reader-list Digest, Vol 80, Issue 29

[reader-list-request]

Send reader-list mailing list submissions to
        reader-l...@sarai.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        reader-list-requ...@sarai.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        reader-list-ow...@sarai.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of reader-list digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Question regarding women's reservation bill (Rahul Asthana)
   2. Re: Question regarding women's reservation bill (Rakesh Iyer)
   3. Re: Question regarding women's reservation bill (Rahul Asthana)
   4. Re: Feel free, Mr. Husain. Go paint Qatari leaders
      (Shuddhabrata Sengupta)
   5. Re: Feel free, Mr. Husain. Go paint Qatari leaders (Pheeta Ram)

--- Begin Message ---

Hi,
>From browing the reports it was not clear to me if the reservation would be 
>fixed or rotating. Does anyone know? If the reservation is rotating in 
>different seats for each election that would mean incumbents can not contest 
>in 33% of the seats, and incumbents are not likely to get party tickets in the 
>other 33 % . 

Thanks
Rahul


      

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

Hi Rahul

My response:

1) The reservation is rotating in the sense, that within 15 years, all seats
would have been reserved at least once for women. Assume that a state has 3
governments which last their full terms. In such a case, in 15 years, there
would have been 3 elections for the state assembly. In such a case, one
third of the assembly seats would be reserved in say the first election, but
in the next election, these seats would be de-reserved, and instead
one-third of the total assembly seats (but not these dereserved ones) would
be chosen for the 2nd election. In the third election, those seats which
were dereserved for both the 1st and 2nd election would be reserved.

2) Women can contest even from dereserved seats, so there is no case of
incumbent not being able to contest from a seat once it is dereserved. She
can contest again. There is no restriction on doing so. But what it means is
that a man would not be able to be contest three continuous times in both
Assembly and Parliamentary elections from the same seat.

Rakesh

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

Thanks Rakesh.
I agree that women incumbents can contest from open seats - but,firstly, it is 
less likely that they would be given tickets by major parties,since they are 
already giving tickets to women in the reserved constituencies.Secondly,if they 
do, the balance may shift in the other direction with men not getting a chance 
to stand for election in 66% of the seats.
To sum up, in 66% of seats, its unlikely, though not impossible for the 
incumbents to stand for election ; and that I think is bad for accountability 
in particular and democarcy in general.It has the potential to create a big 
mess.
On the other hand, fixed reservation is acceptable in my opinion.

Thanks
Rahul




________________________________
From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rn...@gmail.com>
To: Rahul Asthana <rahul_ca...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Sarai Reader List <reader-l...@sarai.net>
Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 1:30:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Question regarding women's reservation bill

Hi Rahul

My response:

1) The reservation is rotating in the sense, that within 15 years, all seats 
would have been reserved at least once for women. Assume that a state has 3 
governments which last their full terms. In such a case, in 15 years, there 
would have been 3 elections for the state assembly. In such a case, one third 
of the assembly seats would be reserved in say the first election, but in the 
next election, these seats would be de-reserved, and instead one-third of the 
total assembly seats (but not these dereserved ones) would be chosen for the 
2nd election. In the third election, those seats which were dereserved for both 
the 1st and 2nd election would be reserved. 

2) Women can contest even from dereserved seats, so there is no case of 
incumbent not being able to contest from a seat once it is dereserved. She can 
contest again. There is no restriction on doing so. But what it means is that a 
man would not be able to be contest three continuous times in both Assembly and 
Parliamentary elections from the same seat. 

Rakesh



      

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

Dear All,

I don't know whether or not I am secular or pseudo-secular. But actually, i do not oppose Cho Ramaswamy's article. Instead of reading it ironically, I want to read it seriously, to take it at its word. I think it works better if read as if it were written sincerely, than it does if read as if it were written as a second rate piece of satire.

And seriously, I think Husain has every right to paint anyone he likes in any form he likes, whether nude or clothed. And so, if I were asked what my opinion would be on the hypothetical possibility of Husain (or any other artist for that matter) wanting to paint the royal family of Qatar, or Queen Elizabeth the Second, or Shivaji, or Razia Sultan, or Indira Gandhi, or Savarkar, or M.K. Gandhi (doesn't require much imagination to do that) or Bhagat Singh, Subhash Bose, Lenin, Mao, or any personage, religious or political, in the nude, or, if on the contrary, he wanted to paint a version of a nude by Ingres in a burqa, or wearing a boliler suit, frankly, I would say that it should be his prerogative to do that.

As far as I am concerned, no painting ever killed anybody, or made people get infectious diseases. Paintings are good, or bad, and Husain's work, like the work of any other artist is open to criticism. But a work of art, in and of itself, is neither harmful, nor beneficial. We can derive harmful or beneficial interpretations of it, and if we grant that to be the case, then that could, arguably be a ground for restricting the liberty of viewership, ( a view I must clarify that I do not endorse, I am considering it here, only for the sake of argument), but even this cannot by any stretch of reasoning be construed into becoming a grounds for a restriction on the making of a work of art. If at all we consider such an argument, all that it can permit us to do is to imagine provisions for the restriction of the said work's universal exposition.

And it should also be his (Husain's) prerogative to live where he wants (and this is true of anybody at all), work where he wants, and paint, or write, or sing or dance whatsoever he wants. As long as his actions do not restrict another person's liberty, I see no reason whatsoever to argue for restraints on his location or movements. His being in Quatar does not prevent me from being in India. His making a nude Durga does not restrict my liberty to either see, or not see the said painting. Seeing it, or not, being offended by it or not, is a choice that I am making. And an artist cannot be prosecuted for choices made by a viewer.

If anyone is offended (or feel that they may be offended) by anything that any artist makes, they have to do one simple thing to ensure that the unpleasantness of offense does not mar their experience of life. Do not look at the work of art in question, simply do not read the offending book, or watch the offending play or film. Or, if you do, simply accept the fact that just as there are many things that you hold dear that others may find offensive or be indifferent to, so too, many things that you find offensive might be significant to others. A nude depiction of a goddess in the Hindu pantheon may be offensive to some, and sacred, or meaningful and beautiful, to others, for similar, and/or different reasons. No one should be in a position to take away your right not to see something, just as no one should be in a position to take away my right to see something.

Frankly, I do not care whether Husain does or does not paint the rulers of Qatar in the nude, or Cho Ramaswami with a full head of hair. But if asked whether or not he has a right to do so, obviously, I would say he does. And so does any artist, anywhere in the world.

best

Shuddha




On 10-Mar-10, at 6:21 PM, Bipin Trivedi wrote:

Thanks Pawan for posting this article.

Cho Ramaswami is absolutely right by saying ” All those who appreciate his art would now eagerly await his imaginative paintings of the leaders of Qatari

society, hopefully not artistically clothed.”

Actually it is his dirty mind inspires him to make goddess nude pictures and not the artistic mind. He is really psychic and needs psychiatric treatment. However, pseudo-secular readers here will sure to oppose this article.

Thanks
Bipin


-----Original Message-----

From: reader-list-boun...@sarai.net [mailto:reader-list- boun...@sarai.net] On Behalf Of Pawan Durani

Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:48 PM
To: reader-list
Subject: [Reader-list] Feel free, Mr Husain. Go paint Qatari leaders

Feel free, Mr Husain. Go paint Qatari leaders

March 10th, 2010
By Cho Ramaswamy


Now that M.F. Husain has settled in Qatar where there is total
freedom, he is free of the shackles imposed by the Indian system on
freedom of expression. All those who appreciate his art would now
eagerly await his imaginative paintings of the leaders of Qatari
society, hopefully not artistically clothed.

His fans would not expect him to confine nudity to Hindu deities
alone; it would extend to all the religions. Having already painted
his mother, daughter and Muslim kings fully robed, Mr Husain, being
the freed citizen that he is now in Qatar, should be prepared to
remove those clothes. How can the artist in him be satisfied with
seeing Saraswati and Parvati alone in the nude?

Fortunately for art in the nude, the courts here cannot do anything to
Mr Husain now that he has run away from the Indian judicial system.
All the cases could be now buried amidst the pictures drawn by him.
Both would mercifully go to the dustbin.

I am very anxious not to get branded as communal in my thinking. I
want to be hailed as a secularist and so I would say with all the
force I can command that Mr Husain has the inalienable right to depict
the Hindu deities in the most obscene manner while taking care to
paint even non-religious Muslims fully clothed.

He can claim that because he hates Hitler he painted him in the nude
so he could humiliate him and in the same breath justify his nude
pictures of Hindu goddesses as depiction of purity.

And because I am secular, I would also assert that his not returning
to India is only to gain freedom from the Indian fascism and not to
avoid being apprehended by the law enforcers in this country. Being a
liberal-minded artist, he naturally is not able to put up with the
protests which do not harm him in any way.

Shunning the Indian system and preferring the Qatar environment is not
an act of hypocrisy but one of liberal, secular and free thought. And
now that Mr Husain has established himself as such a stout campaigner
for free expression, I must believe firmly that he will forcefully
plead with his new protectors in Qatar to roll out of a bit of that
red carpet to Taslima Nasreen, another hounded victim from the
literary world.

- Cho S. Ramaswamy is a well-known political
analyst, actor, dramatist and editor of
Tamil magazine Tughlak

Source : http://www.deccanchronicle.com/blogs/others/feel-free-mr- husain-go-paint-qatari-leaders-773

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations

To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.

To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations

To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.

To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shud...@sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

Dear Shuddhabrata Sengupta

I don't know whether or not i am talking to myself or responding to your
stand. But actually i
am curious about one challenge that people, who have problems with Hussain's
depiction of Hindu goddesses
in the nude and who claim to represent the entire Hindu community, have
thrown at Hussain: try painting Mohammed, and to top it all, in the nude.
Those people who argue in the favour of Hussain by citing Khajuraho and the
history of Indian art fail to see that a Hindu in the contemporary times
don't worship in temples made like Khajuraho. You have a Kaali in the nude
or a Durga in Begal but not Sarswati.You can get away with painting anybody
and everybody in the nude but not the Prophet.

I am vaguely reminded of one book, which people are even forbidden to name
in public, which was written by a Hindu somewhere in the 1920s and which
portrayed prophet Mohammed in bad light. If i am not wrong, the writer was
killed by a Muslim for having written such a book.

i buy this argument as to why Hussain doesn't paint prophet Mohammed and
that too in the nude. Now i am not daring him to do it but trying to find
out   as to why Hussain's painterly imagination staggers at the thought of
doing so. I think only Hussain can answer this question. Either because of
being a Muslim he 'respects' the religious decree against depiction of the
Prophet or he is afraid of the consequences. Or the Muslim religious
imagination doesn't give itself so easily to a painterly imagination.

Hussain has every right to paint whatever he likes, he has all the freedom
to do so. But at the same time he should also be ready to bear the
consequences of the 'artistic' rejoinders that the specific interest groups
would draw in response to his work in the public space. The piece of art
begins at Hussains end but it completes itself at the end of the people who
protest against it and violently. I paint something in my studio and keep it
hidden in my cellar and then one day burns it without anybody's knowledge. I
paint something and shows it to my friend. He slaps on my face: I had
painted his old mother in the nude and, to top it all, i am not a very good
painter! My painting begins on the canvas but extends up to my reddened
cheek. The canvas has been extended a bit. My cheek is a part of the larger
canvas.

Hussain paints a nude Saraswati, a group registers its protest by
vandalising the exhibition space and tearing down the canvas. This 'event'
in history is the actual painting and our stances for or against keep
extending the canvas further. It all seems like a curious game. I have the
right to paint everything i like, i am an artist. I have the right to
respond to your painting and paint it the way i like and make it more
complete. I have the right to take sides, to defend Hussain's right to paint
and to defend the freedom of expression as the fundamental human right, and
add my colours to it. And the painting gets painted. Its just that Hussain
needs to share his earnings with everybody else who helps paint this huge
canvas!

Pheeta Ram


On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Shuddhabrata Sengupta
<shud...@sarai.net>wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I don't know whether or not I am secular or pseudo-secular. But
> actually, i do not oppose Cho Ramaswamy's article. Instead of reading
> it ironically, I want to read it seriously, to take it at its word. I
> think it works better if read as if it were written sincerely, than
> it does if read as if it were written as a second rate piece of satire.
>
> And seriously, I think Husain has every right to paint anyone he
> likes in any form he likes, whether nude or clothed. And so, if I
> were asked what my opinion would be on the hypothetical  possibility
> of Husain (or any other artist for that matter) wanting to paint the
> royal family of Qatar, or Queen Elizabeth the Second, or Shivaji, or
> Razia Sultan, or Indira Gandhi, or Savarkar, or M.K. Gandhi (doesn't
> require much imagination to do that) or Bhagat Singh, Subhash Bose,
> Lenin, Mao, or any personage, religious or political, in the nude,
> or, if on the contrary, he wanted to paint a version of a nude by
> Ingres in a burqa, or wearing a boliler suit, frankly, I would say
> that it should be his prerogative to do that.
>
> As far as I am concerned, no painting ever killed anybody, or made
> people get infectious diseases. Paintings are good, or bad, and
> Husain's work, like the work of any other artist is open to
> criticism. But a work of art, in and of itself, is neither harmful,
> nor beneficial. We can derive harmful or beneficial interpretations
> of it, and if we grant that to be the case, then that could, arguably
> be a ground for restricting the liberty of viewership, ( a view I
> must clarify that I do not endorse, I am considering it here, only
> for the sake of argument), but even this cannot by any stretch of
> reasoning be construed into becoming a grounds for a restriction on
> the making of a work of art. If at all we consider such an argument,
> all that it can permit us to do is to imagine provisions for the
> restriction of the said work's universal exposition.
>
> And it should also be his (Husain's) prerogative to live where he
> wants (and this is true of anybody at all), work where he wants, and
> paint, or write, or sing or dance whatsoever he wants. As long as his
> actions do not restrict another person's liberty, I see no reason
> whatsoever to argue for restraints on his location or movements. His
> being in Quatar does not prevent me from being in India. His making a
> nude Durga does not restrict my liberty to either see, or not see the
> said painting. Seeing it, or not, being offended by it or not, is a
> choice that I am making. And an artist cannot be prosecuted for
> choices made by a viewer.
>
> If anyone is offended (or feel that they may be offended) by anything
> that any artist makes, they have to do one simple thing to ensure
> that the unpleasantness of offense does not mar their experience of
> life. Do not look at the work of art in question, simply do not read
> the offending book, or watch the offending play or film. Or, if you
> do, simply accept the fact that just as there are many things that
> you hold dear that others may find offensive or be indifferent to, so
> too, many things that you find offensive might be significant to
> others. A nude depiction of a goddess in the Hindu pantheon may be
> offensive to some, and sacred, or meaningful and beautiful, to
> others, for similar, and/or different reasons. No one should be in a
> position to take away your right not to see something, just as no one
> should be in a position to take away my right to see something.
>
> Frankly, I do not care whether Husain does or does not paint the
> rulers of Qatar in the nude, or Cho Ramaswami with a full head of
> hair. But if asked whether or not he has a right to do so, obviously,
> I would say he does. And so does any artist, anywhere in the world.
>
> best
>
> Shuddha
>
>
>
>
> On 10-Mar-10, at 6:21 PM, Bipin Trivedi wrote:
>
> > Thanks Pawan for posting this article.
> >
> > Cho Ramaswami is absolutely right by saying ” All those who
> > appreciate his art would now eagerly await his imaginative
> > paintings of the leaders of Qatari
> > society, hopefully not artistically clothed.”
> >
> > Actually it is his dirty mind inspires him to make goddess nude
> > pictures and not the artistic mind. He is really psychic and needs
> > psychiatric treatment. However, pseudo-secular readers here will
> > sure to oppose this article.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bipin
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: reader-list-boun...@sarai.net [mailto:reader-list-
> > boun...@sarai.net] On Behalf Of Pawan Durani
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:48 PM
> > To: reader-list
> > Subject: [Reader-list] Feel free, Mr Husain. Go paint Qatari leaders
> >
> > Feel free, Mr Husain. Go paint Qatari leaders
> >
> > March 10th, 2010
> > By Cho Ramaswamy
> >
> >
> > Now that M.F. Husain has settled in Qatar where there is total
> > freedom, he is free of the shackles imposed by the Indian system on
> > freedom of expression. All those who appreciate his art would now
> > eagerly await his imaginative paintings of the leaders of Qatari
> > society, hopefully not artistically clothed.
> >
> > His fans would not expect him to confine nudity to Hindu deities
> > alone; it would extend to all the religions. Having already painted
> > his mother, daughter and Muslim kings fully robed, Mr Husain, being
> > the freed citizen that he is now in Qatar, should be prepared to
> > remove those clothes. How can the artist in him be satisfied with
> > seeing Saraswati and Parvati alone in the nude?
> >
> > Fortunately for art in the nude, the courts here cannot do anything to
> > Mr Husain now that he has run away from the Indian judicial system.
> > All the cases could be now buried amidst the pictures drawn by him.
> > Both would mercifully go to the dustbin.
> >
> > I am very anxious not to get branded as communal in my thinking. I
> > want to be hailed as a secularist and so I would say with all the
> > force I can command that Mr Husain has the inalienable right to depict
> > the Hindu deities in the most obscene manner while taking care to
> > paint even non-religious Muslims fully clothed.
> >
> > He can claim that because he hates Hitler he painted him in the nude
> > so he could humiliate him and in the same breath justify his nude
> > pictures of Hindu goddesses as depiction of purity.
> >
> > And because I am secular, I would also assert that his not returning
> > to India is only to gain freedom from the Indian fascism and not to
> > avoid being apprehended by the law enforcers in this country. Being a
> > liberal-minded artist, he naturally is not able to put up with the
> > protests which do not harm him in any way.
> >
> > Shunning the Indian system and preferring the Qatar environment is not
> > an act of hypocrisy but one of liberal, secular and free thought. And
> > now that Mr Husain has established himself as such a stout campaigner
> > for free expression, I must believe firmly that he will forcefully
> > plead with his new protectors in Qatar to roll out of a bit of that
> > red carpet to Taslima Nasreen, another hounded victim from the
> > literary world.
> >
> > - Cho S. Ramaswamy is a well-known political
> > analyst, actor, dramatist and editor of
> > Tamil magazine Tughlak
> >
> > Source : http://www.deccanchronicle.com/blogs/others/feel-free-mr-
> > husain-go-paint-qatari-leaders-773
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta
> The Sarai Programme at CSDS
> Raqs Media Collective
> shud...@sarai.net
> www.sarai.net
> www.raqsmediacollective.net
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>

--- End Message ---

_______________________________________________
reader-list mailing list
reader-l...@sarai.net
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list