December 26, 2004

THE MODERN WELCOME WAGON


Tempest of rage shakes Sikh temple
(The Guardian, December 26th, 2004)

Jagdeesh Singh is a Sikh who believes his religion is grossly misrepresented. Since 11 September 2001, the 34-year-old has been unable to leave his house without someone screaming 'Osama bin Laden' at him. He was once attacked by two men in Coventry who shouted 'Paki Bin Laden' as they hit and kicked him to the ground.

'It is hardly surprising that Sikhs are sensitive about this play,' he said. 'We live every day with racism based on misinformation. You have to balance the desire for freedom of expression with the fact that it could provoke even greater prejudice.'

Singh was referring to the controversial play Behzti (Dishonour), which depicts rape and murder inside a gurdwara, a Sikh temple. The production was cancelled by the Birmingham Repertory Theatre last Monday after a week of peaceful protests by the Sikh community erupted into violence. Bricks were thrown through theatre windows as police struggled to hold back an angry crowd.

A spokeswoman for the theatre said it had a 'commitment to artistic freedom', but also 'a duty of care to its audiences, staff and performers'. The play was pulled, 'purely on safety grounds,' she said. Others were not so sure.

The play's author, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, was reported to be in hiding last week after receiving death threats. Sikh leaders called this weekend for protesters to withdraw any such threats.

The battle became one between freedom of speech and respect for beliefs. But are the two incompatible? Leading figures from the arts world jumped to Bhatti's defence. Actors, writers and directors - including Prunella Scales, Tariq Ali and Jude Kelly - signed a letter published in the Guardian on Thursday expressing their support for the playwright. The statement, which had 700 signatories, said: 'It is a legitimate function of art to provoke debate and sometimes to express controversial ideas. Those who use violent means to silence it must be vigorously opposed.'

Women's groups were also dismayed by the cancellation. They called it a 'challenging play' that dealt with important issues about oppression of women.

For Jagdeesh Singh, however, the battle is being fought on the wrong territory. This is not about suppressing criticism; it is about the type of criticism and how it is portrayed. Singh is not an illiberal stick-in-the-mud; he wants to see more debate about women's rights within Sikhism.

He brings horrific personal experience to that debate. In December 1998 his sister, Surjit Kaur Athwal, went to India with her mother-in-law and never returned. She had told her husband she was going to leave him. Singh believes there is evidence that she was the victim of an honour killing and has been campaigning for justice ever since.

'I want to see issues within the Sikh community, such as honour killings, discussed more than anybody,' he insisted. 'There have been plays welcomed and financially supported by the Sikh community that have looked at alcohol abuse, family breakdown and problems between old and young Sikhs.

'If Bhatti had looked at any of these issues, that would be excellent. But she went for something completely cold. It is a badly conceived, badly organised play that is out of context and could have grave consequences for the perception of Sikhs in Britain.'

Many young Sikhs told The Observer they were outraged by the play and the subsequent press reaction. Jaswant Singh Bhangu, a 25-year-old flight lieutenant from Wolverhampton, is clean-shaven, does not wear a turban and considers himself a moderate Sikh. But he was so upset that he was ready to join the protest last Monday when the play was cancelled.

'I do not think people realise how important the gurdwara is. More than half of all Sikhs go there once or twice a week. There is so much misrepresentation of our religion and we suffer racism.'

It is hard to shake the suspicion that the anti-religious artistic and intellectual communities, bored by the milquetoast responses to anti-Christian efforts like Pis-Christ, are now setting their sights on Islam, Sikhism and other faiths. In the West, most adherents of these faiths are immigrants, and it is easy to see how secular progressives will demand they suffer and shrug off blasphemy as a kind of test of their civic loyalty and adaptability. As we saw in Holland, it is a dangerous, racist game that can only end in community division and social alienation, if not worse.

Posted by Peter Burnet at December 26, 2004 7:20 AM
Comments

Peter -- the Sikhs could use a good shakeup. I wonder how Luther would be received today?

Posted by: Randall Voth at December 26, 2004 8:19 AM

Odd this protest against Sikhs mostly seen as peaceful, hardworking and civilized and no protest against Islamists who are wreaking havoc all over the world.

The left is very obvious. They are anti-capitalist, first, last and always. Their goal is worldwide socialism. They haven't figured out however who will pay the bills if everyone in the world is on the reeiving end of government largesse.

Posted by: erp at December 26, 2004 8:40 AM

Except this is not a good shakeup. It is malice either for the furtherment of a third-rate artist's career (less likely), or simply an attack on this religion under the guise of art, therefore enjoying the protections of free speech and being taken under the wing of the artistic community, a community (including the art press and mainstream press) that shares the same anti-values values. Piss-Christ was not art; Piss-Christ was a swastika spray-painted on the wall of a synagog (except it was "recognized" as art, and therefore no one realized it what it really was.)

Now, Peter raises a very interesting question, but I do not think it is clear what the answer is (unless he has been gathering data). Will the secular fundamentalists (in this case, the artists and their elitist brethren in the media) attack these other religions with the same virulence with which they have been attacking Christianity? My take on this in the US at least is that all the other religions get the kid gloves approach, compared to Christianity. When Hollywood (or even independent film makers) begin making movies with political Islamist antagonists, terrorists - what have you - this will indicate the widening of their agenda. That the reaction to these incidents in Europe on both sides (daylight assasinations of filmmakers and the torching of mosques) is so violent, i.e., intolerant, speaks well of Christianity and the United States. September 11 did not trigger widespread violence against Muslims nor any incidents of arson against Mosques, despite the Left's best efforts to conjure an atmosphere of paranoia. Kill one third-rate filmmaker in Holland and the masses start torching mosques. The problem isn't that the United States is far advanced of Europe in terms of religious freedom and tolerance, it's that we can't even see Europe in the rear-view mirror anymore and this makes relating to these societies very difficult.

Posted by: Joseph at December 26, 2004 8:50 AM

I once heard Sister Wendy defend Piss-Christ as art. I wasn't convinced, but it was interesting and probably moderated my feelings about it.

Posted by: David Cohen at December 26, 2004 5:32 PM
« DON’T TELL HARRY’S FRUIT FLIES, BUT... | Main | WHAT WILL LIGHT THE TINDER?: »