Beyond State
While I can only admire indignation and fury of self righteous over Rashmi Bansal case, technically speaking, isn't she fugitive in the eyes of law ? And living in India, and being clinically sane, if some one says that one didn't know that the ruckus the advertisement will create, then excuse me if I am unimpressed by such claims*.
One last thing, if someone thinks that freedom means license to take a crap on Hindus, then someone is mistaken. I think there are more innocuous way to have fun than terming Shiv Ling as "khada lund" (slang for erect penis)**, as a poet warned "Do not scratch snow, for you may rouse the volcano which sleeps".
* I doubt Rashmi personally approved the ad. Whoever approved, has a lot of explaining to do.
** As was mentioned in Rohit's (now deleted) post
PS. I do not think that police should be chasing offences related to religious sensibilities, or even that it should be a offense. But that doesn't mean that any such slight should be let gone unanswered, but that society is the right forum for redress, Hindus (or for that matter Muslims or Christians) should create enough disincentive, to discourage, even wreck perpetrators of such acts, in other words Hindus should shrug off this air of passivity and abject conformity. Markets work, whether of commodity, or ideas.
14 comments:
Just curious... what do you think a shiv ling is, if not an erect penis on a vagina? The word "lund" wasn't used in the ad, it was "Khada hai to condom chahiye hi".
And if you were to translate "erect penis" into hindi, what words would you use that won't cause offence?
I find that our sense of orthodoxy and decency is of a more Victorian and Islamic origin than Indic. Denying that the shivling is actually a phallic symbol, meant to symbolise life and vitality of God, is actually denying our own history and origins.
Sabnis,
Don't you think that context matters ?
Frankly speaking I am rather astonished that you are denying that the ad is offensive.
I am not denying it is offensive. I am sure most Hindus will get offended. I am just trying to understand what causes this offense.
Ganesha on chappals, I understand, since shoes get dirty. Naked pictures by Hussein, I understand, lakshmi and saraswati are always clothed.
But I am trying to understand why people would find refering to an erect penis as an erect penis offensive. Is it because most hindus try to block out the fact that it is actually a penis?
About your P.S, what do you mean when you say "wreck"? I hope you mean the way Michael Richards' life was wrecked after he souted the n-word. No cops or law agencies were involved. That's the way a civilised society should register offence, without trampling on anyone's rights.
In india though, Hindus, Muslims or anyone take offence in the idiotic way. Destroying personal property, blackening someone's face, generally going on a rampage etc. Indians are by no means passive while registering offense. Just that their aggression is idiotic.
Sabnis,
No, Shiv Ling is no more erect penis as effil tower (I am sure you must have read about how eiffel tower has something to do with penis envy)
There is no blocking by Hindus, but your failure to understand the symbolism and its context, there is a vast gap between devotion and a tasteless joke.
Gaurav (the Doubting one)
There is obviously no question that the ad is offensive, to the religious Hindu, and for that matter, to conservative people in general.
There are thousands of other things that cause offense to people. I, for example, hate the stereotyping of Tamilians, Bhaiyyas, Sardarjis, Sindhis and Parsis in Hindi movies. I am offended when religious types go around preaching the exclusive eternal correctness of their religion to young children. I am offended when people publish a map of India with Jammu & Kashmir marked in a different colour. I am offended when people make spelling mistakes on roadsigns and railway timetables. And I am greatly offended when government forms ask me for my caste and religion.
But not for a moment do I think that those who give me offense should be considered criminals. Just as someone is free to offend me, I should have the freedom to point out that it has offended me.
It is quite possible that Rashmi Bansal has committed a crime (and until courts decide, she is innocent). We have several such arcane laws on our books (eg those relating to sexual intercourse). Law enforcement authorities must use their discretion in deciding which cases they want to accord priority. It's not as if our police and courts have lots of free time on their hands.
Nitin,
I presume you didnt read the post script.
sabnis,
yes i am not one to support vandalism.
rather i am for a really "hard good bye" (figuratively not literally)
Gaurav,
I read your postscript. You are advocating mob justice. Worse than bad laws.
Those offended have the right to protest: write op-eds, take out peaceful protests etc. But "wrecking"? Now, come on!
Nitin,
"Wreck" has other meanings than physical violence
gaurav, the only reason I oppose Government legislation on this is that that wouldn't work. But as for the societal change could you give some examples of such changes having happened as a result of conscious effort? What makes you think such a change is feasible? In any case I believe an example will clarify.
( I haven't been able to comment for the past few days because blogger software hasn't been allowing me to comment ).
Frog,
Assuming you are talking to me, I didn't get the question.
If you are saying how it is possible for hindus to discourage such incidents, well remember what Bapu did, but for that to happen middle class Hindus have to stop being apologetic about what thhet are.
I am sorry could you clarify what bApu did in this connection?
Frog,
What I meant was mobilizing the masses. what worked against british must work against secular fundamentalists.
Regards
Post a Comment