|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
COMMENTARY
|
|
|
E-mail from readers the world over
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 21:47:28 -0400 This is in response to the news that a new film is made on the Muslim leader M A Jinnah. I do not know why you always carry sensational news. This kind of news should not be covered. Then we have Shashi Kapoor among us, who got involved in the making of this kind of a movie. Not that I support Gandhi or Nehru.
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 17:38:07 -0700 By and large, most Hindus hate the doctrine of forcible conversion that is the essence of Islam. Knowing this, it was but natural that Muslims opted to run away to some safe haven. Jinnah had the mandate of the Muslims of the subcontinent in asking for Partition, and we shouldn't be blaming him for that. What is important is that the people of Pakistan understand that a separate state was given to them so that all Muslims of the subcontinent could stay there. By asking for Partition, Muslims forfeited their citizenship of India.
Date sent: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:57:04 -0400 Ban this film in India -- both screen version and videos. S Dharmaraj
Date sent: Mon, 4 May 1998 18:38:27 EDT I do not have to see the film to find out where Jinnah went and where Gandhi and Nehru went after death. Anyone who knows Islam and have read the Koran know where each went? Moreover, Gandhi and Nehru were both Hindu, at least they professed so in public, and there is no Heaven in the sense it is in Semitic religions so their question of going to Heaven does not arise. And also how can a body that has been cremated go to Heaven? It will be sacrilegious to show Gandhi and Nehru going to Heaven. Hindus should thank the producer and director for preserving the sanctity of Hindu beliefs. What is the controversy about it? Satyam
Date sent: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:08:17 -0400 Your article was very enlightening. Of course, history is always defined by the historian (who is relating it) and I'm sure the latest Jinnah movie will drive up passions around the globe. It's difficult to imagine how the audience will react to the Edwina/Nehru angle and to suggestions that Nehru and Gandhi went to hell and Jinnah went to heaven etc. One may assume (although I may be rather naive in saying this) that audiences in Pakistan etc will hail it as a correct portrayal of events and in India it will be bemoaned as another attempt to distort facts. We miss the big picture again Do we need to forget the past and start thinking about the future? Some people will say -- for sure ....however, one must remember -- "those who forget history are condemned to repeat it". Thanks for writing a very informative article. Keep up the good work. Saurabh
Date sent: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:08:26 -0600 As I cannot count the chickens before the eggs are hatched, I can only comment on the movie after I see it. However, I have few observations: Gandhi and Nehru are KAFIRS (especially Nehru -- a self proclaimed agnostic) and cannot go to JANNATH. Probably they were waiting for the train to Kailas or Vaikunt. The delay was caused because it took some time before Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiv came to an agreement. The really amazing thing was that Quaid-e-Azam was supposed to have broken many of the tenets of Islam, still he ascended to JANNATH. That shows that ALLAH is truly merciful. Sankar
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 09:47:30 -0700 The article was par excellence and it gives a new insight about the leader who played a pivotal role in the division of the country. I have not yet seen the movie, but what I receive from the heaven and hell scene is that it is totally hypothetical and much remains to be seen. What I found objectionable is that Mr Jinnah should not at all be compared to Gandhi. At most he was the Nehru of Pakistan or vice versa. Gandhi was not an Indian leader. He was an august personality with a global impact. And that is the reason of his death too. If he had been thinking just about Hindus, he would not have been assassinated. And Jinnah always fought for his own community. Even in the mourning speech on Gandhi's death he says, 'It's a great loss to Muslims.' This shows that even though being a national leader Mr Jinnah cared only for Muslims and that is evident by the division of the country, but Gandhi was not only an Indian leader but the leader of humanity. Nehru and Gandhi were never alter egos. Gandhi was his mentor. So whenever you want to denigrate Nehru for his megalomania, you do not have to include Gandhi with him. Gandhi never took a post in the government. He was not the father of the nation, do not see him as a political hero. He was an altruist who fought for humanity, be it Muslims, Indians, the downtrodden or the South Africans and so he should be called the father of humanity. Jalaj
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 10:19:30 -0600 I can only say the following: If Jinnah goes to heaven and Gandhi to hell, perhaps God and Devil have switched places. Srinivas
Date sent: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:51:29 -0400 There is nothing to comment except that this is another one of those tricks by Pakistan. Somebody should remind them that they have lost three wars against India. Ajay
Date sent: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:18:31 -0400 How secular is Husain? Is his secularism limited to making fun of Hindu figures or he has a similar series depicting figures from his own religion. It appears as if Hinduism is the only free target left for the so-called Indian secularists. Well, let us think again and define secularism clearly in the Indian context. Can your paper also produce a list of Muslims who call themselves secular or it is only the Hindu writers, artists and political readers beating the drum of this ill defined ideology all by themselves? Vijay Mathur
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 12:41:00 -0700 While condemning the attack we should also ask if: 1. Husain has ever painted anything which would infuriate his fellow Islamists? 2. Why does he choose to paint Gods and Goddesses of a religion alien to him, when there are so many other themes to paint upon? That is, are the liberal and artistic traditions only to be limited to Hindu themes. That stops short of exploitation.
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 16:58:32 -0500 I was in India when a Dutch painter's work -- "Kill India" -- was shredded at the National Gallery by a right-wing nut. Two days later, in the Hindustan Times, M F Husain defended the destruction of that piece and said that it should not have been displayed. Ironic that Mr Husain's art now is being attacked by the right wing. He's lucky to have people defend him. Too bad he didn't have the courage or opinion to do the same when another artist's work was destroyed two years ago. By coincidence, I was at the gallery when the work was destroyed. The curators were screaming for the defiler's arrest, but the police usually heavy-handed treated him with kid gloves. What's more, the Hindustan Times, which as a newspaper is supposed to stand for freedom of expression, sided with the authorities by writing a biased story that favoured the mutilation. I asked my Indian friends and relatives about this whole incident. They either did not care or thought that the painting should not have been displayed. For me, the conclusion was that Indians and Americans have different definitions of freedom. When pushed, Americans would always defend their most prized First Amendment to free speech. Maybe Indians will eventually do the same.
Mukul Verma
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 13:33:32 -0700 There seems to be a pattern in Husain's behaviour, his subjects and hunger for controversy. The Bajrang Dal has not attacked only this painter out of several hundred living in India. Husain should stop using Hindu Gods as his subjects. If he is so obsessed with Hindu Gods, He should become a Hindu and should start singing bhajans. Husain will be famous and rich even if he excludes Hindu Gods from his brush. But artists are not supposed to respect ordinary people like us. We are expected to respect them and their feelings.
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 12:06:56 -0500 Where were all these secularist artists when Rushdie's book was banned and a fatwa pronounced to kill him? Hindus have sensibilities and feel hurt too. Husain never gave an apology for hurting Hindu feelings. Why should a devout Muslim desecrate Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the name of artistic freedom? Painting Goddess Saraswathi in the nude is not just blasphemy, it is an insult and humiliation of Hindus. Enough of the hypocrisy of the atheists and Leftists who masquerade as secularists and bring immense harm to the unity of India.
Date sent: Mon, 04 May 1998 10:46:41 PDT While I condemn the attack on Husain's house, a question pops up in my mind. Why is the onus of secularism just on Hindus? When Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses was released, India was the first country in the world to ban the book. If Husain can paint Goddess Saraswati in the nude or draw an obscene painting of Hanuman and Sita then Indians should be able to read Satanic Verses. Either both the paintings and the book should be banned or both should be accessible to the people. If the Government of India thinks Muslim sentiments are hurt by the book, certainly it should think of Hindu sentiments too. Kishore How Readers reacted to Dilip D'Souza's recent columns How Readers reacted to Rajiv Shukla's recent columns
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
||