Latest Breaking News, Bollywood Movies, Download Music, Software Tips, Reviews and Videos

Noted and controversial writer Salman Rushdie gave a talk at Stanford University recently. The Stanford Daily report covers important parts of his talk but misses out on the ending. Rushdie, towards the end, pointed to the fundamentalism displayed by the Hindu right toward M. F. Hussain. He said that M. F. Hussain had painted goddesses in the nude, who had "always been depicted that way," and, Hussain had been hounded out of India for committing this transgression as a Muslim. Now, Hussain lives in London and Dubai, and is about to open an art museum in Dubai. India will lose the art works of its greatest artist.

Rushdie's support for free speech is well-known. I spoke to some close Muslim friends and tried explaining how much I liked Rushdie's talk. To highlight Rushdie's support for a Muslim artist, I mentioned M. F. Hussain. Immediately, my Muslim friends (who are not from India) quizzed me on what Hussain had done. When I mentioned the painting of Indian goddesses in the nude, the reaction was of immediate disgust, and I could not get my Muslim friends to support M. F. Hussain. They felt that Hussain had been highly insensitive and should never have done something like this.

I tried hard to explain that I wouldn't send my kids to Hussain's art gallery, but I would defend his right to paint whatever he liked as long as he didn't use taxpayer money. In the end, my friends reluctantly agreed that Hussain should not have been kicked out of India, but that was because both my friends don't like government interference in public life, like me.

This conversation was remarkable in many respects. While discussing Rushdie, one friend pointed out that Muslims ought not to waste their time with such things, for the Prophet had clearly asked his followers to ignore those who abused his teachings - it was better to do good in the world than waste one's energy to counter such people. Somehow, I find all my Muslim friends to have such an open and liberal attitude, and this isn't just at Stanford.

Moving on, I think freedom of speech by itself does not pass scrutiny. I wouldn't like someone to come into my home and talk about topics that were uninteresting or disgusting to me. I do have the right to ask people to get off my property. Then, freedom of speech is the prerogative of the property owner. In this context, it becomes much easier to tackle situations that seem like violations by examining the property rights of the individuals concerned. In Hussain's case, whose property was he on when he made and displayed the paintings? As long as the property owner is fine with it, no one else's opinions can have legal standing.

Finally, as Indians, we would do well to recognize that our forefathers really meant "freedom" when they fought for freedom. This means that people have a right to be jerks in their own homes or outside as long as they don't physically hurt or defraud anyone else. Those that get offended have the option of shutting their eyes, not buying books, turning off the television, etc. We need to attach ourselves to a much higher ideal of freedom. I would like to end with a reminder of such an ideal, from Tagore's immortal poem on the subject.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high,
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action–
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father,
Let my country awake.