3 - HHR's reply to Merchants letter - Mon, 5 Apr 2004

Dear Mr Merchant,

We write in response to your recent mail the contents of which we note with interest and concern.

To begin we refer you to Tina Turner’s fan website, http://www.tina-turner.com/english/start.htm, from which we quote:

‘Tina Turner is coming back to sing and dance - on the back of a tiger! - in a Merchant Ivory film.… Turner will play the Goddess Kali who, says Merchant’s film-making partner James Ivory, is "one of the main Hindu goddesses, a recycler of souls, a destroyer as well as a creator who wears a necklace of men’s skulls."’

Now, in your statement at http://www.merchantivory.com/news-thegoddess.html you assert:

“Contrary to the accusations of the objectors, nobody is going to sing and dance on the back of a tiger … 'The Goddess' is not meant to be a specific representation of a single deity, whether Kali…”

So while Tina Turner and your directing partner James Ivory triumphantly tell the world that the she will be playing the skull wearing Hindu goddess Kali and be dancing on top of a tiger, you lambast that she will not be playing Kali and will not be dancing on top of a tiger. Have you forgotten to tell your own business partner and cast? We cannot agree that as a person born and brought up in India, which we understand you to be, would innocently fail to appreciate the heat that would be generated by your proposed project, and understand the media attention that your film would receive by any controversy. We are appalled that our religious beliefs and sentiments are being exploited to forward a film project for material and personal gain. Furthermore, we are unhappy with your dismissive attitude towards us.

In your letter to the Sunday Telegraph published on 14 March, you label us a “Hindu Fundamentalist group”. You are quoted, in the original Sunday Telegraph article on 7 March, as saying that those who object to Tina Turner have a racially motivated agenda. You have said on your own website that we are “right wing” and “extremists”. Even though the Sunday Telegraph pointed out that we are not a racist group, you repeat the lie in your recent letter that we object to Tina Turner because she is an African American. This of course has never been stated by us and sadly we must interpret this as a crude attempt to throw calumny on us without any basis to add to your previously thrown barbs. Also, nowhere have we said that we “object to a non-Hindu film-maker” as you claim. You claim to be aware of the “power of the media” and you have used it to launch a barrage of abuse against us even though you now admit that you have only recently looked at our site. We guess you have not even done your basic research let alone having read our concerns properly. Mata Kali has always been portrayed as black so skin colour is not even the issue here. It is the image of the person concerned. It would be the same if, for example, Bollywood actress Aishwara Rai, who paraded half-naked for the title of Miss World, was going to play a similar role. HHR would raise its concerns about that as well. This was mentioned in the original letter but it seems that you just cannot be bothered to read it. May we ask you on what basis have you defined us as right wing and extremist?

What reason do we have to believe that you have any goodwill towards us or the Hindu community in general? We would ask you to kindly make public a list of respected and recognised Hindu scholars and leaders whom you have consulted and sought advice from about how Shakti should be portrayed before you again accuse others of being small minded.

For your benefit we shall repeat again what we have said all along, namely that we have nothing personally against Tina Tuner and indeed believe that she is a talented artist. We are concerned and object to her playing the role of Kali and representing our sacred icon because of the image she has. In Mel Gibson’s The Passion, Jim Caviezel was an uncontroversial choice for playing Jesus Christ exactly because he is known as a devout Catholic and lives a life in accordance with the morals of mainstream Christianity – or at least that is the image associated with him. Tina Turner does not have the image which concords with the image Hindus expect for our Divine Mother. Is it your case that we have no right to be concerned and to speak out when we feel that our culture is being maligned? What if, for example, Mel Gibson had chosen Marilyn Mason, who is also a talented artist and widely known superstar, to play the role of Christ? Would you have dismissed any concerned Christians as also being “extremist”, “rightwing” and “racist”? Would you also dismiss Jewish concerns as “objections raised since they oppose a Christian American (of Irish, Slovak and Romanch descent) playing the role of the historically Jewish Jesus”?

You say you are using a collection of “bawdy stories” which is not as sacred as the Ramayana or Mahabharata. Just who are you to decide what is sacred and what is not? Furthermore would you go out in public and call, for example, the Bible or Quran a collection of “bawdy stories”? You say that your film is not religious like Mel Gibson’s The Passion. We ask you, is Shakti not religious to Hindus?

Our website aims to highlight the atrocities and genocidal attacks on Hindus around the world which escape mention in the mainstream media and film world of which you are a part. The attacks we attempt to highlight are often preceded by a long and sustained campaign of vilification in the media creating a fear/hate psychosis that encourages people to commit such horrendous atrocities. Lit. the attacks by Nazi Germany on the Jews, on the Indians in East Africa, in Fiji, the Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan et al. We object to the creation of an atmosphere of ridicule and hostility against the Hindu community, which will aid in the propagation of false and misleading impressions about Hindus and Hinduism.

Our objections are towards any form of human rights abuses and their manifestations are many. You say that you are appalled by the images of violence on our site. Is it the images themselves or the fact that we dare mention that Hindus face rape, discrimination, genocide, mutilation and utter loss of dignity at the hands of sinister anti-democratic forces the world over? We insist that your film encourages this because again it uses Hindus as the easy target: passive, exploitable, the easy punch bag against which you can aim your fist. To denigrate a people it is first necessary to trample on their culture, which is exactly what you are doing, creating the conditions favourable to the atrocities we highlight. You question our integrity, well what about yours? We are appalled that yet another one of our sacred icons is being turned into pop entertainment. The circumstances which create an environment in which such abuses are carried out are not created overnight. Lit. the long simmering resentment of Serbs arising from their interpretation of history and perceived wrongs coupled with extremely negative images vis a vis the Croats and the Bosnians or the Kosovans which has unhappily erupted again recently. When a person with the responsibility of a filmmaker like yourself takes it upon himself to perceive and portray one of the most sacred images in the Hindu universe we will naturally have concerns about the manner in which this will be portrayed. Your denial of our right to protest reflects a dogmatic and closed perception towards criticism which is just another form of abuse in a long cycle. Tell us what “cheap publicity” will gain the poor 8 year old girl raped by fanatics in Bangladesh? Your reply demeans these very issues.

You say we do a disservice to human rights issues as a whole. Well with your obvious knowledge of the power of the media you should know that very few figures in any sphere even bothered to mention the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Is it such a disservice that we mention this when celebrity figures such as yourself are silent, yet so quick to plunder the richness of Hindu culture which those victim of hate represent, to foster yet more sickening anti-Hindu propaganda? This is Britain, a democratic country. There is freedom of speech, and so a wide plethora of feelings are expressed on a number of issues. Whatever our opinions you do have the right to free speech as long as you do not deny others this right. We have the democratic right to raise our concerns and protests, and we will continue to do so.

In conclusion, we fail to see how you “honour” Hinduism as you arrogantly claim you do. We ask you stop trying to patronisingly reassure us that we are mistaken when we have shown that your directing partner and leading cast member appear not to be reading the same script as you. We reprimand you for throwing wild accusations at us in an attempt to demean us and our reputation. We repeat our request for you to shelve this proposed project because we feel that Ms Turner’s image is not suitable to represent our revered Mother. We repeat that we feel Hindus deserve to be portrayed in a better light rather than have our culture abused and ridiculed in the most insensitive and destructive manner. We assure you that this will not be our last word on the matter and we promise to oppose all attacks on Hindus.

Regards,

Hindu Human Rights

For the latest news join our mailing list  : hinduhumanrights@yahoo.com- The Hindu Human Rights group thanks you for your support!

Copyright © 2002-2003 Hindu Human Rights All rights reserved.