> > M.F.Hussain
> > > be
> > > > > detached
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > continuity?)  
> > > > > > > > > Much of the popular
> > calendar
> > > and
> > > > poster
> > > > > art
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > 20th
> > > > > > > > century showing  
> > > > > > > > > Hindu deities was
> drawn
> > by an
> > > > artist
> > > > > called
> > > > > > Hasan
> > > > > > > Raza
> > > > > > > > Raja of  
> > > > > > > > > Meerut. And the
> manner
> > in
> > > which
> > > > most
> > > > > Hindu
> > > > > > > deities are
> > > > > > > > visualized  
> > > > > > > > > today comes from
> the
> > > pioneering
> > > > work of
> > > > > Raja
> > > > > > Ravi
> > > > > > > > Varma who was  
> > > > > > > > > clearly inspired by
> > western
> > > style
> > > > of
> > > > > art
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > human
> > > > > > > > models were  
> > > > > > > > > used to visualize
> the
> > gods
> > > and
> > > > > goddesses.
> > > > > > So,
> > > > > > > does all
> > > > > > > > this insult  
> > > > > > > > > the Hindus? And
> what is
> > the
> > > > > > "original"
> > > > > > > Hindu
> > > > > > > > way of imagining the  
> > > > > > > > > deities any way?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I liked your
> quoting
> > from
> > > Kausari
> > > > who
> > > > > is
> > > > > > among
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > Hindu poets who  
> > > > > > > > > have
> written/announced
> > their
> > > > emotive
> > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > Prophet  
> > > > > > > > > Mohammad in the
> same way
> > as
> > > say
> > > > with
> > > > > > Krishna. I
> > > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > > > if such  
> > > > > > > > > actions in the past
> may
> > have
> > > met
> > > > with
> > > > > much
> > > > > > > resistance
> > > > > > > > (as you have  
> > > > > > > > > mentioned) – such
> > examples
> > > were
> > > > a
> > > > > norm.
> > > > > > There
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > many Hindu poets  
> > > > > > > > > who have written
> > marsiyas
> > > full of
> > > > > pathos for
> > > > > > Imam
> > > > > > > > Hussain's  
> > > > > > > > > martyrdom, and many
> > Muslim
> > > poets
> > > > who
> > > > > > composed
> > > > > > > adorable
> > > > > > > > songs for  
> > > > > > > > > Krishna. I
> don't
> > think it
> > > was
> > > > too
> > > > > hard
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > cross
> > > > > > > > the road in those  
> > > > > > > > > days. So, why are
> we
> > busy
> > > throwing
> > > > > stones
> > > > > > onto
> > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > other from the  
> > > > > > > > > two sides of a
> road? I
> > could
> > > > imagine
> > > > > that at
> > > > > > > least an
> > > > > > > > online forum  
> > > > > > > > > like Sarai could
> act
> > like a
> > > subway
> > > > or a
> > > > > > walk-over
> > > > > > > > bridge to cross  
> > > > > > > > > the busy highway.
> But
> > > currently it
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > like a
> > > > > > > > road-block.  
> > > > > > > > > And we are all
> paying
> > the
> > > toll.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yousuf
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- On Fri,
> 8/29/08,
> > > Shuddhabrata
> > > > > Sengupta
> > > > > > > >
> <shuddha at sarai.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> From:
> Shuddhabrata
> > > Sengupta
> > > > > > > >
> <shuddha at sarai.net>
> > > > > > > > >> Subject:
> > [Reader-list]
> > > Ways of
> > > > Life
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > Transgressions
> > > > > > > > >> To: "Sarai
> > > list"
> > > > > > > >
> <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > > > > > > >> Date: Friday,
> August
> > 29,
> > > 2008,
> > > > 1:31
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> Dear All,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I have been
> > intrigued by
> > > the
> > > > > exchange on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > of late
> > > > > > > > >> that has
> > > > > > > > >> preferred to
> > jettison the
> > > term
> > > > > > > 'religion'
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> prefer in its
> stead
> > the
> > > > > > > > >> euphimistic
> phrase -
> > > 'ways
> > > > of
> > > > > > life'.
> > > > > > > I am
> > > > > > > > referring
> > > > > > > > >> to the exchange
> > > > > > > > >> between
> Chanchal
> > Malviya
> > > and
> > > > > Jeebesh
> > > > > > Bagchi,
> > > > > > > > arising out of
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> heated
> > correspondence on
> > > the
> > > > > disruption
> > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > >> exhibition
> devoted
> > > > > > > > >> to M.F.Husain.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> i am quite
> convinced
> > that
> > > the
> > > > term
> > > > > > > > 'religion'
> > > > > > > > >> which derives
> from
> > the
> > > > > > > > >> latin root of
> the
> > word
> > > religio
> > > > > (bond)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > religare
> > > > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > > >> verb form of
> > > > > > > > >> 'to
> bind')
> > > remains for
> > > > me a
> > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > word to
> > > > > > > > name the
> > > > > > > > >> act of
> committing
> > > > > > > > >> oneself in any
> form.
> > In
> > > this
> > > > sense,
> > > > > > atheists
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > agnostics
> > > > > > > > >> are just
> > > > > > > > >> as religious
> (in
> > their
> > > > commitment
> > > > > to
> > > > > > doubt)
> > > > > > > as are
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > >> blessed with
> > > > > > > > >> faith. I would
> > describe
> > > my
> > > > > religious
> > > > > > > commitment as
> > > > > > > > >> agnosticism - a
> > > > > > > > >> commitment to
> doubt
> > > > everything,
> > > > > > (including
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > value of
> > > > > > > > >> doubt) and a
> > > > > > > > >> certainty that
> we
> > cannot
> > > speak
> > > > > certainly
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > anything at
> > > > > > > > >> all, because
> > > > > > > > >> there are
> always
> > > > counterfactuals,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > hitherto
> > > > > > > > unimagined,
> > > > > > > > >> or unknown
> > > > > > > > >> possibilities,
> that
> > goad
> > > us on
> > > > to
> > > > > yet
> > > > > > newer
> > > > > > > > possibilities,
> > > > > > > > >> or to
> > > > > > > > >> return to some
> very
> > old
> > > ones.
> > > > This
> > > > > is
> > > > > > just to
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that it
> > > > > > > > >> would be a
> > > > > > > > >> mistake to
> assume,
> > as is
> > > often
> > > > done
> > > > > with
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > arrogance on
> > > > > > > > >> the part
> > > > > > > > >> of the more
> > pronouncedly
> > > > > > 'faithful',
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > atheists
> > > > > > > > >> and agnostics
> have
> > > > > > > > >> no
> > 'spiritual'
> > > quests.
> > > > They
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > dont, just
> > > > > > > > >> as those who
> are
> > > > > > > > >> ostentatiously
> > > > 'religious'
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > dont,
> > > > > > > > or do only
> > > > > > > > >> in as much as
> it
> > > > > > > > >> allows them to
> burn
> > a few
> > > > churches
> > > > > as
> > > > > > they go
> > > > > > > > questing. If
> > > > > > > > >> Hindu
> > > > > > > > >> fundamentalists
> have
> > > chosen to
> > > > > renounce
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > ties
> > > > > > > > that bind
> > > > > > > > >> (religio)
> > > > > > > > >> them to life,
> who
> > would I
> > > be
> > > > to
> > > > > object,
> > > > > > > because, I
> > > > > > > > am not a
> > > > > > > > >> Hindu.
> > > > > > > > >> But I have no
> > quarrel
> > > with the
> > > > term
> > > > > > 'ways
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > life'.
> > > > > > > > >> The more words
> we
> > > > > > > > >> have, the
> better.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> This discussion
> > arose out
> > > of a
> > > > rage
> > > > > felt
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > that a
> > > > > > > > >> group of
> > > > > > > > >> zealots had
> broken
> > and
> > > > disrupted an
> > > > > > > exhibition
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> featured some
> > > > > > > > >> images of and
> by
> > Husain,
> > > and
> > > > the
> > > > > counter
> > > > > > rage
> > > > > > > felt
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> others that the
> > > > > > > > >> zealots had no
> right
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > criticised
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > >> acting to
> > > > > > > > >> protect the
> honour
> > of the
> > > > Hindu
> > > > > deities
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > felt
> > > > > > > > >> Husain had
> > > > > > > > >> insulted.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> The second case
> is
> > as
> > > follows
> > > > -
> > > > > what
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > Husain, a
> > > > > > > > >> Muslim to
> > > > > > > > >> insult Hindu
> deities
> > by
> > > > portraying
> > > > > them
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > manner that is
> > > > > > > > >> offensive
> > > > > > > > >> to the
> sentiments of
> > many
> > > > Hindus.
> > > > > > > (Husain's
> > > > > > > > >> motivations, or
> the
> > > > > > > > >> aesthetic merit
> of
> > his
> > > images
> > > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > here, what
> > > > > > > > >> is at
> > > > > > > > >> issue is the
> insult
> > seen
> > > to
> > > > have
> > > > > > occurred
> > > > > > > when a
> > > > > > > > non-Hindu
> > > > > > > > >>
> 'touches'
> > > > > > > > >> a sacred Hindu
> icon
> > with
> > > his
> > > > > > > 'insulting'
> > > > > > > > >> imagination.
> Those
> > so
> > > > > > > > >> enraged, also
> throw
> > the
> > > > following
> > > > > > challenge,
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> opposite ever
> > > > > > > > >> occurred?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I am not here
> to
> > make a
> > > case
> > > > for
> > > > > Husain.
> > > > > > (As
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > have said
> > > > > > > > >> before I do
> > > > > > > > >> not have a very
> high
> > > opinion
> > > > of his
> > > > > work
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > artist). I
> > > > > > > > >> am here to
> > > > > > > > >> make a case for
> what
> > is
> > > > considered
> > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > transgression. No
> > > > > > > > >> one can be
> > > > > > > > >> sure when they
> have
> > > > transgressed.
> > > > > > Because
> > > > > > > > transgression can
> > > > > > > > >> be seen
> > > > > > > > >> to occur even
> when
> > the
> > > motives
> > > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > person
> > > > > > > > concerned are
> > > > > > > > >> far from
> > > > > > > > >> transgression.
> > Husain can
> > > say
> > > > in
> > > > > his
> > > > > > defence,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > >> has on
> > > > > > > > >> occasion said
> that
> > his
> > > > paintings
> > > > > are an
> > > > > > index
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > >> appreciation of
> > > > > > > > >> Indic culture
> and
> > its
> > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > expressions, of
> > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > >> closeness
> > > > > > > > >> (since early
> > childhood)
> > > to
> > > > forms of
> > > > > > iconic
> > > > > > > imagery
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> popular
> Hinduism.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Here his intent
> is
> > > clearly not
> > > > to
> > > > > > insult, on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > contrary,
> > > > > > > > >> it is to
> > > > > > > > >> declare his
> > appreciation
> > > for
> > > > the
> > > > > beauty
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > iconography
> > >> > > > > >> of popular
> > > > > > > > >> Hinduism, a
> charge
> > for
> > > which
> > > > he
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > > equally
> > > > > > > > hated by
> > > > > > > > >> both Hindu
> > > > > > > > >> as well as
> Muslim
> > > > fundamentalists.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> It has not been
> > noticed
> > > that
> > > > no
> > > > > Muslim
> > > > > > > > fundamentalist or
> > > > > > > > >> even Muslim
> > > > > > > > >> religious
> figure has
> > come
> > > out
> > > > in
> > > > > defence
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Husain. They
> > > > > > > > >> are in fact
> > > > > > > > >> in tacit
> agreement
> > with
> > > their
> > > > Hindu
> > > > > > peers. A
> > > > > > > > Muslim making
> > > > > > > > >> images,
> > > > > > > > >> and that too of
> > Hindu
> > > > goddesses,
> > > > > because
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > drawn to
> > > > > > > > >> them, can
> > > > > > > > >> only be seen as
> > blasphemy
> > > in
> > > > their
> > > > > eyes.
> > > > > > On
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > like on
> > > > > > > > >> so many
> > > > > > > > >> other issues,
> Hindu
> > and
> > > Muslim
> > > > > > > fundamentalists are
> > > > > > > > in total
> > > > > > > > >> agreement.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Let me come now
> to
> > an
> > > > interesting
> > > > > > > counterfactual
> > > > > > > > argument.
> > > > > > > > >> I refer to
> > > > > > > > >> the life an
> work of
> > a
> > > little
> > > > known
> > > > > late
> > > > > > > nineteenth
> > > > > > > > century
> > > > > > > > >> and early
> > > > > > > > >> twentieth
> century
> > Urdu
> > > poet of
> > > > > Delhi
> > > > > > called
> > > > > > > Dillu
> > > > > > > > Ram
> > > > > > > > >> Kausari. Now as
> > > > > > > > >> his name
> suggests,
> > Dillu
> > > Ram
> > > > was a
> > > > > > Hindu. The
> > > > > > > > trouble is,
> > > > > > > > >> throughout
> > > > > > > > >> his life he
> composed
> > > > deliriously
> > > > > > passionate
> > > > > > > > elegies
> > > > > > > > >> (na'at)  to
> the
> > > > > > > > >> Prophet
> Muhammad.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> One of his
> quatrains
> > went
> > > as
> > > > > follows
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Kuch ‘ishq e
> > Muhammad
> > > mein
> > > > nahin
> > > > > shart
> > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > Musulman!
> > > > > > > > >> Hai Kausari
> Hindu
> > bhii
> > > > talabgaar e
> > > > > > Muhammad!
> > > > > > > > >> Allah re! kyaa
> > raunaq e
> > > bazaar
> > > > e
> > > > > > Muhammad
> > > > > > > > >> Ke Ma’bood e
> Jahan
> > bhi
> > > hai
> > > > > kharidaar e
> > > > > > > Muhammad!
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Being a Muslim
> is
> > not a
> > > > condition
> > > > > for
> > > > > > loving
> > > > > > > > Muhammad!
> > > > > > > > >> Kausari, the
> Hindu,
> > is
> > > also a
> > > > > seeker of
> > > > > > > Muhammad!
> > > > > > > > >> By Allah! How
> > delightful
> > > is
> > > > the
> > > > > bazaar
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Muhammad
> > > > > > > > >> For the Lord of
> the
> > > Worlds is
> > > > also
> > > > > a
> > > > > > buyer of
> > > > > > > > Muhammad!
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> This kind of
> > sentiment
> > > shocked
> > > > both
> > > > > > Hindus
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > Muslims.
> > > > > > > > >> Hindus,
> > > > > > > > >> because how
> could a
> > Hindu
> > > sing
> > > > what
> > > > > > amounted
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > love songs
> > > > > > > > >> to a
> > > > > > > > >> Muslim prophet,
> and
> > > Muslims,
> > > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > reason.
> > > > > > > > Both felt
> > > > > > > > >> slighted
> > > > > > > > >> and insulted by
> the
> > > > transgressive
> > > > > way in
> > > > > > > which the
> > > > > > > > >> imagination of
> the
> > > > > > > > >> poet had
> > > 'touched' the
> > > > body
> > > > > of
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > sacred for
> > > > > > > > >> one, and not,
> for
> > > > > > > > >> the other.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Another poem,
> which
> > > proved to
> > > > be
> > > > > even
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > controversial,
> > > > > > > > >> went like
> > > > > > > > >> this -
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> Rahmatulilalamin kay
> > > Hashar
> > > > mein
> > > > > > maana’
> > > > > > > khulay
> > > > > > > > >> Khalq saari
> Shaafa e
> > Roz
> > > e
> > > > Jaza kay
> > > > > > saath hai
> > > > > > > > >> Laykay Dillu
> Raam ko
> > > jannat
> > > > mein
> > > > > jab
> > > > > > Hazrat
> > > > > > > gaye
> > > > > > > > >> Ma’loom huwa
> kay
> > Hindu
> > > bhi
> > > > > Mahboob e
> > > > > > Khuda
> > > > > > > kay
> > > > > > > > saath hai!
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> The meaning of
> > “Mercy
> > > unto
> > > > the
> > > > > > Worlds”
> > > > > > > became
> > > > > > > > apparent
> > > > > > > > >> on Judgement
> Day:
> > > > > > > > >> The whole
> creation
> > is
> > > with the
> > > > > > Intercessor of
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > Day of
> > > > > > > > >> Acquittal
> > > > > > > > >> When the
> Prophet
> > took
> > > Dillu
> > > > Ram
> > > > > with him
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > Paradise
> > > > > > > > >> It was known
> that
> > this
> > > Hindu
> > > > too is
> > > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Beloved of
> > > > > > > > >> God!
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> This poem,
> > especially
> > > > scandalized
> > > > > Muslim
> > > > > > > > orthodoxy, because
> > > > > > > > >> it dared
> > > > > > > > >> to suggest that
> the
> > > prophet
> > > > himself
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > intercede on
> > > > > > > > >> behalf of an
> > > > > > > > >> unbeliever on
> the
> > day of
> > > > judgement.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> It is
> interesting to
> > note
> > > that
> > > > > Dillu Ram
> > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > > became a
> > > > > > > > >> Muslim, at
> > > > > > > > >> least not in
> his
> > > lifetime. An
> > > > > article in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > >> web portal
> > > > > > > > >> Chowk 
> > > > > >
> http://www.chowk.com/articles/12692 by
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > Asif
> > > > > > > > >> Naqshbandi says
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> "It is
> also
> > said
> > > that
> > > > Dillu
> > > > > Ram,
> > > > > > > delirious
> > > > > > > > with his
> > > > > > > > >> love, would
> > > > > > > > >> sometimes stand
> in
> > the
> > > middle
> > > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > bazaar
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Delhi, put
> > > > > > > > >> chains
> > > > > > > > >> around his neck
> and
> > feet
> > > and
> > > > shout
> > > > > at
> > > > > > the top
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > his voice
> > > > > > > > >> to all
> > > > > > > > >> passers-by,
> > “Muhammad!
> > > > Muhammad!
> > > > > > Muhammad!
> > > > > > > Yes!
> > > > > > > > Muhammad
> > > > > > > > >> is the
> > > > > > > > >> Beloved of God!
> > Muhammad
> > > is
> > > > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > Beloved of
> > > > > > > > >> God! If God
> > > > > > > > >> loves you, He
> loves
> > you
> > > > because of
> > > > > His
> > > > > > > Beloved!”
> > > > > > > > Some
> > > > > > > > >> people even
> > > > > > > > >> stoned him and
> he
> > would
> > > often
> > > > come
> > > > > home
> > > > > > > covered in
> > > > > > > > blood
> > > > > > > > >> but he was
> > > > > > > > >> totally lost in
> his
> > love
> > > of
> > > > the
> > > > > Prophet
> > > > > > > (peace and
> > > > > > > > >> blessings be
> upon
> > > > > > > > >> him!)"
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> There is an
> > apocryphal
> > > story
> > > > of how
> > > > > on
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > deathbed Dillu
> > > > > > > > >> Ram Kausari
> > > > > > > > >> had a vision of
> the
> > > Prophet
> > > > > himself, who
> > > > > > came
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > him, and
> > > > > > > > >> that he
> > > > > > > > >> read the Kalima
> with
> > him.
> > > But
> > > > as
> > > > > this
> > > > > > vision
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > reported to
> > > > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> appeared only
> to
> > him, as
> > >he
> > > > lay
> > > > > dying,
> > > > > > and as
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > is no
> > > > > > > > >> longer with us
> > > > > > > > >> to either
> confirm or
> > deny
> > > this
> > > > > deathbed
> > > > > > > > conversion, we can
> > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > >> surmise that it
> was
> > a
> > > > generous, but
> > > > > > somewhat
> > > > > > > > disingenuous
> > > > > > > > >> method of
> > > > > > > > >> having Dillu
> > Ram's
> > > > somewhat
> > > > > > unorthodox
> > > > > > > Muslim
> > > > > > > > >> apologists
> claim him
> > > > > > > > >> for themselves.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> As far as we
> are
> > > concerned,
> > > > Dillu
> > > > > Ram
> > > > > > > Kausari,
> > > > > > > > caused grave
> > > > > > > > >> offence,
> > > > > > > > >> by his love for
> the
> > > Prophet,
> > > > both
> > > > > to
> > > > > > Hindu as
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > as to
> > > > > > > > >> Muslim
> > > > > > > > >> zealots, as
> long as
> > he
> > > lived.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> If, the things
> we
> > call
> > > > religions
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > 'ways of
> > > > > > > > life'
> > > > > > > > >> then we can
> > > > > > > > >> always
> determine for
> > > ourselves
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > want to
> > > > > > > > walk on a
> > > > > > > > >> one way
> > > > > > > > >> street that
> runs
> > into a
> > > dead
> > > > end,
> > > > > or to
> > > > > > cross
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > paths,
> > > > > > > > >> walking
> > > > > > > > >> down one way,
> for
> > one
> > > purpose,
> > > > down
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> another, and
> > > > > > > > >> sometimes just
> > standing
> > > in
> > > > between
> > > > > > paths,
> > > > > > > figuring
> > > > > > > > out our
> > > > > > > > >> journey,
> > > > > > > > >> as we go about
> our
> > lives.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I find cases
> like
> > Husain
> > > and
> > > > Dillu
> > > > > Ram
> > > > > > > Kausari
> > > > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> because of what
> they
> > > paint of
> > > > what
> > > > > they
> > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > >> they seem to
> > > > > > > > >> cause such
> prolonged
> > > traffic
> > > > jams
> > > > > on the
> > > > > > > 'ways
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> life'. And
> all
> > they
> > > > > > > > >> were doing was
> > crossing
> > > the
> > > > road.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> thanks and
> regards,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Shuddha
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> -----
> > > > > > > > >> Shuddhabrata
> > Sengupta
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > _________________________________________
> > > > > > > > >> reader-list: an
> open
> > > > discussion
> > > > > list on
> > > > > > media
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the city.
> > > > > > > > >> Critiques &
> > > Collaborations
> > > > > > > > >> To subscribe:
> send
> > an
> > > email to
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > reader-list-request at sarai.net
> > > > with
> > > > > > subscribe
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the subject
> > > > > > > > >> header.
> > > > > > > > >> To unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > > > > > >> List archive:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> _________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > reader-list: an
> open
> > > discussion
> > > > list on
> > > > > > media and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > city.
> > > > > > > > > Critiques &
> > > Collaborations
> > > > > > > > > To subscribe: send
> an
> > email
> > > to
> > > > > > > >
> reader-list-request at sarai.net
> > with
> > >  
> > > > > > > > > subscribe in the
> subject
> > > header.
> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > > > > > > List archive:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Shuddhabrata Sengupta
> > > > > > > > The Sarai Programme at
> CSDS
> > > > > > > > Raqs Media Collective
> > > > > > > > shuddha at sarai.net
> > > > > > > > www.sarai.net
> > > > > > > >
> www.raqsmediacollective.net
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > _________________________________________
> > > > > > > > reader-list: an open
> > discussion
> > > list on
> > > > > media and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > city.
> > > > > > > > Critiques &
> > Collaborations
> > > > > > > > To subscribe: send an
> email
> > to
> > > > > > > >
> reader-list-request at sarai.net
> > with
> > > > subscribe
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > subject
> > > > > > > > header.
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> > > > > > > > List archive:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>





More information about the reader-list mailing list