In Solidarity

der aaye par durust aaye?

1. All hail loose, pubgoing, forward women.

Long live the Pink Chaddis. Jai Ho. Hope everyone had a suitably talli day. We had a steak.



2. Via a piece over at Nirmukta, we come to know of a piece, over at The Independent. Johann Hari wrote something called "Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions". The Statesman in Calcutta re-printed it.

A bunch of Muslims protested the article, at first peacefully, and then later with embellishments such as blocking roads and attacking policemen (according to this report). Which also seems to have resulted in the arrest of the publisher and the editor. This is apparently what passes for freedom of opinion in these parts nowadays. Hari continues to be unapologetic.

Hari's original piece criticized how certain countries did not seem to find the Universal Declaration of Human Rights good enough, and wrote one of their own. This is a fairly side-splittingly funny read. Basically a mostly "normal" rights document...

2(a) ...Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life...
2(d) ...Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it...
12 ...Every man shall have the right...to free movement and to select his place of residence whether within or outside his country and if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country...
16 ... Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical labour of which he is the author; and he shall have the right to the protection of his moral and material interests stemming therefrom, ...
22(a)...Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely...

Except of course, that in full they read

2(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari'ah prescribed reason.
2(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari'ah-prescribed reason.
12 Every man shall have the right, within the framework of the Shari'ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether within or outside his country and if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country.
16 Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical labour of which he is the author; and he shall have the right to the protection of his moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided it is not contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
22(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

In other words, everything is permitted, except what is not. Sigh. Of course, in the interest of being equal opportunity offenders, we should say that the Ram Sene version of the UDHR will likely be equally entertaining.

This whole idea of respecting everything is problematic, to say the least. A brief discussion happened in the comments over at CSM's some time back. A relevant link to British philosopher Simon Blackburn's 25 page essay, "Religion and Respect". Excerpts:

'Respect' of course is a tricky term. I may respect your gardening by just letting you get on with it. Or, I may respect it by admiring it and regarding it as a superior way to garden. The word seems to span a spectrum, from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well-placed for ideological purposes. People might start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call respect creep sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellow-feeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions...
...We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it--not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds.

Well put, we thought.