Sri N Ram, Chief Editor, The Hindu, It is astonishing to see your special editorial of 25th, feb.10. Is it so important an occasion to celebrate? A Muslim dynastic Monarch gave an award to another Muslim fundamentalist, for his art. Why not He considers Nasreen also, who is struggling to find a shelter? You dealt in details of his creative genius etc, but failed to deal with the other side of the coin, i.e. his expertise in wounding the sentiments of a very large section of people (Hindus) by painting the nude pictures of Hindu religious deities considered as sacred. You say Hussian is a secular person, but he did not paint the nude pictures of Mary Martha or any other prominent Muslim women. He preferred only Hindu deities because he is an anti-Hindu fundamentalist, eager to wound the sentiments of Hindus. You, surpsisingly, justified the nude paintings by Hussian, by referring to some art sculptures exhibited in some temples, which are not the integral par of Hindu Religion. In the Bible there are certain stanzas relating to sex and its performance. Please advise whether you justify anyone reproducing in print those portions. In this connection I bring to your notice two other names Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen who are also in the same path of Hussain, wounding the sentiments of Muslims in their writings and who were also driven away from their home land. The Govt and you Medias did not say that it is their fundamental right but banned the books in India, to appease the Muslim protesters. In the case of Hussain you and the Govt, did not say anything about the negative side of the nude pictures, and how it wounded the feelings of Hindus. When the Visa to Nasreen was renewed, Minister Prabab Mukherjee, said that Nasrren should be careful in her writings not to wound the feelings of others. Why you and the Govt. did not give the same advice o Hussain to restrict his art works, so as not to wound the feelings of others.
Secularism in India means hate the majority religion and praise others. One Dr.Rev.Benjamin,a renowned Priest, in an article in TOI on “secularism in India said ” a Hindu is considered as secular only when he hate Hinduism for anything and everything and praise others even on their wrong doings. This comment well suit you, as you are struggling hard to get the stamp of secularism affixed firmly on The Hindu. You are worrying about the nomenclature of the paper and having sleepless nights over it (same words as stated by your former readers” editor himself). In the case of Hussain he wounds the feelings of Hindus and the other two, the feelings of Muslims. While you justify Hussain and oppose the protestors, in the other cases, you justify the protestors and oppose the writers. Is it not a strange phenomenon to practice opposite views on identical matters? It is familiar for you, as you wrote an editorial in support of the Nuclear deal on one day and wrote just opposite, protesting the deal in another editorial the next day. Your humble readers are confused which is correct and which is wrong. Are sentimental wounds differing in volume or gravity, when indicting on Hindus and Muslims? I presume I have also the freedom of expression to say my views as you have and hence this letter. If you can take this writer, having over 65 years of Hindu readership, as a member of Hindu, please let me have a reply with your valuable comments, to enable me to correct my views. In spite of my opposition to some of your ideals and writings, I still keep reading Hindu, because of some sentiments.
-Thatha
No comments:
Post a Comment