At the back of the hill

Warning: If you stay here long enough you will gain weight! Grazing here strongly suggests that you are either omnivorous, or a glutton. And you might like cheese-doodles.
BTW: I'm presently searching for another person who likes cheese-doodles.
Please form a caseophilic line to the right. Thank you.

Friday, February 12, 2010

MY NAME IS KHAN

I see from various news sources that the Shiv Sena in Mumbai have their dhotis in a bunch over Shah Rukh Khan's latest movie. Or perhaps it is Shah Rukh Khan himself that they are upset about.
Well bully for them.

Can we at long last please put the name of every member of the Shiv Sena on the no-fly list? Keep the bastards out of the United States? Starting with arch-goonda Bal ('Balasaheb') Thackery and everyone related to him?

We have enough religious nuts in this country, we have no need of any more. Certainly we have no possible use for religious nuts who commit violence and murder.


MY NAME IS KHAN

Such is the title of the film which has gotten the thugs in an uproar. The theme of the movie is more or less the attitude towards Muslims which has been prevalent in the United States since September 11, 2001.
Shah Rukh Khan, as his name suggests, is a Muslim. The movie can be said to have a pro-Muslim message, and Shah Rukh Khan has spoken out against the enmity towards Muslims in the United States and India - it is the last that has so offended the Hindu Nationalists.

While I have little tolerance for either Islam or Muslims in general, and no actual interest in seeing growth of that creed or community, I will admit that there are multitudes of practicing Islamites who are in no way either problematic or objectionable. Several of the Mumineen I am acquainted with are in fact exemplary - many Christians could learn a thing or two from them.
Muslims have for years, and, in the case of India, many centuries, been constructive participants in non-Muslim society. India without the cultural impact of Muhammedans cannot even be imagined.


On the other hand, the adherents of Hindutva are almost all unmitigated haramzadeh with little to redeem them.

[Hindutvadiyeh also include the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (criminals, ideologues, and bigots), Bajrang Dal (mostly violent illiterates), the Bharatiya Janata Party (a sometimes harmless bunch of Gujus), and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (unstable thugs). It's not just the Mafia-like Shivsenaks who are dangerous. All of these organizations are suspected of involvement in terrorism, rape, assault, fire-bombings, and blackmail. Among other fine Hindoo virtues.]


HINDOSTAN

India and Indians should realize that in a country such as theirs, where so many different communities have contributed so much, any religious thuggery and intolerance serves no good purpose.
Enforcing an apartheid-like preference for Hindus and Hindu norms will only persuade more of India's best and brightest to reject their own culture, and favour the West. While obviously that would be beneficial to us in the short term, we need those people to remain in India and remain Indian. Thus they will counterbalance the loonies and keep their country from becoming a failed state, a tyranny, and a danger to the world like Pakistan.


India needs people like Shah-rukh Khan. It does NOT need people like Bal Thackery or his son Uddhav, or any of the thousands of ignorant bigots who would blame their own failures on other communities.


=====================================================

AFTERWORD

Earlier today reader Mohammad took me to task for speaking well of Salman Rushdie, on this post:
http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2007/06/pakistani-ulema-need-to-grow-up.html

The point of that post was that the Pakistani Ulema (religious scholars) were a bunch of shmendricks in desperate need of corrective surgery, as there was a huge painful stick up their collective gand.
I was as positive as is humanly possible about Pakistan, but I indicated that I might be less than tolerant of their various retrograde attitudes.

Mohammad wrote:
"... whatever mr Rushdie has wrote in his book was blasphemy. How can you expect a person to be given knighthood when he has hurt the feelings of a lot of Muslims around the world. But if you have read the book properly in his book not only he has wrote things against the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but he has openly abused Margaret Thatcher not only that he abused Ram and Sitta both figures who were considered very important in Hindu religion. "

I responded at some length, but the gist of my answer was that I had no problem with blasphemy or abuse. And, considering the alternative, I will stand by that.

The right to offend is infinitely precious and should be protected at all costs. Whether the Ulema, or the Shiv Sena (or any other bunch of verkrampte religious pustules) object, das is mir ganz scheiss egal.
They can take their outrage and fold it till naught is left but sharp corners, then shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Please pound sand up after it.

That goes for Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Muhammadans. And everyone else.
If I left you off the list, I am very sorry - I sincerely hope you are never-the-less offended.

Labels:

2 Comments:

  • At 7:44 PM, Blogger zaki said…

    Well if u want to know the root cause of all this , dont be surprised to know that its the british who have sown the seeds all over the world from dividing india to indo pak , palestinian to israel palestine , balochisthan to another two , even not sparing their own backyard may be a punishment from the almighty & to this u have these foolish shiv sanik who usually hv their foot in the mouth & vice versa , the benefitted being shahrukh khan & his latest release . the average indian is usually like a domestic cow who is very peace loving be it to whichever relegion he belongs but the indian politician is the enemy here who takes advantages of the indian's sentiment be it the bjp or the shiv sainiks or their ilk , the bottom line being keep relegion personal & seperate them from politics & make legislations which should be very strict . Relegion is for the upliftment of the individual , to prevent him from becoming a social wreck & not to be used as a political weapon to misguide & hurt innocents physically .

     
  • At 8:09 AM, Blogger e-kvetcher said…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjd7L6txGLk&feature=related

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 
Newer›  ‹Older