So, we have the rage boys of the Religion of Peace stretching their muscle. What does chindu do? In its characterestic style, it blames the article for being "religiously insensitive and provocative". That justifies the muslim violence stretching over 3 days in two districts, doesn't it.
The Hindu : Front Page : 2 killed in Shimoga, Hassan violence
The Hindu : Front Page : 2 killed in Shimoga, Hassan violence
The article is a translation of an essay by Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen on wearing of the burka by Muslim women, and contains remarks that could be considered religiously insensitive and provocative.
Posts
7 comments:
Contrast this with the endless pseudo-letters on Qatar nationality for M.F. Husain.
For Xinhua Ram, his paintings could never be considered as religiously insensitive and provocative.
-Anand
Did anybody know what was written in the article? I was searching all major media for a reference to what was written but didn't find any. only DNA had mentioned the 'controversial' statement in the article ("The article in a Kannada daily mentioned that Prophet Mohammed was against women wearing the burqa") as part of its news item. But even then chindu was extra smart ("The article is a translation of an essay by Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen on wearing of the burka by Muslim women, and contains remarks that could be considered religiously insensitive and provocative"). Wondering why this or any part of the article was blacked out by news media!
Also it was pathetic to read and compare the news item on all media. Barring a few, it was really a copy+paste. Real trash...
I hope the Nishas and Nandinis will stop pretending to be ignorant of this incident. Here is the controversial piece. Excerpts below:
Why are women covered? Because they are sex objects. Because when men see them, they are roused. Why should women have to be penalised for men's sexual problems? Even women have sexual urges. But men are not covered for that. In no religion formulated by men are women considered to have a separate existence, or as human beings having desires and opinions separate from men's. The purdah rules humiliate not only women but men too. If women walk about without purdah, it's as if men will look at them with lustful eyes, or pounce on them, or rape them. Do they lose all their senses when they see any woman without burqa?
My question to Shabana and her supporters, who argue that the Quran says nothing about purdah is: If the Quran advises women to use purdah, should they do so? My answer is, No. Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women's oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive. Women are told to wear them so that they cannot exist with their self-respect, honour, confidence, separate identity, own opinion and ideals intact.
If this was the original English version and the Kannada translation was correct, then what was provocative about it? Hope Chindu Ram will someday wake up to his senses and see some reason.
Even the headline "2 killed in Shimoga, Hassan violence" is cleverly worded so as not to overtly implicate Chindu's pet minority community.
It is not only Chindu, but other members of the secular media are also adept at secular whitewashing. For example, see the following innocuous report:
"A verrnacular daily had translated a write up by Taslima Nasreen regarding the purdah system. Some persons had opposed the article and resorted to violence".
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/01/shimoga-hassan-tense-taslima-article.htm
A responsible newspaper would have surely known how much the article would offend the Muslim community.
Really? So, dear loyal reader, were you outraged when LiC defended MF? You very well know, dear loyal reader, that Hindus were offended time and again by MF.
Post a Comment