Mustafa, Mustafa – Do Worry Mustafa!

Manisha Koirala's dog's name offends some - even though the dog doesn't seem to exist. From the Prophet Mohammed cartoon controversy to MF Hussain's nude drawings of goddesses, the range of perceived offensive behavior leaves nothing untouched. We, therefore, invite everyone to tell us exactly what their list of don'ts are.

BY A CORRESPONDENT

22 February 2006
MUMBAI, INDIA

Actress Manisha Koirala's Beachwood Tower residence on Yari Road is being guarded by 12 policepersons after members of the public protested against a her having named her dog "Mustafa" (another name for the prophet Mohammed, meaning 'the chosen one'). However, Koirala has denied that she even has a dog, and says that the only pets in her house are two Persian cats, Mischief and Morgan.

The roots of the controversy lie in a Times of India where such a dog is mentioned as being in Koirala's possession. A month after its publication, following a complaint by a local corporator, the reporter was arrested, despite an apology by the newspaper, and later released on bail. The complainant had taken offense at the name of the dog, and the reporter was charged with Section 295A of the IPC, on grounds of deliberately injuring religious sentiments.

Subsequently, according to a Mid-Day report, general secretary of the Congress, Sheikh Furkhan, led a 50-odd member group to the Versova police station to lodge a complaint against the actress. Koirala, who says she does not have a dog, told rediff.com "I believe in all the secular values that Indian democracy is famous for. I may be crazy but I'm not that crazy. I'd never call my dog Mustafa," she said. Furkhan believes she is not telling the truth. According to him, "Five neighbours in Beachwood Tower have seen Koirala take the pet dog for a stroll. They also confirmed that the canine had the same name as our religious leader."

Interestingly, Furkhan had other objections to Koirala as well. He said, "This is not the only issue. Koirala is a Nepali citizen. So how can she purchase a flat in her name? I will be filing a suit against her and also take out a morcha to protest both the issues. She has to apologise to our community or face the consequences."

Both Koirala and Furkhan seem to agree that naming a dog 'Mustafa' is disrespectful. An apology from the TOI team does not seem to be sufficient despite the fact that only public sentiments roused were a single complaint a month later, that too over an apparently erroneous article. 

Whether Koirala actually has a dog by such a name or not is is not clear. The police definitely could not find a dog at her flat, whether by 'Mustafa' or any other name. But then its our police, and they could not find Daya Nayak's activities happening right under their nose. 

There are several questions which arise in the wake of this 'controversy'. Exactly what constitutes 'deliberately offending religious sentiment'? If someone has a dog by the name of any religious figure, is that offending religious sentiment, or is writing about it in a newspaper an offence? What if such a dog does not exist, and a reporter has made a genuine error? Is it an offence only if a reporter deliberately misnames a dog? If someone has named a dog after a Christian, Sikh or Muslim religious figure, is that offending religious sentiment? Is it offensive or not if an MF Hussain paints a nude Saraswati or Bharatmata? If it is not, what if he decides to (not that he will - he is quite smart that way) decides to paint Prophet Mohammed, either nude or non-nude? Is that artistic expression or offending religious sentiment?

More questions. If a Christian priest or a Mullah preaches that there is only one God (Allah or the Trinity), is that offending the religious sentiments of Hindus, Baha'is, Parsis, nature-worshipping African tribes or American Indians? Or is one religion allowed to offend the religious sentiments of the followers of another religion?

Is Salman Rushdie offending Muslims with his Satanic Verses? Is his partner Padma Lakshi offending Hindus when she wears bikinis? Are Muslim criminals by the name of Mustafa blaspheming their religion?

Forget religious sentiment for a moment. US President George W Bush has a cat named India. Is that offending our patriotic sentiments and should we organise a morcha against it when he visits India next month? 

One wishes if the courts and intellectuals in India would step and clarify this issue once and for all. But we are sure that that will not happen. Clarity is something we abhor.

We at DWSReview are capable of offending sentiments, religious or otherwise. in fact, it is in our nature to do so - a few years in a newspaper, and one greets your colleague by saying something insulting. That is why one cannot trust the media to judge by itself what causes offense and what does not. For most journalists, a half-empty glass of Old Monk is what constitutes an offense. Therefore, sensitive and religious people of this country, you just can't trust us. The best you can expect from the media is to cause offence to you, and then balance it by offending someone else.

But you can help us not cause you offense. You have to play not on our commonsense which is as non-existent as Manisha's dog, but on our fear. Let us tell you how.

Despite appearances and bravado, we are not truly invulnerable or impermeable to bullets, death threats, court cases or bombs. Hell, even a loud 'Boo!' can make us break into a cold sweat. That is the solution.

We invite everyone from all religions, cults, communities and linguistic groups to send us a list of don'ts, using our feedback form above. Please ensure that the language in the mail you send us is explicitly clear on what we can expect if we go against the instructions. If we are threatened with a morcha, bomb, bullet or kalaripayattu or any other martial arts, we promise to be duly afraid and replace the offending portions with a statement that 'this has been deleted for fear of retribution in the form of ... by this ...(name of community).

While we are it, we request the courts and the police to arrest someone or the other so we can come to some kind of conclusion about what is legal and illegal in this country.