the english play about the murder in the sikh temple.

Also, how large does a religious group have to be before they can seriously make a claim that their religion is being offended by something? At the time of the last census, ppl were encouraged to put Jedi on their census forms coz if enough did so Jedi would be recognised as a substantial religious group in the UK. I think enough did, which leads to the intriguing potential situation of someone writing a play which slags off The Force being slapped down by the law.

There is also the fact that many of the works of art are produced by liberal members of the religious groups involved who are sometimes unaware of the offence their works would generate precisely because they grew up in plural, liberal environments where people don't get especially offended when religions are made fun of or criticised. It was certainly the case for Salman Rushdie.

The Independant's coverage of this yesterday was very good, they reprinted part of the play (quite a lot) and the original review from the Birmingham Post (links below).

The playwright used to write the BBC World Service's gritty drama Westway, which famously features a Dr Dastoor.

I thought the play extract was quite chilling, not at all easy to follow, at least out of context, and had a ghostliness reminiscent of Beckett (the 1940's Charlton Athletic wing-half).

It is ironic that some Sikhs wanted to stop the play because they were worried it would give a bad impression of Sikhism. Now that bad impression that three or four people would have had has been replaced by a widespread view that Sikhs are violent vandals who prevent kiddies going to the panto.

The whole affair has made me want to go to the theatre, or, more specifically, it has made me slightly ashamed that I don't go to the theatre.

Extract: http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/theatre/features/story.jsp?story=595098

Pre-hysteria Review:
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/theatre/reviews/story.jsp?story=595094

"Take Ken Livingstone's warm embrace this summer of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian Muslim cleric who appears to justify wife-beatings, persecution of homosexuals and suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. This was a trickier case than even the usual conflict of freedom versus cultural sensitivity. For one thing, many of those who are usually most vocal about the sanctity of free speech somehow lost their ardour for free expression when it came to the sheikh: they wanted him banned.

On the other hand, Mayor Ken went much further than merely defending Qaradawi's right to speak. By ostentatiously hugging him, he appeared to endorse the cleric's message rather than just his right to deliver it. In so doing, he became as inconsistent as his critics. For his defence relied on the progressive ideal of inclusion: Muslims are a group under great pressure around the world, Qaradawi is a scholar whom they revere, and Ken wanted to show them respect. Fair enough. But if the principle of cultural sensitivity was so important, why did it not extend to the feminists, gays and Jews who had sensitivities of their own? Why did the Mayor choose to respect one group's feelings at the expense of others?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1378374,00.html

"of course, now, regardless of the quality of the play, we have to show it."

Which... is pretty typical Royal Court, really, but it's also interesting - people will want to see it because of the furore, and the Royal Court will want to put it on because they'll get audiences and because it fits in to their general support for 'shocking' new theatre. I think the Bishop's call for self-censorship by playwrights was... politically a pretty good move, in aligning himself with another religion, but also fostering the sense that Sikhism is being 'attacked' just as Catholism is 'attacked' in countless plays, films, dramas, etc (which can also undercut: with Catholicism, the general consensus has become 'there's no smoke without fire' etc etc). But almost as if designed to set up the backs of the new-theatre community and ensure the play gets more publicity and is shown in London.

The argument doesn't seem to be 'this is a worthwhile play because it is good'; instead, it's 'this is a worthwhile play because it has caused riots and controversy'. The fact that it has shock value has become its justification, almost. And that's really quite sad.

two investigations, one into the suggestion of culpability, one into failing to cover it up properly

June 2[edit]
The Indian army had already sealed the international border from Kashmir to Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. At least seven divisions of army were deployed in villages of Punjab. By the nightfall media and the press were gagged; the rail, road and air services in Punjab were suspended. Foreigners' and NRIs' entry was also banned. General Gauri Shankar was appointed as the Security Advisor to the Governor of Punjab. The water and electricity supply was cut off.[49][50][51]

June 3[edit]
A complete curfew was observed with the army and para-military patrolling the whole Punjab. The army sealed off all routes of ingress and exit around the temple complex.

June 4[edit]
The army started bombarding the historic Ramgarhia Bunga, the water tank, and other fortified positions. The army used Ordnance QF 25 pounder and destroyed the outer defences laid by General Shabeg Singh. The army then placed tanks and APCs on the road separating the Guru Nanak niwas building. About 100 died in pitched battles.[52]

The army helicopters spotted the massive movements, and General K. Sunderji sent tanks and APCs to meet them. Hundreds or thousands of Sikhs were killed at the rendezvous.[53]

The artillery and small arms firing stopped for a while, and Gurcharan Singh Tohra, former head of SGPC was sent to negotiate with Bindrawale, however, he was unsuccessful. The firing resumed again.

A year old, but Sikhs have a reputation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebd8EKG8_3w