Home
Publications
Search
Register
Log inShut up India
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Re: Shut up India
by chameli Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:08 pm
the book "satanic verses " by salman rushdie should not have been banned in India
there are worse books and writings anti Indian ones that are allowed to be published and sold eg those of arundhati roy
but India got scared of its muslim population who protested
the book just had some slanted references to ayatollah khomeini of Iran
agreed though that Rushdie enjoys a literary cult following which is now rallying around him
there are worse books and writings anti Indian ones that are allowed to be published and sold eg those of arundhati roy
but India got scared of its muslim population who protested
the book just had some slanted references to ayatollah khomeini of Iran
agreed though that Rushdie enjoys a literary cult following which is now rallying around him
chameli- Posts : 1073
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 39
Location : Dallas USA
Re: Shut up India
by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:03 pm
i've watched about six mins of part 2 and feel compelled to add that in addition to being confused and inarticulate, katju also seems to be a man without a measure of courage. thankfully and very refreshingly, the young indians in the audience seem to be more courageous than him. more later as i watch more of this.
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Shut up India
by Guest Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:13 pm
His Dogged Presence
Sir Salman Rushdie dominated the festival by his non-attendance, hovering over it like the ghost of Banquo. I yield to no one in my support for Salman’s right to be at Jaipur or his right to publish freely, but his manipulation and stoking of the protests ensured he would remain the principal topic at the festival on all five days. I don’t believe Hari Kunzru, Amitava Kumar, Ruchir Joshi and Jeet Thayil, who tried to read passages from the banned Satanic Verses in public, behaved as irresponsibly as Salman. He seemed determined to provoke a minor riot. By the way, if a riot had occurred in the densely packed, extremely narrow lanes of the venue, you would have had a sensational stampede. It appeared as if the great writer seemed distressed that the festival was progressing relatively smoothly despite his famous absence. In the supercharged atmosphere, even the video link became a casualty. Disgraceful but not surprising in the context.
Votaries of free speech, for whom Rushdie is an icon, refuse to hear a word against their man. He is seen as fighting single-handed the forces of bigotry and darkness. However, he is also a consummate and crafty player. And I don’t mean that entirely as a compliment.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279681
Sir Salman Rushdie dominated the festival by his non-attendance, hovering over it like the ghost of Banquo. I yield to no one in my support for Salman’s right to be at Jaipur or his right to publish freely, but his manipulation and stoking of the protests ensured he would remain the principal topic at the festival on all five days. I don’t believe Hari Kunzru, Amitava Kumar, Ruchir Joshi and Jeet Thayil, who tried to read passages from the banned Satanic Verses in public, behaved as irresponsibly as Salman. He seemed determined to provoke a minor riot. By the way, if a riot had occurred in the densely packed, extremely narrow lanes of the venue, you would have had a sensational stampede. It appeared as if the great writer seemed distressed that the festival was progressing relatively smoothly despite his famous absence. In the supercharged atmosphere, even the video link became a casualty. Disgraceful but not surprising in the context.
Votaries of free speech, for whom Rushdie is an icon, refuse to hear a word against their man. He is seen as fighting single-handed the forces of bigotry and darkness. However, he is also a consummate and crafty player. And I don’t mean that entirely as a compliment.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279681
Guest- Guest
Re: Shut up India
by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:18 pm
ultimately this is a philosophical debate about the boundaries of freedom of speech between the effete worldview of a washed up and irrelevant judge, and bright young people brimming with a modern idealistic fervour about democracy. there is no question which side i am on.
justice katju seems very much like the garden variety authoritarian "benign" despot that rashmun would embrace. i am more convinced than ever that i don't like justice katju. seen in this light his comments about rushdie making millions by dissing islam only seem petty. to katju's other character flaws you can also add jealousy! i am disappointed that someone thought it fit to appoint this man a supreme court judge.
justice katju seems very much like the garden variety authoritarian "benign" despot that rashmun would embrace. i am more convinced than ever that i don't like justice katju. seen in this light his comments about rushdie making millions by dissing islam only seem petty. to katju's other character flaws you can also add jealousy! i am disappointed that someone thought it fit to appoint this man a supreme court judge.
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Shut up India
by Guest Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:22 pm
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:ultimately this is a philosophical debate about the boundaries of freedom of speech between the effete worldview of a washed up and irrelevant judge, and bright young people brimming with a modern idealistic fervour about democracy. there is no question which side i am on.
justice katju seems very much like the garden variety authoritarian "benign" despot that rashmun would embrace. i am more convinced than ever that i don't like justice katju. seen in this light his comments about rushdie making millions by dissing islam only seem petty. to katju's other character flaws you can also add jealousy! i am disappointed that someone thought it fit to appoint this man a supreme court judge.
it is ironic that you should use the 'jealousy' word. the same word has been used against Rushdie by Vinod Mehta:
Alpha Malevolence?
Although India Today did not invite me for its conclave, I caught Salman Rushdie on television. Dressed nattily in a Nehru jacket, laughing at his own jokes (always a bad sign for an aspiring humorist), fiddling with an incipient goatee, he delivered an eloquent, profound, passionate and sardonic oration on the theme he is rightly obsessed with: freedom of expression. There is very little in what he said that one can argue or disagree with. Free speech must be protected, nourished and cherished in our land—and writers like Salman Rushdie must be allowed to come and go as and when they wish.
Yet, I find Sir Salman an increasingly polarising figure. He was mild on Pranab Mukherjee, Akhilesh Yadav and Omar Abdullah for refusing to share a platform on which he was the marquee speaker. He was less mild on Imran Khan (who also refused), mauling and mocking him mercilessly. Although Imran is rather an easy target for someone of the intellectual stature of Sir Salman, Mr Rushdie is nevertheless entitled to his pound of flesh. My problem is that for a pragmatic, wise and nuanced writer, he shows not an iota of sympathy, much less understanding, for the compulsions which forced the four cowards to decline an invitation to sup with him. Akhilesh and Omar, given the multiple enemies they possess, would be committing certain political suicide if they appeared to hobnob with him. Pranabda took the day off because his party presumably would have frowned if he had even casually shaken hands with Sir Salman. Between career harakiri and being perceived by the free speech ayatollahs to have surrendered to the ‘bigots’, they chose the latter. I do not endorse what they did but I can understand why they did it.
I wonder why Sir Salman was so harsh on poor Imran. It’s hardly a secret what game he is playing. However, I suggest a small, very small, cheer for Imran for simultaneously seeming to take on the mullahs and the military. Could it be that Mr Rushdie is a trifle jealous of Mr Khan? Both are/were dedicated womanisers and, without taking sides, it has to be conceded that Imran has a better strike rate with the ladies than the world-famous author.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280369
Guest- Guest
Re: Shut up India
by charvaka Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:34 pm
Katju employs a number of tactics that Rashmun routinely uses. He loves to drop names (Voltaire, Shakespeare, Rousseau, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hugo, Sinclair). He doggedly ignores the central issue at hand (freedom of speech) and argues by attacking the person involved in the issue ("Rushdie is a substandard writer," "Anna Hazare may be corrupt"). He sets himself up as superior to his own set ("See, I am a totally scientific person. But 99% of my fellow countrymen are very religious.") He suffers from a serious case of colonial hangover, explaining India to the westerners in the audience. Transition from feudalism to modern industrial society, my foot. The constitution has no feudalism in it, only free speech. This confused idiot should not have become a Supreme Court justice. Worse still was his appointment to head the Press Council of India. Instead of standing up for free speech in that role, he is bent on curtailing freedoms in the name of religious sensitivity. Somewhat like George W. Bush's appointments to the EPA and FEMA.MaxEntropy_Man wrote:justice katju seems very much like the garden variety authoritarian "benign" despot that rashmun would embrace. i am more convinced than ever that i don't like justice katju.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Shut up India
by charvaka Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:38 pm
So, to sum it up... Katju is jealous of Rushdie. Rushdie is jealous of Imran Khan. Does this mean Katju is jealous of Imran Khan? If not, I am not sure where this "observation" fits.Rashmun wrote:MaxEntropy_Man wrote:ultimately this is a philosophical debate about the boundaries of freedom of speech between the effete worldview of a washed up and irrelevant judge, and bright young people brimming with a modern idealistic fervour about democracy. there is no question which side i am on.
justice katju seems very much like the garden variety authoritarian "benign" despot that rashmun would embrace. i am more convinced than ever that i don't like justice katju. seen in this light his comments about rushdie making millions by dissing islam only seem petty. to katju's other character flaws you can also add jealousy! i am disappointed that someone thought it fit to appoint this man a supreme court judge.
it is ironic that you should use the 'jealousy' word. the same word has been used against Rushdie by Vinod Mehta:
Alpha Malevolence?
Although India Today did not invite me for its conclave, I caught Salman Rushdie on television. Dressed nattily in a Nehru jacket, laughing at his own jokes (always a bad sign for an aspiring humorist), fiddling with an incipient goatee, he delivered an eloquent, profound, passionate and sardonic oration on the theme he is rightly obsessed with: freedom of expression. There is very little in what he said that one can argue or disagree with. Free speech must be protected, nourished and cherished in our land—and writers like Salman Rushdie must be allowed to come and go as and when they wish.
Yet, I find Sir Salman an increasingly polarising figure. He was mild on Pranab Mukherjee, Akhilesh Yadav and Omar Abdullah for refusing to share a platform on which he was the marquee speaker. He was less mild on Imran Khan (who also refused), mauling and mocking him mercilessly. Although Imran is rather an easy target for someone of the intellectual stature of Sir Salman, Mr Rushdie is nevertheless entitled to his pound of flesh. My problem is that for a pragmatic, wise and nuanced writer, he shows not an iota of sympathy, much less understanding, for the compulsions which forced the four cowards to decline an invitation to sup with him. Akhilesh and Omar, given the multiple enemies they possess, would be committing certain political suicide if they appeared to hobnob with him. Pranabda took the day off because his party presumably would have frowned if he had even casually shaken hands with Sir Salman. Between career harakiri and being perceived by the free speech ayatollahs to have surrendered to the ‘bigots’, they chose the latter. I do not endorse what they did but I can understand why they did it.
I wonder why Sir Salman was so harsh on poor Imran. It’s hardly a secret what game he is playing. However, I suggest a small, very small, cheer for Imran for simultaneously seeming to take on the mullahs and the military. Could it be that Mr Rushdie is a trifle jealous of Mr Khan? Both are/were dedicated womanisers and, without taking sides, it has to be conceded that Imran has a better strike rate with the ladies than the world-famous author.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280369
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Shut up India
by charvaka Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:44 pm
I particularly liked the statements of the only Muslim guy on the panel. He made some excellent points throughout the discussion.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Shut up India
by Guest Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:44 pm
A judge above contempt
Fali S. Nariman
The speech delivered by Justice Markandey Katju, chief justice of the High Court of Madras, on the first anniversary of the inauguration of the Madurai Bench (July 24) was like a breath of fresh air. He said that it was a fundamental principle in democracy that the people are supreme, and that all authorities — judges, legislators, ministers, bureaucrats, and so on — were servants of the people, and should be proud to be servants of the people. He did not stop there. Since the people are our masters, he went on, and we are their servants, surely the masters have a right to criticise us and take us to task if we do not function properly; so we should not take offence when the people criticise us; our authority rests on public confidence, and not on the power of contempt.
If William Shakespeare were alive (in my opinion he and his plays are eternally alive) he would have gushed: “A Daniel come to judgment! Yea, a Daniel! O wise judge, how I do honour thee!”
The power of contempt that Chief Justice Katju spoke about was a relic that has survived our colonial past when it was as important for Indians to see “the awful majesty of the law” administered mainly by British judges, as it was to hear their ponderous verdicts. If anyone wrote or said anything derogatory about a judge of a superior court (which that judge himself ruled was derogatory) that person was guilty of contempt and could be marched off to prison for up to six months....
This is a glaring defect in our judge-made law that needs to be remedied —hopefully by the judges themselves; if not, reluctantly, then by Parliament. The importance of the speech of Justice Katju is that it is perhaps for the first time in my professional living memory of 55 years that a judge has introspected and has publicly come up with the right answer — it is a step in the right direction....
The Press (the “free Press”) not only criticised the judges but held them up to ridicule; the Daily Mirror published photographs of all three judges (Templeman included) and below the photograph was written in capital letters “Old Fools”. That picture hangs outside my study only to reassure me that judges — like lawyers — are as fallible as they are mortal. Well, I pointedly asked Sydney Templeman why no contempt proceedings were initiated against the Daily Mirror. And what has always endeared him to me was his answer. He smiled, and without a trace of bitterness, said that judges in England did not take notice of personal insults, uttered without malice. After all, he said, he was old, and though he believed he wasn’t a fool, someone else who sincerely thought he was, was entitled to his opinion. And then his eyes lighted up. “But if they (he meant the editor and publisher) had said we were dishonest or not true to our conscience, I would have promptly hauled them up”. I said to myself: here’s a Daniel-come-to-judgement — a judge who was so conscious of his enormous power that he knew when not to use it; a self-restraining quality which (I believe) greatly enhances the prestige of all judicial power. I would respectfully commend this attitude to all judges, present and future — both in the high courts and in the Supreme Court.
The writer is an eminent jurist
http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/75654/
Fali S. Nariman
The speech delivered by Justice Markandey Katju, chief justice of the High Court of Madras, on the first anniversary of the inauguration of the Madurai Bench (July 24) was like a breath of fresh air. He said that it was a fundamental principle in democracy that the people are supreme, and that all authorities — judges, legislators, ministers, bureaucrats, and so on — were servants of the people, and should be proud to be servants of the people. He did not stop there. Since the people are our masters, he went on, and we are their servants, surely the masters have a right to criticise us and take us to task if we do not function properly; so we should not take offence when the people criticise us; our authority rests on public confidence, and not on the power of contempt.
If William Shakespeare were alive (in my opinion he and his plays are eternally alive) he would have gushed: “A Daniel come to judgment! Yea, a Daniel! O wise judge, how I do honour thee!”
The power of contempt that Chief Justice Katju spoke about was a relic that has survived our colonial past when it was as important for Indians to see “the awful majesty of the law” administered mainly by British judges, as it was to hear their ponderous verdicts. If anyone wrote or said anything derogatory about a judge of a superior court (which that judge himself ruled was derogatory) that person was guilty of contempt and could be marched off to prison for up to six months....
This is a glaring defect in our judge-made law that needs to be remedied —hopefully by the judges themselves; if not, reluctantly, then by Parliament. The importance of the speech of Justice Katju is that it is perhaps for the first time in my professional living memory of 55 years that a judge has introspected and has publicly come up with the right answer — it is a step in the right direction....
The Press (the “free Press”) not only criticised the judges but held them up to ridicule; the Daily Mirror published photographs of all three judges (Templeman included) and below the photograph was written in capital letters “Old Fools”. That picture hangs outside my study only to reassure me that judges — like lawyers — are as fallible as they are mortal. Well, I pointedly asked Sydney Templeman why no contempt proceedings were initiated against the Daily Mirror. And what has always endeared him to me was his answer. He smiled, and without a trace of bitterness, said that judges in England did not take notice of personal insults, uttered without malice. After all, he said, he was old, and though he believed he wasn’t a fool, someone else who sincerely thought he was, was entitled to his opinion. And then his eyes lighted up. “But if they (he meant the editor and publisher) had said we were dishonest or not true to our conscience, I would have promptly hauled them up”. I said to myself: here’s a Daniel-come-to-judgement — a judge who was so conscious of his enormous power that he knew when not to use it; a self-restraining quality which (I believe) greatly enhances the prestige of all judicial power. I would respectfully commend this attitude to all judges, present and future — both in the high courts and in the Supreme Court.
The writer is an eminent jurist
http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/75654/
Guest- Guest
Re: Shut up India
by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:55 pm
rashmun, i am waiting for the day when you articulate a point of view and defend it based on the strength of your own intellect instead of buttressing it (exclusively) by posting other people's thoughts and writings. maybe then we can have a meaningful conversation. i'd rather debate you than vinod mehra and nariman.
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Shut up India
by charvaka Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:08 pm
It is interesting to note that Rashmun hasn't expressed his own opinion about the free speech issue discussed in that panel discussion and on this thread. All he can do is copy-paste news articles verbatim without any of his own views.MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun, i am waiting for the day when you articulate a point of view and defend it based on the strength of your own intellect instead of buttressing it (exclusively) by posting other people's thoughts and writings. maybe then we can have a meaningful conversation. i'd rather debate you than vinod mehra and nariman.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Shut up India
by Guest Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:45 am
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun, i am waiting for the day when you articulate a point of view and defend it based on the strength of your own intellect instead of buttressing it (exclusively) by posting other people's thoughts and writings. maybe then we can have a meaningful conversation. i'd rather debate you than vinod mehra and nariman.
i have never shied away from any debate but i always like the person i am debating with to take a more informed approach so that some consensus view can ultimately emerge. it was necessary to refer to the writings of Mehta and Nariman because i felt reading their views may help you take a more nuanced approach to this issue. incidentally there is an important judgement on freedom of expression of the media in reporting ongoing cases that is to be delivered soon by the indian supreme court.
http://www.livemint.com/2012/03/27220518/Supreme-Court-looks-to--balanc.html
Guest- Guest
Similar topics» This man should shut up
» Shut up! Sharad
» shut up and dance
» Rahul Gandhi! Please shut up.
» IMPORTANT: if this forum is shut down
» Shut up! Sharad
» shut up and dance
» Rahul Gandhi! Please shut up.
» IMPORTANT: if this forum is shut down
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum