tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post6530588199616224829..comments2024-03-18T19:46:10.130+05:30Comments on Jabberwock: On "liberal extremism" (and soft oppositions to freedom)Jabberwockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-14932593900261316092012-02-23T15:41:07.399+05:302012-02-23T15:41:07.399+05:30Speaking of the Koran and book burning: where are ...Speaking of the Koran and book burning: where are the free-speech/book-saving hordes on the Afghanistan US base burning incident? Where is the outrage? The dark hints about fascism on the march? That soon bodies will be in flames (as if that has not happened already, be it viet napalm or the recent gulf/ afghan wars)? Or is that incident "desired" book burning in your book?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-457072542921050682012-02-21T09:06:45.753+05:302012-02-21T09:06:45.753+05:30Not to contradict what i said earlier (or anyone e...Not to contradict what i said earlier (or anyone else), but anon might have a point. <br /><br />I read <a href="http://deepad.dreamwidth.org/75227.html" rel="nofollow">this </a> excellently argued piece sometime ago, and thought it was relevant to the discussion. <br /><br />Selected quotes: <br /><br />"Personally, I thought it was a microcosm of the cognitive dissonance between the (relatively) privileged and the (relatively) oppressed. No category is absolute or impermeable, of course; to have death threats publicly uttered against you is an act of oppression. And yet, Salman Rushdie has lived in relative affluence, his physical safety ably defended by the nation-state of his choice. " <br /><br />"And Salman Rushdie, defender of rapist Roman Polanski and U.S.'s war against Afghanistan, advocate of declaring Pakistan a terrorist state, and disparager of all post-colonial vernacular writing is hardly a poster child for the virtues of a self-righteously unrestricted tongue."<br /><br />"One of the posters designed for flashreads has a quote by Salman Rushdie: "Free Speech is the whole ball game. Free Speech is life itself."<br /><br />"The hubris of such a sweeping statement does not appeal to me, not when people are fighting to liberate their bodies from physical violence, not when they weigh their words against the impact it will have on their life, and choose silence, or obfuscation, or tempered disagreement because they know that death of words is not actually the same thing as death of a living, breathing body, whether that is of a loved one or one's own."saperahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16553004590976656655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-22085532312024844202012-02-17T18:45:49.925+05:302012-02-17T18:45:49.925+05:30Kindly note that Rushdie is alive and well
I take...<i>Kindly note that Rushdie is alive and well</i><br /><br />I take it that completely makes up for the fact that he spent two decades in the shadow of a very public death threat? As for retaining a sense of proportion: everything that happened in Jaipur - including of course the cancellation of Rushdie's video appearance - happened because of a real and proximate threat of violence. No one is criticising the peaceful protests, such as the ones involving the youngsters handing out copies of the Quran to fest attendees.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-57803208740865065932012-02-17T17:04:19.297+05:302012-02-17T17:04:19.297+05:30Respond with violence? Who has done that? Let us g...Respond with violence? Who has done that? Let us get some sense of proportion back into this whole thing about violence and provocations. Kindly note that Rushdie is alive and well (and may he continue to be and maybe he shall be moved one day to express some sympathy for a million Iraqis who are dead for no fault of theirs).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-77755489706782566372012-02-16T18:15:32.093+05:302012-02-16T18:15:32.093+05:30The 'other' were once Jews. Now it is Musl...<i>The 'other' were once Jews. Now it is Muslims. Are we free to say this?</i><br /><br />Anon: of course you're free to say this. (You ARE saying it here and, I'm sure, elsewhere.) You're also free to listen to (or shut your ears to) the many alternate views on this subject. What you're NOT free to do (or shouldn't be, in a much better world than the one we live in) is to respond with violence - otherwise you're the one heading down the Nazi path.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-42870660138222758912012-02-16T17:37:05.092+05:302012-02-16T17:37:05.092+05:30Dunno much, but practically speaking, subhuman por...Dunno much, but practically speaking, subhuman portrayals of a person and by extension a people can also have bad consequences (more than burning books, you know) in a very immature world so full of hatred towards THOSE people.<br /><br />The 'other' were once Jews. Now it is Muslims. Are we free to say this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-2806168702552160502012-02-14T20:34:55.960+05:302012-02-14T20:34:55.960+05:30CB's response is not a surprise considering hi...CB's response is not a surprise considering his response towards Hussain in his op in TOI. He displayed the same attitude there plus being one of the aggrieved party then. And I sincerely doubt he had even bothered to look at symbology that purportedly hurt him.splitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01455663465063657410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-9261594533989114732012-02-03T03:33:52.422+05:302012-02-03T03:33:52.422+05:30I pondered deeply over this, and what CB said make...I pondered deeply over this, and what CB said makes perfect sense if you do the following: <br /><br />Replace "Extreme Fundamentalists" with "People who can't read my books" and "Liberal Extremists" with "People who don't read my books".tooringtesthttp://twitter.com/tooringtestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-68702158615852357482012-02-02T16:19:16.632+05:302012-02-02T16:19:16.632+05:30We have to also remember CB will have a beef with ...We have to also remember CB will have a beef with the Indian liberal / art house crowd who never approves his work. CB as a person will be a good human being, does not hurt cats, does not hurt babies type. Very harmless chap - the type the Great Indian Middle Class will marry their sisters and daughters to. <br /><br />But his beef is based on an element of reality - CB is not a good writer, he might be the Dan Brown of India, but then he is only the Dan Brown - he is not even a Stephen King. <br /><br />Someone like CB - entitled all his life with the Goldman Sachs background and moving to a popular author status gets the tag of "mediocre writer" (for good reason) will react in such a manner. It is his beef broiling, not his beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-7065116671564787832012-02-02T15:34:53.773+05:302012-02-02T15:34:53.773+05:30Jai - I think Chetan Bhagat had once also done a r...Jai - I think Chetan Bhagat had once also done a ridiculous analysis of Gujarat 2002 riots and more or less concluded that Mr Modi was not much of a culprit. He truly belongs to the league of people who will always take middle stance because that is what most people are and that is what his market is. More or less, he said what anyone with a low IQ would like to listen and statistics tell us average IQ can not be high. Look at this: Aamir Khan after watching Slumdog Millionaire said nothing like this happens in India. If he drives his car from Bandra west to east, he will know what happens in India. However, these are all carefully calculated moves by them to win more fans.Pessimist Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06057153008708242962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-337211173121072702012-02-01T02:24:45.037+05:302012-02-01T02:24:45.037+05:30Well, there's that imbalance again! If what Yo...Well, there's that imbalance again! If what Yogesh says is true, then why does the rule of law not apply to artistic sentiment? <br /><br />I mean, i'm not going to be so naive as to pretend I don't know WHY, but why does this HAVE to be true? There's no logical case for it (apart from consolidating power and marginalizing minorities). <br /><br />And in that case, Nila's assertion also holds, i.e. there IS a hierearchy of emotions. Religious sentiment must for "some reason", supercede all else. <br /><br />And if a society can suspend rationality to honor this unfair contract, then Aditya Sudarshan, it must also be irrational then to do the same (i.e. to suspend rationality) vis a vis allowing dissent and plurality. The subtext for the latter being: <br /><br />"we don't know how dissent, or free speech will benefit us, even if we loathe the content of such dissent, but we must allow their exposition regardless." <br /><br />That is effing all. <br /><br />BongButSceptic, right on. The muslim cleric in UK example is perfect. This is why even after all is said and done people want to live in relatively free, democratic societies like Western Europe/US. And money, yes, yes, I know.saperahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16553004590976656655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-32834882629672054022012-01-31T21:16:36.594+05:302012-01-31T21:16:36.594+05:30Sapera & Nila, Thanks for the clarification on...Sapera & Nila, Thanks for the clarification on the petition ban and that does answer my concerns. I take your words that this isn't a one-point agenda and put my delayed signature to it (for whatever it is worth). <br /><br />Though i overall agree about not setting up of an hierarchy of emotions (i do like the term), i wouldn't nod to the specifics in those paragraphs. I know of deeply religious people also who are offended by this threat of violence against artists and it is a moot point as to whether all people claiming to have deeper emotions are deeply religious ? I, for one, don't think so. <br /><br />@Jai, And on artists being special, of course every group of humans (classified by vocation or region or religion or language or anything else) think they are special and quite expectedly so. But that alone doesn't qualify them for special rights is my point. I leave it at that as you say you didn't imply such a demand for "special rights" but the tone of a few other articles were clearly so. Sorry if i extrapolated it to you wrongly. <br /><br />@Sugandha, I never implied the equalities you've attributed to me. Thanks for the suggestion, anyways. <br /><br />@Aditya, I really like the way you have put things and in particular, scorning at a man's belief is tantamount to accusing him of not having exercised his faculty of reason. Spot on. <br /><br />@Sood, Except that in this case, it is the rule of law that doesn't allow "offence of religious sentiments". <br /><br />Thanks all.yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06571286053083875860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-80022520032610871392012-01-31T19:38:04.532+05:302012-01-31T19:38:04.532+05:30Aditya, actually I agree with you. Respect for a r...Aditya, actually I agree with you. Respect for a right cannot coexist with disrespect for religion. But here is my proposition: I don't have to respect anything, either anyone's belief, or their right to it. In fact, I don't even have to be polite, much less respect. I have the right to offend as well. All I have to observe is the rule of law.Mihira Soodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05090526069421899787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-80327986584958302372012-01-31T18:39:51.333+05:302012-01-31T18:39:51.333+05:30@BongButSceptic, I never did 'causally relate&...@BongButSceptic, I never did 'causally relate' those two things. Maybe this can be explained better. The reason we respect a person's right to form a belief is that we respect the exercise of their mental autonomy, their thought and reason and so on. And we can respect those mental processes even if we disagree with their conclusions in any given case. But when we do not merely disagree but actively scorn the conclusions, part of the _reason_ is that (in our opinion) they are so poor as to suggest that no real mental faculties have been exercised to begin with. Therefore, when we scorn a person's belief, there is no question of simultaneously respecting his or her right to form it. Because (in our opinion) when it comes to such a belief, no such right could ever really have been exercised.<br /><br />Maybe all this is sounding a bit dry and pointles. It's not though. The point is for the liberal to see that, in such cases, she is part of a conflict- an actual conflict, which has to be engaged with on merits. She cannot simply elevate herself above the dust of the arena, by saying, let our views differ ever so widely, but we musn't fight, because we can respect each other's 'rights to our views'. Sometimes you just can't and then (if you really believe in your stance) you have to pit your views against the other and not be cowardly about it.<br /><br />(Needless to say, much more cowardly is the zealot who also refuses to engage and instead resorts to violence).<br /><br />Because I also think good writing is about courage, and the willingness to fight through a conflict- not always to demand protection from it.Aditya Sudarshanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02034713377435191868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-49833948176673118662012-01-31T15:18:26.353+05:302012-01-31T15:18:26.353+05:30@Aditya's perspective: I guess you are incorre...@Aditya's perspective: I guess you are incorrect when you causally relate "respecting somebody's right to hold/express a belief" and the "respect for the said belief" itself. For example, a believing Muslim will think that only her faith is the true one, because it is said as much in the Holy Book. However, she may have respect for other people's faith without respecting the faith itself. When she starts respecting the other faith, she is a munafiq and is very close to shirk. When she doesn't, she is what CB proved himself to be.<br /><br />There are enough ridiculous ideas that are held by otherwise sane people. Tooth fairy is a pertinent example. Perhaps, you meant to say that one has to be decent while expressing ideas about other people's beliefs. That I agree with for sure. Decency is not mutually exclsuive with criticism.<br /><br />In fact, mature democracies even allow people with pugnacious opnions to hold forth even when such opnions are contrary to the country's common ethos. The British Muslim cleric, I forget his name, is a case in point. He was not deported even though he demonstrated at funerals of English soldiers. <br /><br /><br />@Special status of artists: With all respect, it depends on two things: a) the way a society values its artists b) a common actvity that all artists engage in through their art-communication.<br /><br />Journalists for example are allowed to hold forth on sundry issues even without documented expertise primarily because it is their task to hold forth. Artists similarly tend to communicate xyz items through their work. Since their primary task is communication(and what is an artist if she doesn't communicate new ideas/perspectives), they should be allowed to communicate the way they want.BongButScepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-23807178345263825152012-01-31T14:45:19.578+05:302012-01-31T14:45:19.578+05:30the important question of freedom of expression an...the important question of freedom of expression and the lack of governmental support towards safeguarding what is,after all,a constitutional fundamental right, threatens to conflate into a 'salman rushdie versus chetan bhagat',or a 'classes vs masses' debate.the fact is,yes,writers,artists,journalists and other people who express their thoughts in public fora are naturally more concerned about fundamentalist (and state supported)censorship,because it impinges their work directly and makes them targets of harrassment.<br />And Yogesh:masses = ignorant/low intellectual level/people unable to gauge quality=readers of chetan bhagat?I urge you to read pankaj mishra's essay on his student life in a decrepit UP university,and a particular gangster friend who reads a 19th century French classic,and undergoes a kind of catharsis reading about people whose conflicts and society he recognizes,identifies with.'Art',however obscure and rarefied it may seem,isn't really prisoner to an extensive vocabulary.and Chetan has his own charm,storytelling ability,and candid humor;it just has nothing to do with the issue at hand.sugandhanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-54863224841334834222012-01-31T10:31:34.975+05:302012-01-31T10:31:34.975+05:30your last para and Amit's HT article were sugg...<i>your last para and Amit's HT article were suggestive of "artists" being something special and hence deserve some special rights</i><br /><br />Yogesh: since you bring this up, let me admit that yes, I do think of good art as something special - I think it's one of the most important mirrors we have. (Of course, one must continue discussing the artistic merits/demerits of <i>specific</i> artists, books, films etc. That's another matter.)<br /><br />But no, I don't think artists deserve "special rights" that are not available to other people - not sure where you got that from. And in any case, there's something a little bizarre about this argument, since the people who DO consistently get special rights and privileges are the ones who brandish their hurt religious sentiments. Everyone else is required to shut up when that happens.<br /><br /><i>the tone of a lot of writing was the Rushdie ban was bad because he was a special writer.</i><br /><br />This I would thoroughly disapprove of - and yes, there probably is some truth in the idea that this case achieved such a high profile among urban liberals because Rushdie is an internationally celebrated writer who works in English. But as Sapera points out above, the petition to unban the Satanic Verses definitely does not have a one-point agenda. It's an important step forward towards giving voices to people who don't have the privileges and support that Rushdie does.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-25212151791305448622012-01-31T10:01:54.062+05:302012-01-31T10:01:54.062+05:30Just to jump in on the question of the Satanic Ver...Just to jump in on the question of the Satanic Verses petition: it came out of the specific situation, but is part of a set of initiatives being taken by several free expression groups and private citizens on free speech. Some of these have to do with book bans, past and future, some have to do with the Internet, and some are just an exploration of how far the ordinary citizen's right to free speech is protected under the law.<br /><br />I hope that answers your concerns.<br /><br />On the question of religions and liberal thought, they are not always in opposition, though historically we've seen major clashes in the country. The classic example would be Raja Rammohan Roy, who deeply offended Hindu religious sentiments when he proposed widow remarriage, and many of the commentators at the time said that he lacked an understanding of how deeply people felt about religious practice. <br /><br />Part of the imbalance is that deeply religious people often claim a greater depth of emotion--the argument is often that the feelings on prayer, ritual and practice run very strong, and the implication is that non-practitioners, atheists and agnostics (and, I presume, liberals) do not understand the depth of these emotions. But that sets up a hierarchy of emotions, doesn't it? The argument then becomes that religious sentiments must be respected (respected by *not* being challenged) because they are in some way deeper and have more validity than what people feel about, say, their moral values, or their partners, or their cats.<br /><br />My perspective would be to say that those demanding that liberals shut down their own thought and belief system in order to not cause hurt to the religious are exercising something slightly different. Deep religious feelings have more social validity and social currency than any other set of sentiments--but it might be useful for the religious to consider that a liberal might feel as strongly about apparent abstractions such as creative freedoms. <br /><br />Thanks, Jai, for starting up this discussion.Nilahttp://akhondofswat.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-11240580655564161892012-01-31T08:24:22.528+05:302012-01-31T08:24:22.528+05:30The petition addresses the eventual lifting of a &...The petition addresses the eventual lifting of a "general" ban on a large swath of artists whose works have been excised or curtailed by the State. The Satanic Verses were indeed inspirational in launching the petition, but the petition itself references diverse artists, writers and academics who have been variously banned by the state.<br /><br />"The Satanic Verses has not incited violence anywhere; others have used the novel's existence to incite violence to suit their political ends. Within India, in the 23 years since the ban, we have witnessed an erosion of respect for freedom of expression, as artists like MF Husain, Chandramuhun Srimantula, Jatin Das, and Balbir Krishan have been intimidated, and works of writers like Rohinton Mistry and AK Ramanujan have been withdrawn because of threats by groups claiming to be offended." <br /><br />http://www.change.org/petitions/prime-minister-india-reconsider-the-ban-on-salman-rushdies-the-satanic-verses<br /><br />But having a petition to address in a blanket form, all oppressive bans is as retarded as having a parliamentary or congress bill to respectively address complex, multi-layered things like "corruption" or "terror".saperahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16553004590976656655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-54547031811171334552012-01-31T03:47:08.155+05:302012-01-31T03:47:08.155+05:30If "liberals" (whatsoever that means) ar...If "liberals" (whatsoever that means) are actually for freedom of speech, then why petition against the ban on Rushdie's book alone ? Why not other books ? Or in general ? <br /><br />The best and a prescient criticism of book bans to me remains that of Heinrich Heine in 1830. "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.". Replace "burn" with "ban", you have India's situation. And nobody needs a reminder as to how it ended when books were burnt in Berlin in 1930s.Yogeshhttp://www.anecdotesandallthat.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-59314394713032930662012-01-31T02:29:22.396+05:302012-01-31T02:29:22.396+05:30Thanks Jai for the response and the "classic ...Thanks Jai for the response and the "classic inverse-snob" label. Yet another label !<br /><br />The basic principle of physically non-violent expression of opinions is agreed. <br /><br />I am not sure if some of the ban criticisms "leave at that". In fact, your last para and Amit's HT article were suggestive of "artists" being something special and hence deserve some special rights (perhaps, not a detraction). In fact, the tone of a lot of writing was the Rushdie ban was bad because he was a special writer or writers are special. <br /><br />Thanks once again for publishing criticisms too.Yogeshhttp://www.anecdotesandallthat.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-64078690364081193662012-01-31T00:35:44.088+05:302012-01-31T00:35:44.088+05:30Would so many of the literary elite have been outr...<i>Would so many of the literary elite have been outraged if it was CB instead of Rushdie who had been banned ?</i><br /><br />Yogesh: short answer: yes. (Many of the liberals I know think Taslima Nasreen - for example - is a very mediocre writer, but they strongly defend her freedom of expression.) But congrats on detracting from the basic issue under discussion, with that classic inverse-snob take on the "artistic elite".<br /><br /><i>It would be better if they say that everybody needs to be guaranteed certain freedoms and leave at that.</i><br /><br />Um, this is exactly what they ARE saying. They are fully acknowledging the (non-violent) freedom of speech of the religious extremists. I assume you agree with this basic principle, regardless of what you think of the so-called literary/artistic elite?Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-21622673518078942202012-01-31T00:15:42.986+05:302012-01-31T00:15:42.986+05:30Appreciate the article for at least not talking of...Appreciate the article for at least not talking of CB in mocking tone as is the norm with lot of "literary" connoisseurs. I picked up 5.someone and never managed to complete it. But just cannot fathom the hatred for him.Yogeshhttp://www.anecdotesandallthat.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-40305682487801422472012-01-31T00:01:37.758+05:302012-01-31T00:01:37.758+05:30Though I agree with the overall point of freedom o...Though I agree with the overall point of freedom of expression without resorting to violence, couching it in the unnecessary jargon of liberals and fundamentalists is hardly required. It is too simplistic to classify people as liberals and conservatives. People can alternate between the two without even realizing it. The very act of self-classifying oneself as liberal and other as conservative smirks of condescension. Anyways who is a liberal and who is the judge of it ? Someone resorting to physical violence (which is deplorable and to be avoided) doesn't imply his views are wrong. Of course, it is my belief (and probably that of the so-called rationalists and liberals too) that physical violence is more deplorable than mental violence ! <br /><br />"We already see too much of that apathy and ignorance in people who don't work in the creative field." I think much of the blame for it rests on the artists. Many of them think of themselves too highly and look at the public condescendingly. Sample the reaction to Chetan Bhagat's success by many of the so-called literary elite or to the many other mass successes. Even in the Rushdie show, it has been on view. Well, if the artistic elite looks down upon "the masses", then they shouldn't expect any great love from them. There have been artists who have spoken to people standing on the ground and not on a pedestal and they have received respect and love. Else why bother understanding from those you (i mean not you but literary critics) label as "idiotic masses" ? During the Rushdie show, there were 1 or 2 articles a day in many newspapers about artistic freedom is being curtailed et al but before, during or after this tamaasha, does anyone bother to write about art to a layman ? As CB put, one cannot write in literary English and tell people to read and understand it. <br /><br />This is quite true of scientists and many others too. The percentage of art or science that has actually made a difference is small but every budding scientist or artist boasts of being someone making a difference and very important to the society. It would be better if they say that everybody needs to be guaranteed certain freedoms and leave at that. I am not too convinced of this pretension of these people being some special and deserve special treatment. But yes, others are free to believe that artists are some special people and a cut above the rest who deserve special freedoms. <br /><br />Would so many of the literary elite have been outraged if it was CB instead of Rushdie who had been banned ?Yogeshhttp://www.anecdotesandallthat.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-37982018117442754122012-01-30T15:53:20.225+05:302012-01-30T15:53:20.225+05:30This is in response, a little belated to that bit ...This is in response, a little belated to that bit about 'absolute contempt' on liberals' part when they admit to understanding the hurt that their opponents feel and still do what they have to (apologies for the poor paraphrasing). <br /><br />The thing is liberals will respond in the manner they have to, perhaps the new light they shed (even in a subversive, 'offensive' way, and these are subjective terms) will help understand old traditions better. The history of art from ancient to renaissance times is a story of this. Whereas the option of being hurt or being offended is the surest way of ending such debate or exchange, and it appears the option of being hurt or aggrieved does not exist for the liberals. <br /><br />Pleading the excuse that it hurts 'us' is a way of shielding, sheathing one's identity but the modernity we espouse is one wherein there will be, in any scenario, always someone being offended, another causing offence. In a borderless world, new borders keep getting created, ironically; but then art shapes itself like an amoeba in the world that is. Old ideas were once yesterday's new ideas, and tomorrow's new ideas are being born in this eternal see-sawing between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' (with sincere apologies to Rumi :-))anu kumarnoreply@blogger.com