This is the text of a conversation about blasphemy and bigotry that took place a while ago. I am posting it for further discussion and intervention:
Forwarded conversation
Subject: I am confused — is this picture blasphemy or bigotry?
————————
From: R Srivatsan
Date: Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:53 AM
To: “Moid M.A.” , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta, Susie Tharu , K Satyanarayana , “P. Madhavi” , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu
Dear Friends,
I just joined a(nother!) ageing e-group of friends who live in the past (sigh!). Dinner last night was extremely tasty, vegetarian (there was chicken kabab in the snacks served with the beer and whisky), some with garlic, some with hing and devoured by all with relish, relief (at being vegetarian) and a deep sense of community.
One of my friends showed me a forward of Adam and Eve (Muslim Version) on his i-Phone, and I responded “What offensive stuff they put on the net now a days”. This friend protested that a Muslim friend had sent it to him. There was a buzz of digestive conversation that went
“rhubarb–rhubarb-muslim-rhubarb-islam-rhubarb-bzz…..” for about five minutes and then things went back to “what are you doing now?” etc…
He put the image up on the e-group.
Seeing a bigger image, I must say I am confused — is this blasphemy or bigotry? Using Mamdani’s speech categories! One side of me says this is a really cute image — both the man and woman look stylish, individualized, adorable! The image is copyrighted by some one called Hamid Bahrami. And yet I feel suspicious — and perhaps a bit outdated! Any responses?
———-
From: R Srivatsan
Date: Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:48 AM
To: Madhava Prasad
Sorry — I sent it to Madhavi by mistake!
How’s life Madhav?
Srivats
———-
From: Satish Poduval
Date: Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:53 PM
To: R Srivatsan
Cc: “Moid M.A.” , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , Susie Tharu , K Satyanarayana , “P. Madhavi” , Uma Bhrugubanda , Shamuel Tharu
Dear Srivats,
Thanks for sharing the image as well as the ambivalence it evokes in most of us.
Since you asked for responses, here’s mine: twenty years ago, I suppose I would have chuckled at the wit and progressive wisdom of the cartoon–and the way it transposes one silly religion’s conceit on to another; today that pedestal from which one chuckled(benignly or not) seems silly at best too. I surely smiled at the cartoon, perhaps helped by the name of the artist. And realized instantly that the extent of the smile would depend on where the cartoon was published and what overall disposition it participated in–what readership it sought to convoke, why. Which is why I liked the way you put it into circulation, with a pensive twinkle and lots of pre-cooking…
My own sense is that this cartoon isn’t really “blasphemous” because I imagine it isn’t saying anything against Islam’s religious tenets; one keeps hearing all the time that the Quran mandates modest dressing for every follower, not a specific dress-code for women. The cartoon does seem to relay a certain irreligious (and anti-Muslim) bigotry, targetting a specific practice in force / enforced within some Islamic communities (my impression is that 8 out of 10 Muslim women in Kerala where Muslims are about 22 per cent of the population don’t wear the burqa–and I think I’m saying this non-judgementally).
Decades ago in literature departments we used to earn our stripes debunking the “intentional fallacy” (what the author-god really meant), the “affective fallacy” (judgement based on the emotional effect on the reader) and the “pathetic fallacy” (attributing “human” feelings/subjectivity where these weren’t really relevant). Today, the discussion has shifted in the direction of Mamdani’s point about the distinction between blacks/muslims laughing at themselves and others laughing at them. This distinction is quite important for it indicates how “public-ness” is experienced and traversed by dominated peoples. However, identity is a truism with a twist: identity does not simply inhere in a name/sex/faith/colour (some would say “signifier”), but in politicized identification that leads to specific public performances and consequences (re-making the “sign” itself). Recall Rushdie’s post-fatwa protestations that his satirical novel was offered as “internal criticism” to fellow Muslims–was it difficult to miss to which audience both the satire and the subsequent protestations were addressed? It brought to my mind, somewhat inappropriately, the well-known confrontational scene in the film Deewar, where Sashi Kapoor tells Amitabh Bachchan that “a brother would listen to a brother but a cop would listen to a criminal,” and then reckons that Bachchan’s statements are those of “a criminal in the guise of a brother.”
Hamid Bahrami’s works available online suggest he is a very skilled illustrator (like Rushdie is with words) but he has lived and learned among the people he smiles at. I don’t know more about him and how his work is received, so cannot say more.
Sorry if this response sounded too much like a lecture; hardly my “intention” ha, ha!
Best,
Satish
———
From: Madhava Prasad
Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM
To: R Srivatsan
Mamdani’s distinction is useful to understand the past but in the present, the thing seems to break down? The cartoonist is himself a Muslim we might say, but is he so in a way that blasphemy means something to him? Was Rushdie blasphemous or not? I remember Partha’s fierce defence of Rushdie, where he asserts that it is definitely not blasphemy: cant remember what else he said.
M
—
M. Madhava Prasad
Department of Cultural Studies
The English and Foreign Languages University
Hyderabad 500 007- 605 India
Ph: 040-27689553/040-27689400
madhav@efluniversity.ac.in
———
From: R Srivatsan
Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:37 AM
To: Madhava Prasad , Susie Tharu , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , “Moid M.A.” , Shamuel Tharu , K Satyanarayana , Uma Bhrugubanda , madhumeetasinha
The Rushdie issue brings out something certainly. Pushing a bit both what Madhav and Satish are saying, I get to feel that Mamdani’s binary of blasphemy and bigotry depend on a clean binary of inside and outside a religion (Christianity). Only an insider may be blasphemous, and bigotry always targets something outside the self.
But perhaps not the inside and outside of a religion as such: was Khomeini not seen to be a bigot (in a public usage of the term — this is not my value judgment)? A “religious bigot” is modelled as one who only supports a particularly owned version of religion, and chastizes, issues fatwas against and what have you, whatever doesn’t conform to that version.
On the other hand, blasphemy may well “descend” (or “ascend”? I am not sure) into bigotry over centuries — for instance (and speaking to your argument somewhat, Madhav), Luther’s speech was blasphemous according to the Roman Catholic Church! But today American protestantism may in some instances perhaps be, in my own guess, a little more bigoted than Catholicism.
Liberalism is another historical factor here, rather than Christianity to which Islam is impervious being of the same mold, and explicitly also because Islam takes account of Christianity’s historical ‘past imperfectness’. Liberalism as a secular derivative of Christianity — perhaps, but I am also not sure that this is so, since Liberalism is often tolerant of more than a little pagan excess. This Trojan virus of liberalism is perhaps what characterizes both Bahrami and Rushdie.
Moid, Suneetha and Vasudha, I was also thinking that some of our discussion in the recent workshop — especially Uzma’s positions were teetering on the brink of blasphemy and she is pulling heroically to ensure that the formation of Islamic thought and culture itself moves in a way to accommodate her exorbitance. But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that blasphemy and bigotry are peculiarly Christian terms that don’t resonate well with the politics and culture of Islam.
Srvts
From: Susie Tharu
Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:38 PM
To: R Srivatsan
Cc: “Moid M.A.” , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , K Satyanarayana , “P. Madhavi” , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu
Despite all the charm of the image there is a snigger there that brings to mind all the male chauvinist jokes about women that used to pass as just humour. (Where have they all gone?) Clearly this image is addressed to those of us who will find it adorable and stylish–not banal and irritating. It is not relevant whether the artist is Muslim or female or not. Its the attitude that matters.
Was not able to get onto the Kafila page with Mamdani’s arguments about biogtry. As for Zapiro (a white man) I got a taste of his much appreciated and totally racist cartoons when I was in South Africa last year.
Susie
———-
From: R Srivatsan
Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:13 PM
To: Susie Tharu
Cc: “Moid M.A.” , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , K Satyanarayana , “P. Madhavi” , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu
Susie,
This is the Kafila link again see if you can open it:
I would imagine that Partha’s “fierce defence of Rushdie” as Madhav put it, was perhaps related to a highly politicized and practical notion of community, rather than one which was rigid and categorially impervious. And working with such a notion of community would involve the task of dealing with irritating and banal interventions with intent to cause sniggering — as in feminism’s case. And sure enough, the razor edge of feminism’s ‘intentional fallacy” in pointing to masculine misogyny became a structural assault as soon as it made contact. The question exploded, changing from “why are you so misogynistic”, into “why is masculinity dependent on misogyny?” It was a very powerful weapon. Let us hope that — as you ask in half surprise about misogynist jokes — that these facetieties too shall pass!
I am grateful — learned a lot. But let this not end a conversation — that as Suneetha said just now, was very interesting!
Srivats
———-
From: MA Moid
Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:45 AM
To: R Srivatsan
Cc: Susie Tharu , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , K Satyanarayana , “P. Madhavi” , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu
Friends,
When I saw these images my first reaction was of amusement. I remember many other funny cartoons of Adam and eve. My second reaction was nervousness. I thought ‘O God, another cartoon. Will it also cause any trouble/controversy the way other cartoons caused’. But after reading various comments I developed a third reaction, which was embarrassing to me. I asked my self, why did I found this cartoon funny. With it I noticed a conflict in me. I said to myself ‘If you enjoy the cartoon of Adam and Eve who were also prophets of Islam according to Muslim scriptures, then why cant you take the cartoons on the last prophet of Islam in a similar way?’ This question caused discomforts in me. Instead of thinking about the answer to this question I began thinking about the nature of this question itself. Then I thought if Adam and Eve are also prophets of Islam then why Muslim establishment don’t react to it, and also why they don’t react to the pictures of Jesus. What kind of Knowledge politics the religious establishment practice and similarly what kind does the secular- scientific-liberal establishment practice. Are these controversies about cartoons intimately linked with the ‘meaning and its practices?’ On the other hand why I was embarrassed with his question. What is the history of this embarrassment in me and in other Muslims? Is it the fear that my inauthenticity will be exposed or a pressure that I need to take a universal stand?
Need to think more really.
Moid
———-
From: suneetha achyuta
Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:44 PM
To: MA Moid , Uma Bhrugubanda , k satyanarayana , Vasudha Nagaraj , Satish Poduval , Madhava Prasad , Madhumeeta Sinha , Susie Tharu , R Srivatsan
Friends,
Srivats’ comment that blasphemy and bigotry are terms that derive from a Christian history of liberal West somewhere rang a bell. In the liberal imagination (Christian or Hindu), one sees that bigotry is now attached to only Muslims as a sign of backwardness or stigma that they have to get rid of. The meaning and significance of bigotry or blasphemy are being set by non-Islamic traditions, to such an extent that we get to hear very little about criticism that is or claims to be within the Islamic traditions of criticism. Even though Mamdani’s categories are evocative and would mean something to me trained in the Western traditions of criticism, I wonder if they mean the same to a Muslim thinker. So, the position from which this cartoonist has drawn this picture – fanatic Muslims will cover even Eve with a burqua – for me is an outsider position, even though he happens to be a Muslim, because he has chosen to ignore the multiple positions vis-a-vis the burqua or veil within Islamic communities across the world (I know, I sound pedantic!) The joke is on Muslims, isn’t it? Is he blasphemous or bigoted, I can’t figure out. But he seems to be a good Muslim, able to laugh at the bigoted bad Muslims, alongside other likeminded souls liberated from Religion.
Are Uzma’s interventions translatable into the register of blasphemy, I again wonder. Her interventions with Personal Law Board/ulema have been possible with her keen sense and acknowlegement of key role of ulema in the Muslim communities, drawing, and perhaps stretching the boundaries of law-making role permissble to women within the Islamic traditions. I am too aware of the sense of blasphemy that her position evokes in the liberal (Muslim and feminist) imagination but I cannot comment on what it means in the Islamic communities!
Suneetha.
—
A.Suneetha
Fellow and Coordinator
———-
From: Susie Tharu
Date: Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:37 AM
To: MA Moid
Cc: R Srivatsan , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , K Satyanarayana , “P. Madhavi” , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu
Dear Moid
As usual I really found your response thought provoking. Unlike the rest of us who read the cartoon as a comment on purdah and muslim patriarchy (and a protest, maybe against the injunction that the human image should not be drawn, you have taken an altogether different route that points us to the continuous embarrassment the average modern muslim is subject to .
I agree that it is more important to think about the nature of the question: ‘If you enjoy the cartoon of Adam and Eve who were also prophets of Islam according to Muslim scriptures, then why cant you take the cartoons on the last prophet of Islam in a similar way?’ than to look for an answer. This demand for some sort of abstract consistency or equivalence is itself the problem. For one thing in todays’s context there is no equivalence between Adam and Eve and ‘the last prophet.’ The last prophet and his people are under attack at this moment, Adam and Eve are forgotten and unimportant–unless this cartoon results in their gaining contemporary importance.
Stressing equivalence pushes us to ignore this context and treat them as if the existed in some kind of timeless Koranic sequence. Your anxiety–and discomfort–is the response of a contemporary Indian and a Muslim in the contemporary world. I do not know whether it can be considered ‘typical’–if it can, then it is a politico-aesthetic fact with a history. (By the way it came as a surprise to me that A and E were considered prophets–and that there is a woman prophet!).
Do share any further reflections you may have had.
susie
Leave A Comment