Muslim Fire, Hindu Ire

No patakhas for Muslims?

Leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband has issued a fatwa against manufacturing and sale of firecrackers, saying that it is against the Sharia law.

Manufacturing and selling of firecrackers is against the Sharia law, and firing crackers is a gross misuse of money, the fatwa said. It also said that that men who misuse money are the ‘brothers of devil’. The Islamic seminary issued fatwa on a query from a man involved in the business of manufacturing firecrackers. The news holds significance given that a large number of Muslims are involved in the manufacturing and sale of firecrackers across the country.

I just cannot understand this. Why would a person who is already involved in the business want to consult the seminary?

If firing crackers amounts to misuse of money, then so is placing flowers over tombstones at dargahs.

If those who indulge in this are ‘brothers of the devil’, are women permitted to play with phuljhadis?

Is there any evidence of the devil misusing funds? Did he not inherit hell, or should he be pulled up for spending a fortune on adding all those satanic thingies in there?

I do not see how there can be any mention of firecrackers in the Sharia. Did some of the Prophet’s opponents light up anaars on the desert sands?

If the Darul Uloom is so concerned, it should seek justice for children who work in these factories and are exposed to risks of extreme levels of pollution. Get over this fatwa obsession and do something that matters.

- - -

Gays threaten Hinduism?

An artist holding an exhibition in the capital on the theme of homosexuality was on Thursday attacked and abused by an unidentified assailant, who also damaged one of the paintings on display. Balbir Krishan said the attacker entered the solo exhibition space at Lalit Kala Akademi with his face covered by a handkerchief. He pushed and kicked Krishan, a double amputee who has lost both his legs, while hurling insults all the while.

He has been receiving threatening calls saying: “Tuney Hindu dharam ko bigarne ka theka laga rakha hai (You are determined to ruin Hinduism).”

Someone should take these guys on a yatra where temple sculptures clearly show all kinds of sexual activities, including homosexuality. Will they dare to deface those? Will they dare insult the deities?

I am not suggesting that art should be irresponsible. In this case, he was only exhibiting works, giving expression to his thoughts and personal experiences. He was not indulging in criminal activities like paedophilia, for which a few good godmen have been caught. Why do these assaulters not land up in those ashrams and use their fists. Well, to beat up those holy folks...

No dharam can be spoilt. It is not perishable food.

Mona Lisa in the Lion's Den

I always suspected that Mona Lisa was a bit of a wild cat. Something to do with the Cheshire cat smile. Oh, I know, it has been analysed to death – from toothache to the pleasure of labour pains to muscle dystrophy to sucking on a lozenge. Okay, that’s not been explored yet. Anyhow, New York artist Ron Piccirillo is a guy I’d like to go on a safari with. It is so difficult to spot tigers in the wild, and I am quite certain that he will. He can see them. Just like that.

Piccirillo has transformed a yawn moment into something exciting. Leonardo da Vinci’s subject is surrounded by animals, he believes. Most people look at paintings as they are meant to be, but our artist here turned it horizontally and found a leopard, an ape, a buffalo and even a crocodile or snake right near the subject’s right shoulder. I suppose da Vinci maintained an element of delicacy and refrained from painting Mona Lisa horizontally.

I have tried to notice all those animals and it is the lady who seems the most beastly, because she is primal. Those other figures look like mushroom clouds to me.

But let it not be said that Piccirillo has not attempted an indepth analysis. What started as a “Geez, that kinda looks familiar” moment has turned out to possess some history.

Citizen Husain?

The caption in TOI says:

CARD-CARRYING INDIAN: M F Husain, who has recently taken Qatari citizenship and has had to surrender his Indian passport, shows his Overseas Citizen of India card in Dubai. It denies him voting rights but the artist claims he was never interested in the political process anyway

This is a rather telling statement. I absolutely do not understand how the word 'citizen' is used in such a card when individuals are not interested in the political process. Husain was candid about it, and we know from his stint in the Rajya Sabha that he came up with caricatures/illustrations of politicians and Parliament proceedings since he said that he was an artist and that is how he could make a statement. (Are Rajya Sabha MPs nominated to convey statements? That is another issue.)

What about all those overseas Indians who want to intervene in every aspect of political life in their home country? There has been a demand to grant them voting rights too. If we pull up electoral candidates for not knowing their constituencies, then on what basis must we permit expats to vote for someone they know precious little about or political parties that have outgrown their memories of it?

These are people of Indian origin and not citizens. They have chosen another country, another passport.

As for M.F.Husain, much in the manner we dig up our ancient Indian heritage, he is more Pandharpur than India to flaunt his commitment to the soil.