Path: cmcl2!cmcl2.nyu.edu!grewals
From: grewals@acf2.nyu.edu (Subir Grewal)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Salman Rushdie's problems, Bal Thackeray this time.
Date: 10 Sep 1995 22:12:20 GMT
Organization: New York University
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <42vns4$kuo@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
References: <42r6n6$deb@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>,<42rrou$omj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <42v40t$30n@risky.ecs.umass.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acf2.nyu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

venimadh@ecs.umass.edu wrote:
: In Article <42rrou$omj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
: niharika@ix.netcom.com (Murthy Tadepalli) writes:
: >
: 	Well, there is a spoof on the Ramayan called "Ramayan Retold"
: 	by Aubrey Menen. It too is banned in India. So its not true  
: 	that only books critical of Islam get banned. And Hindus
: 	r certainly not the paragons of tolerance and peace as u seem to 
: 	believe.  	

There's also the book on Kashmir by the British author.  The point I was
trying to make was not that the Shiv Sena opposed the content of the
book or that it was "banned" (my post did not use the term ban), but
rather the equally frightening scenario that the publisher was fearful
of releasing the book.  This reflects on two things:

1) The inability of the Central government of India to protect freedom
of speech, coupled with it's record it's easy to see how our rights can
be snatched from under our feet by politicians claiming to be
"protecting" us from riots.  I was particularly stunned by the statement
of a judge in one of the ToI articles that "peace" was a higher "social
value" than freedom of speech and so regretably it would seem
justifiable to ban the book altogether.  If this is the opinion our
judges hold then how can we blame our politicians.  Obviously the rule
of law has come to naught, with all sort of exceptions being made by
calling on "society's interest", "social justice" and similar myths.
Thankfully both Nani Palkhivala and Ram Jethmalani were absolutely
against any action on the part of Indian/Maharashtrian authorities that
would restrict distribution of this book.

2) There is something deeply wrong when our citizens cannot trust the
government and law-enforcement officials to protect their property and
lives.  The last place such a threat should be coming from is a
political party, but the Shiv Sena is not any political party, nor is
India any country.  In a country that claims Gandhi as its father
violence is too often a solution for people to get what they want.
That fear runs so deep is telling as well.  As is the realization that
India has lost its moral fibre since it is willing to back down in front
of any fanatic's threat of violence.

This was not meant to be turned into a debate on the relative tolerance
levels of Hindus and Muslims or these cultures.  It is my firm belief
that there is only one generalization, and that is that all other
generilzations are wrong.  There is too much violence in the world
already over dead "sons of God" and "prophets", it's sad that we're now
elevating to the status of divinity someone who doesn't even have the
respectability of the dead.  Frankly we don't need Gods like this.

--
Subir Grewal 					grewals@acf2.nyu.edu	
Washington Square News on the WWWeb	http://www.nyu.edu/pages/wsn/
------------------------Standard disclaimer applies--------------------------
"By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote.  In fact,
it is as difficult to appropriate the thoughts of others as it is to
invent. (R. Emerson)"
		-- Quoted from a fortune cookie program
		   (whose author claims, "Actually, stealing IS easier.")
		   [to which I reply, "You think it's easy for me to
		   misconstrue all these misquotations?!?"]