- Jun 1, 2004
- 3,007
- 83
- 45
This "journalist" from the Hindustan Times claims that Sikhs opposed to SardarJi jokes are infringing upon their (hindus) rights to free speech (Their right to depricate minorities is now an issue of freedom), what this archaic fossil of a journalist doesn't realize is that this "humor" that he puts into comparison of free-will countries would not fly in the western world which are the beacons of "Freedom of Speech" itself. Gone are the days white actors would "dress up as Blacks" and make a mockery of them the way hindu actors put on a pugh and make themselves fools, I wonder how long a hollywood actor would last if he told a N*gger joke as a means for comedy and not in dramatic terms for films such as Mississipi Burning etc, he and/or the production company would face criminal charges for hate crimes. Also he claims that the 84 riots only healed when Sikhs themselves started telling "Sardarji jokes" again, yes and we all know the Jewish have finally "gotten over" the holocaust, not when the Nazis were put to trial and arrested, not when they were given their freedom, not when they were protected under an umbrella of nations who would look over them, but of course the healing began when they reverted back to self-depricating humor.......I can't believe how low journalism, and how disillusioned such idiots as this journalist have become, it's utterly pathetic.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1260510,001500230026.htm
Free speech and the Sardarji joke
Vir Sanghvi
February 27
Have you heard a good Sardarji joke recently? Has something about Santa and Banta brought a smile to your lips? Perhaps you have chuckled at a Sardarji joke in Khushwant Singh’s column.
If so, beware. You might have caused offence to the Sikh quom. Millions of Sardarjis might have been mortally offended by your laughter. You could well have struck a blow against the minorities.
Oh yes, I am being entirely
serious. Take the case of the film Shabd. I haven’t seen the movie — and judging by the box-office receipts, neither have most of you — but I gather that there is a scene that goes something like this: Zayed Khan is trying to cheer Aishwarya Rai up. He decides to tell her a Sardarji joke. He gets as far as saying “There was a Sardarji” when Aishwarya dissolves into helpless giggles. He never gets to complete the joke. Fair enough, you say. We’ve all told Sardarji jokes at some time or the other. And as for Ash’s giggles, these are of no great consequence. Aishwarya giggles incessantly no matter whether you ask her what the time is or tell her a joke.
But no, this seemingly innocuous scene has now become the subject of a controversy. Angry Sikhs stormed the offices of Pritish Nandy Communications who made the film. There were demands that the scene be deleted forthwith. The film was anti-Sikh, it was claimed. The pride of the Sikh quom had been hurt. The whole thing was an attack on the minorities.
The moral of the story is: don’t tell Sardarji jokes because some Sardarjis can’t take a joke. But why single out the Sikhs? Let’s take the example of India’s Christians. Way back in the 1970s, Jesus Christ Superstar, the Tim Rice-Andrew Lloyd Weber musical, was turned into a Hollywood film. By the time the movie was imported into India, Jesus Christ Superstar was already well-known as the hit play that had rocked Broadway. It had even been staged in Bombay by Alyque Padamsee.
So you would expect Christians to welcome the filmed version of a musical that had been such a success in the Christian world and which venerated the life of the Messiah. Wrong! When it was time to censor the film, Christian groups objected. The film was anti-Christian, they declared. It did not show enough respect to Jesus Christ. It should be banned. To its eternal shame, the Censor Board refused to certify Jesus Christ Superstar and the film was never shown in India.
It did not matter that no Christian country banned it. It did not matter that nobody of consequence anywhere in the Christian world regarded the movie as being anti-Christian. And it did not matter that the play on which the film was based had already been staged in India.
A minority said that its religion was being attacked. And this was enough to have the film banned.
Let’s take a more recent example. The Censor Board has certified a Hindi film called Sins. According to newspaper accounts of its plot, the movie features a priest who does some unpriestly things including indulging in pleasures of the flesh.
Christian groups are on the warpath once again. Never mind the censors, they say. The film is anti-Christian. How dare the filmmaker depict a priest as being all too human? This is an insult to India’s minorities. Ban the movie, they scream, otherwise Christians will be
offended.
The Censor Board held firm, at least one court has rejected a Christian petition seeking to have the film banned, and Sins was released last week.
But still, the campaign continues. And now, the protesters have found a new kind of legitimacy. The Minorities Commission has got in on the act. There is a danger, it suggests, that a religious minority might be offended. Perhaps the authorities should re-examine the issue and consider censoring or banning the film to avoid causing hurt to India’s Christians.
There are several issues at stake here. One of these is the role of the Minorities Commission. Readers with relatively long memories will recall that this current, ludicrous avatar of the Commission consists of a Chairman and members who did not utter one word of condemnation against Narendra Modi when Muslims were being massacred on the streets of Gujarat. (It was left to the National Human Rights Commission to take on the mass murderer and to try and stop the genocide.)
Having failed to stand up for the minorities when it really mattered, this pathetic body is now poking its nose into Hindi cinema on behalf of the forces of intolerance while claiming to fight for minority rights.
More important is the question of whether Indians have a sense of humour. Whatever else you may say about the mood of the country today, it is clearly not anti-Sikh. We have our first Sikh Prime Minister and he is probably among the two or three most respected politicians in the country today, admired even by those who did not vote for his party.
The Sardarji joke, like all ethnic humour, is part of a good-natured Indian tradition and hardly an example of any kind of anti-minority feeling. Sikhs themselves often tell the best Sardarji jokes — Khushwant Singh’s column is a good example — and one indication that India’s Sikh minority had regained its confidence after the traumas of the 1980s (Bluestar, the Delhi massacres etc) was when Sikhs began telling Sardarji jokes again.
For anybody to claim that a
Sardarji joke in a Hindi movie
is an insult to Sikhs is plain silly. The protestors against Shabd should learn to develop a sense of humour.
As for Sins, are there no dodgy Christian priests? Are Christian holy men deserving of a special reverence in Hindi cinema? Let’s look at the Christian world where dodgy priests crop up frequently in cinema and popular fiction. The biggest best-seller of this decade, for instance, The Da Vinci Code, is dedicated to the proposition that the entire Christian church is based on a distortion of the historical Jesus. But no developed Christian country has banned the book and it will soon be turned into a movie with Tom Hanks.
So why should Christians claim rights in India that they do not have even in countries such as England where Christianity is the state religion? Do they think that they are entitled to some special consideration only because they are a minority? And finally, the key question: When is it proper to abridge the right to free speech in a liberal democracy?In India we seem to have tacitly accepted the foolish and dangerous principle that free speech can be sacrificed anytime somebody claims that he is offended.
But the whole point of the right to free speech is that it gives us the right to offend. Each time I criticise the government (or this week, the Minorities Commission) in this column, I know that I will offend somebody. All criticism is, by definition, offensive to its targets. So, take away the right to offend and you castrate the right to free speech and rob it of all meaning. If I were to only write goody-goody things that offended nobody, then I wouldn’t need the right to free speech.
And yet, all too often, we miss the point and reach for the censor’s pencil arguing that such and such individual will be offended or that such and such community will be hurt. In the process, we seriously diminish the principle of free speech.
Let’s take the case of Shabd. The obvious thing to do is to tell any Sikh who finds Sardarji jokes offensive not to go and see the film. Just because some Sikh is offended by a Sardarji joke, it does not follow that the rest of us lose the right to enjoy the joke.
So it is with Sins and the worldly priest. If some Christians are traumatised by the thought that there might be some dodgy priests, then they should stay at home, avoid seeing the film and cling to their naivete. They have no right to deny me the opportunity to see the film.
Ultimately our right to freedom of expression and our right to free access to books, movies and newspapers is far, far greater than the right of sensitive Sikhs not to be hurt by Sardarji jokes or of naïve Christians to deny that there may be dodgy priests. Start suspending the principle of freedom of speech to protect people’s illusions and you end up destroying the very basis of liberal society.
The examples I have chosen are simple and self-evident. But the issue can get more complex. Should Deepa Mehta’s Water have been made even if it showed the shameful way in which Hindus treat widows? Should The Satanic Verses have been published even if Muslims were so offended that they threatened to riot?
In every case, I would argue: yes. If Hindus treat widows badly, then let’s not be scared of letting this be shown on screen. If Muslims are offended by The Satanic Verses then they should refrain from reading the book. Censorship is not the answer.
All truth has the power to off-end. Take away the offence and you end up suppressing the truth.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1260510,001500230026.htm
Free speech and the Sardarji joke
Vir Sanghvi
February 27
Have you heard a good Sardarji joke recently? Has something about Santa and Banta brought a smile to your lips? Perhaps you have chuckled at a Sardarji joke in Khushwant Singh’s column.
If so, beware. You might have caused offence to the Sikh quom. Millions of Sardarjis might have been mortally offended by your laughter. You could well have struck a blow against the minorities.
Oh yes, I am being entirely
serious. Take the case of the film Shabd. I haven’t seen the movie — and judging by the box-office receipts, neither have most of you — but I gather that there is a scene that goes something like this: Zayed Khan is trying to cheer Aishwarya Rai up. He decides to tell her a Sardarji joke. He gets as far as saying “There was a Sardarji” when Aishwarya dissolves into helpless giggles. He never gets to complete the joke. Fair enough, you say. We’ve all told Sardarji jokes at some time or the other. And as for Ash’s giggles, these are of no great consequence. Aishwarya giggles incessantly no matter whether you ask her what the time is or tell her a joke.
But no, this seemingly innocuous scene has now become the subject of a controversy. Angry Sikhs stormed the offices of Pritish Nandy Communications who made the film. There were demands that the scene be deleted forthwith. The film was anti-Sikh, it was claimed. The pride of the Sikh quom had been hurt. The whole thing was an attack on the minorities.
The moral of the story is: don’t tell Sardarji jokes because some Sardarjis can’t take a joke. But why single out the Sikhs? Let’s take the example of India’s Christians. Way back in the 1970s, Jesus Christ Superstar, the Tim Rice-Andrew Lloyd Weber musical, was turned into a Hollywood film. By the time the movie was imported into India, Jesus Christ Superstar was already well-known as the hit play that had rocked Broadway. It had even been staged in Bombay by Alyque Padamsee.
So you would expect Christians to welcome the filmed version of a musical that had been such a success in the Christian world and which venerated the life of the Messiah. Wrong! When it was time to censor the film, Christian groups objected. The film was anti-Christian, they declared. It did not show enough respect to Jesus Christ. It should be banned. To its eternal shame, the Censor Board refused to certify Jesus Christ Superstar and the film was never shown in India.
It did not matter that no Christian country banned it. It did not matter that nobody of consequence anywhere in the Christian world regarded the movie as being anti-Christian. And it did not matter that the play on which the film was based had already been staged in India.
A minority said that its religion was being attacked. And this was enough to have the film banned.
Let’s take a more recent example. The Censor Board has certified a Hindi film called Sins. According to newspaper accounts of its plot, the movie features a priest who does some unpriestly things including indulging in pleasures of the flesh.
Christian groups are on the warpath once again. Never mind the censors, they say. The film is anti-Christian. How dare the filmmaker depict a priest as being all too human? This is an insult to India’s minorities. Ban the movie, they scream, otherwise Christians will be
offended.
The Censor Board held firm, at least one court has rejected a Christian petition seeking to have the film banned, and Sins was released last week.
But still, the campaign continues. And now, the protesters have found a new kind of legitimacy. The Minorities Commission has got in on the act. There is a danger, it suggests, that a religious minority might be offended. Perhaps the authorities should re-examine the issue and consider censoring or banning the film to avoid causing hurt to India’s Christians.
There are several issues at stake here. One of these is the role of the Minorities Commission. Readers with relatively long memories will recall that this current, ludicrous avatar of the Commission consists of a Chairman and members who did not utter one word of condemnation against Narendra Modi when Muslims were being massacred on the streets of Gujarat. (It was left to the National Human Rights Commission to take on the mass murderer and to try and stop the genocide.)
Having failed to stand up for the minorities when it really mattered, this pathetic body is now poking its nose into Hindi cinema on behalf of the forces of intolerance while claiming to fight for minority rights.
More important is the question of whether Indians have a sense of humour. Whatever else you may say about the mood of the country today, it is clearly not anti-Sikh. We have our first Sikh Prime Minister and he is probably among the two or three most respected politicians in the country today, admired even by those who did not vote for his party.
The Sardarji joke, like all ethnic humour, is part of a good-natured Indian tradition and hardly an example of any kind of anti-minority feeling. Sikhs themselves often tell the best Sardarji jokes — Khushwant Singh’s column is a good example — and one indication that India’s Sikh minority had regained its confidence after the traumas of the 1980s (Bluestar, the Delhi massacres etc) was when Sikhs began telling Sardarji jokes again.
For anybody to claim that a
Sardarji joke in a Hindi movie
is an insult to Sikhs is plain silly. The protestors against Shabd should learn to develop a sense of humour.
As for Sins, are there no dodgy Christian priests? Are Christian holy men deserving of a special reverence in Hindi cinema? Let’s look at the Christian world where dodgy priests crop up frequently in cinema and popular fiction. The biggest best-seller of this decade, for instance, The Da Vinci Code, is dedicated to the proposition that the entire Christian church is based on a distortion of the historical Jesus. But no developed Christian country has banned the book and it will soon be turned into a movie with Tom Hanks.
So why should Christians claim rights in India that they do not have even in countries such as England where Christianity is the state religion? Do they think that they are entitled to some special consideration only because they are a minority? And finally, the key question: When is it proper to abridge the right to free speech in a liberal democracy?In India we seem to have tacitly accepted the foolish and dangerous principle that free speech can be sacrificed anytime somebody claims that he is offended.
But the whole point of the right to free speech is that it gives us the right to offend. Each time I criticise the government (or this week, the Minorities Commission) in this column, I know that I will offend somebody. All criticism is, by definition, offensive to its targets. So, take away the right to offend and you castrate the right to free speech and rob it of all meaning. If I were to only write goody-goody things that offended nobody, then I wouldn’t need the right to free speech.
And yet, all too often, we miss the point and reach for the censor’s pencil arguing that such and such individual will be offended or that such and such community will be hurt. In the process, we seriously diminish the principle of free speech.
Let’s take the case of Shabd. The obvious thing to do is to tell any Sikh who finds Sardarji jokes offensive not to go and see the film. Just because some Sikh is offended by a Sardarji joke, it does not follow that the rest of us lose the right to enjoy the joke.
So it is with Sins and the worldly priest. If some Christians are traumatised by the thought that there might be some dodgy priests, then they should stay at home, avoid seeing the film and cling to their naivete. They have no right to deny me the opportunity to see the film.
Ultimately our right to freedom of expression and our right to free access to books, movies and newspapers is far, far greater than the right of sensitive Sikhs not to be hurt by Sardarji jokes or of naïve Christians to deny that there may be dodgy priests. Start suspending the principle of freedom of speech to protect people’s illusions and you end up destroying the very basis of liberal society.
The examples I have chosen are simple and self-evident. But the issue can get more complex. Should Deepa Mehta’s Water have been made even if it showed the shameful way in which Hindus treat widows? Should The Satanic Verses have been published even if Muslims were so offended that they threatened to riot?
In every case, I would argue: yes. If Hindus treat widows badly, then let’s not be scared of letting this be shown on screen. If Muslims are offended by The Satanic Verses then they should refrain from reading the book. Censorship is not the answer.
All truth has the power to off-end. Take away the offence and you end up suppressing the truth.
