Thursday, February 23, 2012

You are here: Home / TV News from STUDIO BRIEFING / INDIA PROTESTS LENO GAG

INDIA PROTESTS LENO GAG

January 24, 2012 by · 4 Comments 

Vayalar Ravi

Among the deeply devout, humor and religion do not intermix. (About the only religious figure depicted as laughing or even smiling in religious iconography is Buddha.) Jay Leno is the latest to learn that lesson as the government of India formally lodged a complaint about a gag that was included in his Tonight show monologue last week. As reported by the Indian news channel NDTV, Leno during his monologue showed the residences of the current crop of GOP candidates. But when it came to Romney, he displayed an image of India’s lavish Darbar Sahib or Golden Temple. In a news clip broadcast by NDTV, Overseas Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi said, “I wish this kind of thing is not shown by any media in the U.S. … Freedom does not mean hurt the sentiments of others.” He called the Golden Temple the “Sikh community’s most sacred place. Even our Prime Minister went there for praing in the New Year. I believe that the person who has shown [the temple] is not that ignorant. The American government should also look at this kind of thing.” NDTV said that Leno’s comment has sparked an online petition campaign by the “small but strong” Sikh community in the U.S. Later, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said that the U.S. has “absolute respect for all the people of India, including Sikhs,” then added, “”I think that Mr. Leno would be appreciative … if we make the point that his comments are constitutionally protected in the United States under free speech, and frankly, they appear to be satirical in nature.”

             

Filed under TV News from STUDIO BRIEFING · Tagged with , , , , , ,

  • Sburstein190

    I guess that Peter Sellers wouldn’t be able to do his “Goodness gracious me” bit if he were alive.

  • Anonymous

    “Freedom does not mean hurt the sentiments of others.”

    Dear Minister Ravi,

    Actually, freedom means precisely that.  No one needs to protect the right to express popular thoughts.  It’s unpopular, even hurtful, thoughts that need protecting, because those are the thoughts that challenge the status quo and get people thinking (granted, sometimes they get people thinking, “What an a**hat”).  That a ministerial-leel official of the second most popular nation on Earth doesn’t get this, but parrots the most reactionary of Islamist sentiments to protect his own (or, at least, one of his nation’s own) oxen, makes me weep just a little for the prospect of freedom.

  • http://www.studiobriefing.net Lew Irwin

    Your principal remarks are well taken, but you do yourself and your argument a disfavor by dashing them off carelessly. India is predominantly a Hindu country, historically at loggerheads with the Muslim world. I also presume you do not mean “popular” but “populous” or “populated.” A couple of other words are difficult to decipher.

  • Anonymous

    You are correct about the popular/populous error, as well as one other I caught, so I have edited my comment.  Considering a mild form of dyslexia and a decade-old keyboard, I suspect it could have been worse.  However, I cannot see your point about India being Hindu, unless you thought I was suggesting that India was a Muslim nation (for the record, I am keenly aware of India’s history of conflict with Muslims, esp. Pakistani ones).  It is a mere comparison, much like if I had said, “You’re being a bit of a grammar nazi,” it doesn’t mean I think you advocate the extermination of those who occasionally err in their comments. 

    All I meant by it was that I have heard a (IMO) tired refrain from several sources purporting to represent Muslims that “Freedom of speech should be held secondary to hurty feelings, esp. MY/OUR hurty feelings.” This is, to my ear, pretty much the same thing Minister Ravi was saying.  Pretty simple when you don’t over- (or under-) analyze it, neh?