A nation that calls itself free should hang its head in shame if it cannot be home to people who harbor and express unpopular ideas and opinions, however controversial or egregious those opinions are. MF Husain, a famous artist born in India, died in exile in London as a Qatari citizen. Hounded and targeted by the new generation of Indian Hindus who could not fathom why we are a proud nation, MF Husain left his home country never to return again.
A basic requirement of a free nation is that it should allow expression of conflicting and dissenting ideas. And those who express those ideas should be protected from persecution, even when the targets are sacred symbols of majority or minority groups. A nation can be considered to be free only when it allows its strongest dissenters and critics to live within enjoying the freedom like any other. A country like United States shall remain a great free nation as long as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore continue living there without fear of persecution. But even the most free of the nations succumb to the pressures of the majority and turn tyrannical.
History is fraught with victories of tyrannical intolerance where individuals were targeted for an expression that did not conform to the mores and standards of the majority. Galileo Galilei was house arrested, and was asked to shut up and renounce his belief in the Copernican Solar System, just because the majority Christians led by the Vatican found his ideas disagreeable. He escaped being burnt at stake by a whisker.
Many nations, insecure and intolerant, continue to expel artists, authors and scientists from their countries for expressing views which are inconsistent with the majoritarian view. These insecure nations have laws that try to protect the state or a group from the onslaught of a puny individual, whereas the modern nation is founded on the idea to protect the individual from the tyranny of a group or a state.
Some such laws continue to persist in India thereby questioning the legitimacy of India’s much touted democratic credentials. Is India really a free nation, one can ask. And the answer is ‘it is not’. Sedition laws which try to protect the nation from ‘feelings’ of hatred or anger of an individual expressed against the government, or the Section 295A which tries to protect a religion from its sentiments getting hurt, continue to be used by the powerful groups and Indian states to clamp down on individual freedoms in this country. Existence of such laws is an anathema to the idea of a free nation.
Witch-hunting was carried out by powerful religious groups in Europe with the behest of the monarch or the state against vulnerable and powerless individuals and put nearly 100,000 women to death over 300 years. What these women did was not anything wrong, but their mere existence embracing independent thinking was considered to be in conflict with the majoritarian view of the prevailing times. These women had to give up their lives so that the insecure majority groups can feel satisfied that they have now forcefully conformed everyone to their ideas and opinions. Such is the lust of majority which seeks a conformance from the deviants that they can torture them, impale them, disembowel them or burn them at stake.
In the 21st century India, we hound them, harass them, and use arcane laws to prosecute them. We even use the mainstream media to build up intolerance amongst the masses. The alleged crime of MF Husain is that he depicted Hindu goddesses in nude, which is in fact considered intrinsic part of glorious Indian tradition, where many gods and goddesses are depicted in nude across many temples and museums, sometimes performing sexual acts. In one of the museums in Trivandrum, a statue depicts Shiva with a nude Parvati on his lap while his arm goes around her to tweak her prominent nipple. In my hometown in Telangana, a male god stands proud at the entrance of the temple displaying his penis to everyone.
And yet, the idea of MF Husain painting nude Hindu goddesses was deemed intolerable by the majority conservative Hindus who had a parochial view of their own traditions and religion. These Hindus are selective in choosing their targets. Some Hindus living in London protested against showcasing MF Husain’s paintings but did not bother to stop an exhibition that came up just few days later of Chola dynasty statues showcasing nude gods and goddesses.
Nonconformance in practices or opinions or expressions should not be treated as unpatriotic; and yet we continue to indulge in measuring one’s loyalty towards a nation by how much he/she conforms to the standards of the majority. It is not necessary to agree with the opinions and expressions of Arundhati Roy or MF Husain, but it is necessary to allow them to articulate and express their opinions and ideas without fear of persecution. Instead, Indians have hounded these people for being nonconformists. Using some arcane and insane colonial laws that continue to languor in India though British have already left, these intolerant brigands armed with bigotry and blind belief, representing the powerful majority group called Hindus, took up arms to fight a powerless individual. Though acquitted by a High Court in India, these Hindu zealots were allowed to harass MF Husain, while the police gleefully allowed people to file hundreds of cases against him in India. Unable to cope with so much harassment, the artist had to leave his motherland.
21st Century India exiled one of its great artists. And that great artist died in a foreign land pining for his home country. With his death in exile, the intolerance has won, and the idea of a free India has lost out.
"My mother died when I was one and a half years old, and if you miss that affection, that lap of mother, then there is no place in this world.That is the main reason and I am searching my mother in every woman I see in every corner of the world. That’s precisely what I am seeking,because the essence of Indian culture is Shakti, the woman....
ReplyDeletewe are a democratic country. And whatever I have depicted is not realistic, I have painted in the idiom of modern art, the contemporary way. So that’s very difficult to understand. Where there is a figure of a woman I paint, it is nude but that figure is not realistic. I am not painting every part of the body in detail. Which is even there in our temples....
The nudity is a metaphor for purity and strength...."
M F HUSAIN
(Read the complete interview at Indian Express)
Another perspective here...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvQvlYuJsHY&feature=player_embedded
If a person paints a non-hindu- religion related person/item in a manner that is objectional to a large numebr of people the media goes hammer and tongs to denounce that person. Yet when MF painted a hindu goddess and depicted her in a way that offends many hindus, the media wants to know what is wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteNot a single Indian spoke in support of the danish cartoons.
Very few Indians openly supported Taslima.
POK:
ReplyDeleteIf a person paints a non-hindu- religion related person/item in a manner that is objectional to a large numebr of people the media goes hammer and tongs to denounce that person. Yet when MF painted a hindu goddess and depicted her in a way that offends many hindus, the media wants to know what is wrong with it.
Not a single Indian spoke in support of the danish cartoons.
Very few Indians openly supported Taslima.
How a media reacts to a certain event is in itself a separate question. In this article, I was referring more to the laws and the legal system which is used to harass people in this country.
When the zealots are armed with laws of the land aiding them then they take on a moral high ground.
The state has to intervene to protect the rights of an individual by ensuring its machinery is not used to harass the individual - and that's where Indian failed.
Good one, POK.
ReplyDeleteI was hoping to read at least a mention of Taslima Nasreen, in Sujai's post.Or that of the reaction to the cartoons on Mohammed. Or about the shame of the Indian Govt in banning Satanic Verses (book), and the Last Temptation of Christ(film).No, nary a mention. That says a lot about his selective understanding of any issue.
Fact is, various Govts and civil society groups in India have legitimized and incentivized this reactionary culture against politically incorrect/blasphemous expression.M.F.Hussain had to fight legal cases because on earlier cases, the govt and civil society allowed intolerance, physical attacks against artistes, issues of fatwas, and declaration of ransoms, go unpunished.Because Hussain painted Hindu goddesses and Bharat Mata in the nude, people filed legal cases against him. And he found Qatar as the paragon of free speech (I don't think Hussain was interested in Qatar's taxation laws :) ) compared to India.Hussain left of his free will, the Govt was willing to protect him.Taslima is the one who was hounded out by the Govt, while the civil society remained impotently mute.
Let us at least now stop being selective.Yes, India has many reasons to feel ashamed about.But Hussain's case is definitely not one of those reasons.
In the comment above:
ReplyDelete"Because Hussain painted Hindu goddesses and Bharat Mata in the nude, people filed legal cases against him."
I want to add: Had Hussain done similar paintings of Mohammed with his wives or Christ with Magdalene or his disciples, it would not have been simple legal cases.It would have been much worse.
The current laws we have are adequate to deal with most scenarios.Freedom of speech should be non negotiable.But once we, the society allow fundamentalists of one persuasion to break the law and disrespect freedoms, we should not then bemoan the lack of adequate legal protection in other, similar cases.
Kumar Narasimha:
ReplyDeletewas hoping to read at least a mention of Taslima Nasreen, in Sujai's post… No, nary a mention. That says a lot about his selective understanding of any issue.
A simple search on my blog using the ‘Search’ facility provided on the left column would have saved my precious time. If you are not willing to spend your time to do your own research, please do not visit this blog.
I discuss Taslima in the following posts:
August 10, 2007, India Curbs Freedom of Expression II
February 05, 2008, Biggest Threat to India
August 14, 2007, 'Our sentiments are hurt'
July 10, 2010, What’s the problem with Indians?
Or that of the reaction to the cartoons on Mohammed. Or about the shame of the Indian Govt in banning Satanic Verses (book), and the Last Temptation of Christ(film).
Satanic Verses incident happened before I started writing this blog, but it gets referred in:
September 08, 2009, Unban banned books
August 21, 2009, Gujarat bans Jaswant’s book on Jinnah
February 05, 2008, Biggest Threat to India
I made it clear in one of my posts that though I have opinions on international issues I have not dealt with those in great detail on this blog because India keeps me busy.
In short, please don’t waste time with your baseless allegations. If you can’t do that, don’t visit this blog.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteRead my comment again. I was referring to this post, not the archives on your blog.
And it is important to mention Rushdie, Taslima, Cartoons etc, along with Hussain, because all these issues relate to freedom of expression, and the reaction of Govts, the legal position, and civil society response. Looking at Hussain in isolation will make you feel ashamed about India.But it will not tell you why the Govt could do nothing about those who filed cases against Hussain.And I explained the root cause in my comment.
Don't spend time digging into your archive.As you said, it is a waste of time. Instead please read my comment properly before going off on a tangent.Hope we can conduct a discussion on your blog in a polite manner. Thanks.
Kumar Narasimha:
ReplyDeleteAnd it is important to mention Rushdie, Taslima, Cartoons etc, along with Hussain,
I don't believe that each time I write about Husain, I have to necessarily bring in the incidents of Rushdie, Taslima, Danish Cartoons, etc. There are countless other incidents where freedom of expression is curbed in India. In one article, I don’t need to mention each and every one of them to make it look complete. Sometimes I like to refer to Galileo, and sometimes to witch-hunting. Sometimes, where it makes sense, I like to refer to Taslima, Satanic Verses, Husain and other acts of intolerance in the same vein – which I have done in the past. It depends on the kind of article I am writing. It is a bit of arrogance on your part to be thinking that I should write the way you expect me to write.
You are free to write your own blog where you mention Rushdie, Taslima, Danish Cartoons, etc, along with Husain. And believe me, I will have nothing to suggest to you.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteI was not being arrogant ! I was trying to share my thoughts on why it became legitimate to file cases against Hussain.And I felt that by looking at Hussain's case in isolation, you may have missed the root cause.It is a fair critique to make, I reckon.At the core level, we both are on the same side.That is why, I am laboring to prove my point here.
By allowing the sins against earlier victims, the govt and civil society activists have lost their moral compass to show the right direction w.r.t. Hussain. A strong precedent has been set and fringe groups capitalized on it. The fault is not with the legal system in India, but the Govt and the civil society groups that fashion public opinion.
My point: What happened to Hussain is unfortunate, but the system dealt with him civilly.But even the non-bailable warrant should not have been issued.But neither the courts, nor the Govt or NGOs could do anything because in earlier cases, they (Govt and activists) actively supported the ban/deportation etc.
It has now become established practice in India to ban any thing that even slightly offends the sensibilities of any group.Hussain can't be an exception to that.
Yes, I am as ashamed as you are about this lack of freedom of expression in India.But at least, we are not China, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or the US.(A Telugu student is in jail in US for the past 4-5 years due to alleged anti-US talk.His dad met Obama but even BO couldn't do any thing.)
I can only resort to philosophy and wonder: Were we ever truly free?
Kumar Narasimha:
ReplyDeleteI can only resort to philosophy and wonder: Were we ever truly free?
I write in my blog: Is India really a free nation, one can ask. And the answer is ‘it is not’.
I guess we are not debating that here. What we are debating, if we are, is why I did not mention other instances of suppression of freedoms in India which you cited.
Your first paragraph was the following:
I was hoping to read at least a mention of Taslima Nasreen, in Sujai's post.Or that of the reaction to the cartoons on Mohammed. Or about the shame of the Indian Govt in banning Satanic Verses (book), and the Last Temptation of Christ(film).No, nary a mention. That says a lot about his selective understanding of any issue.
What you were saying is that I should have included Taslima, et al incidents in this article.
Such comparisons have already been covered in this blog on various topics. In those other articles, I dealt essentially with suppression of freedom of expression. I see no need to do it again here. MF Husain died, Taslima and Salman Rushdie are alive. This topic was about MF Husain and his death in exile.
The reason I did not touch upon those other instances is because I was essentially dealing with two important points in this article here – one is that ‘legal system is wrong’; the other is that this ‘legal system is brought on to protect a group or a state from an individual’, which according to me does not make sense. Hence, the allusion to Galileo and witch-hunting.
The third important aspect is that the artist had to flee India. Taslima did not flee from India. She fled from Bangladesh to reside in India. Rushdie left India before his book was banned. Danish cartoonists continue to live in Denmark. Since some of the other instances were already covered under suppression of freedom of expression and did not necessarily result in expulsion of the author or artist from India, those examples were not used in the current article.
You write:
The fault is not with the legal system in India
And then you write:
At the core level, we both are on the same side
I don’t think we are on the same side. I firmly believe that the legal system is at fault here (in addition to other faults of the system). Hence I cited two sections in IPC which I think should be removed. I had discussed the same in some of the previous posts on this blog.
You write:
Let us at least now stop being selective.Yes, India has many reasons to feel ashamed about.But Hussain's case is definitely not one of those reasons.
I do believe that Husain’s case is a definite reason why India has to be feel ashamed, and hence the purpose of the article.
Essentially, the disagreement with you is as follows:
What you were trying to do was insinuate that I somehow condoned the Islamic and Christian intolerance while targeting Hindu intolerance, and that was the sole purpose of citing Taslima, Rushdie, Movie on Christ, and Danish Cartoons. And that’s why you said I was being ‘selective’.
And my retort was that I was not being ‘selective’ and referred to the times I expressed my disapproval of those incidents in the past when they happened. I felt ashamed when Taslima row kicked off and wrote against the suppression of freedoms in this country. If you failed to read those articles when I wrote them, it is not my fault. Hence, I guided you to use the ‘Search’ facility on this blog. If Taslima row kicks up again I may write about it again.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteI said 'selective understanding of any issue'. There is a difference between a person having a selective understanding of an issue, and being selective due to some innate bias.
You have such a bias when it comes to Telangana issue, but when it comes to freedoms, not even I would argue that you have a bias.
But by looking at Hussain's case in an isolated manner, your understanding of the issue has become flawed in my opinion.So, I was pointing out the earlier occasions and why they matter - because they help to understand the societal, legal and governmental responses to such issues.
I repeat: Hussain was not hounded out of this country.There were court cases against him, and instead of appearing before the court, he chose to leave the country, and live in a country that runs on Sharia law, with even limited freedom of expression than India.It helped that Qatar wouldn't tax him on his earnings but India would.
Taslima was attacked in Hyderabad by a legislator and his goons.Good people like you blogged about it.Has the Govt done any thing about it?Has Mamata Banerjee or CPM provided her safety in WB?
Rushdie's book was banned by the Indian Govt ! Again, good people protested about it.But could we do any thing to make the Govt of the day (and successive Govts) respect freedom of expression?
Gujarat banned a film on 2002 riots.And a book on Gandhi recently.There was limited outcry in the blog world, but could any one make the state govt retract its position? No..because precedents have been set for such behavior by the govt.
Therefore, my opinion stands: The legal system, based on the Constitution (fundamental rights) is sound. Some elements of the Cr.PC are out dated, but judges in general are able to see those laws in spirit and implement them in line with the Constitution.
The problem is with the political class, the left liberal intelligentsia who supported the ban on Rushdie's book and other incidents, and the mainstream media.Their collective collusion in earlier incidents made their noises in Hussain's case sound weak.
And when I say we are on the same side, I mean the side of absolute non negotiability of freedoms.But I see that we do differ in causation and solutions.Thanks for that clarification.
I feel sad because the govt. failed to protect a Padmashree, Padmabhushan, and PadmaVibhusan winner ! The state simply doesn't care about its citizens, whether it is the aam aadmi or a genius like M F.
ReplyDeleteRushdie,Shah Bano, opening Rample temple etc. set dangerous examples of state interfering with religion. And once you open the floodgates there is no way you can close them.
Second you on that Kumar Narasimha.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sujai on the issue of freedoms largely and see almost no bias except the one you have mentioned.
It is the left intelligentsia and tribalism that has become the sole stumbling block for the progress of this nation.
Nice arguments by both Sujai and Kumar, but I agree more with Sujai argument. We may not know all the factors that made MFH leave the country. But it is true that he left the country after he was greatly harassed and ridiculed.
ReplyDeleteKumar's argument is that we need to look into similar events in the past to better understand the political aspect of this issue. It is helpful in understanding political history and certainly useful to apportion blame on one group or the other. But it also muddles truth and doesn't help the cause of progressing forward. What Sujai was trying to say is that Hussain's case is a cause of shame for India, which is plain truth you both seem to agree upon.
Very interesting blog...
ReplyDeleteWell MF Hussain seems to have used this idiom of seeking a Mother's lap in a selective way and there is a pattern to it. The nudity associated with his paintings (he mounts the Shakti pinciple of Vedanta for his defence)occurs only when the painting is about Hinduism.
We have a nude Durga but a fully robed hijabi Muslim woman, we have a naked Godess Lakshmi but we have a fully robed hijabed Mother of MF Hussain, we have a naked Saraswati from M F Hussain but we have a fully clothed Mother Teresa, we have a naked Parvati but a fully robed Goddaughter of his, we have a naked Hanuman but we have a fully robed poet Ghalib and yes we also have a naked Mother India, we have fully robed Muslim king but a naked Hindu priest.... And MFH after painting Adol Hitler completely naked claimed that he painted Hitler thus as he loathed Hitler and hence he deserved to be pained so. Now does thi not say something about the man?
And the blogger of E=mc^2, who has gone to great lengths to understand and artiulate why Muslims find Vande Mataram troublesome, has not even attempted to understand why sections of Hindus have a problem with MF Hussain (and I am not talking about those that attacked his exhibitions). Hinduism is not a monolithic faith and for instance one may not even need idols to focus on Almigty. And some rever the Shakti principle. And he/she can be upset for the way a Saraswati or Paravti were depicted. A temple in Trivandrum, where the author of this post seems to have infered that Shiva's hands were stretched and were about to tweak a nipple or a nude statue in his home town do not matter at all. By this logic can someone justify an act of incest today in a Xtian society just because Lot had sex with his daughters in OT? Just because a king of yesteryear had a sculptor build a statue in a specific way in yesteryears does not lead to MFH having a passport to paint Hindu Gods in a despicable way.
Again I think the courts did support MFH based on the clauses pertaining to freedom of expression in Indian legal system. And given the blog cited the States and Naom Chmosky, in the context of MFH, I wish to draw an analogy with a case between Otto Preminger Institute and Austria and then the case went to European court of human rights (the case is extremely similar to that of MFH). Here is what the final judgment looked like "whoever exercises the rights and freedoms [enshrined in the first paragraph of that Article (10)] undertakes "duties and responsibilities". Amongst them, in the context of religious opinions and beliefs, may legitimately be included an obligation to avoid as far as possible expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and thus an infringement of their rights, and which therefore do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs. This being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent improper attacks on objects of religious veneration, provided always that any "formality", "condition", "restriction" or "penalty" imposed be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."
The author of this blog has opined elsewhere that India is not a free nation. But if the author agrees that European court of human rights as a free organization, is the author willing to look at the MFH controversy by using the analogy stated above??
The case quoted above was about a short movie that hurt Austrian Catholics. The judgement can be seen here
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695774&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteyou are right that you do not have to recount Taslima, Rishdhie, Red Saree etc whenever you write on intolerance.
on the other hand you do not have to write about intolerance while mourning a death.
title of your topic suggests that MF died because of witch-hunting.
MF died and NOT MURDERED. He died of age. Even if he were not harassed and continued as Indian citizen he would have died in London not in India.
You want to mourn his death, recollect his greatness, contribution to art ...Fine!
You have already given links to related to your own posts where you discussed similar topics.
What is the need for recounting the same points again and again even in death?
A typical case of indian pseduo intllectual ready to bash Indianism at every opportunity. Right?
Finally, you are a master of analogies.
Can you draw some parallells between persecution of Hussain and incidents of Million March on Tankbund?
IMO both are mob cultures incited by vested interests, regardless the cause.
What is different? The way one was denounced and the other was defended.
Prabhakar:
ReplyDeleteYou want to mourn his death…
I am not mourning his death. I am bemoaning that India lost – not because it lost an artist, but because it failed to live up to the idea of a free nation.
Apolloreach:
ReplyDeleteAnd MFH after painting Adol Hitler completely naked claimed that he painted Hitler thus as he loathed Hitler and hence he deserved to be pained so. Now does thi not say something about the man?
This has been discussed on this blog before you came in (on other posts). There has been no source to the claim that MF Husain said he painted Hitler nude because he loathed Hitler. Please provide a source to this claim.
And the blogger…who has gone to great lengths to understand and artiulate why Muslims find Vande Mataram troublesome, has not even attempted to understand why sections of Hindus have a problem with MF Hussain
You did not understand both the articles – on Vande Mataram and on MF Husain. The gist is the same. That you cannot force anyone into doing anything – either sing a song because you want them to sing it, or stop painting a nude goddess because you want them to stop it.
Just because a king of yesteryear had a sculptor build a statue in a specific way in yesteryears does not lead to MFH having a passport to paint Hindu Gods in a despicable way.
What if I show you contemporary statues of Hindu gods and goddesses in nude in modern temples? Would you go and demolish those temples?
Hindus have hurt my sentiments by portraying the omnipotent God that created the Universe as 4-armed freaks, or as a potbellied guy with the head of an elephant. In other words, laughable caricatures.
ReplyDeleteShould I call for a ban on all such idols in temples? My feelings are certainly hurt.
Ledzius,
ReplyDeletedefinitely you can make such demand.
But you and your religion must have reasonably good vote.
Alternatively, you should be able to establish that this is handiwork of Sangh Parivaar.
The whole media and entire spectrum of politicians, activists will make you another super hero.
Sujai says 'Is Hinduism a great religion? These Hindus tout, ‘yes, it is’.....'
ReplyDeleteIt is not the greatness of the religion that people admire..it is the greatness of the religion to which they belong they admire.And from then onwards they are blinded by that feeling....like you are by Telangana!
rachanalu
rachanalu@gmail.com
Have you ever wondered how the same people who condemn Hussain as being a hypoctite and insulting Hinduism with his sexual depiction of Gods, never condemn the innumerable hindu spiritual Gurus (supposedly celibate renunciate) accused (even convicted) of heinous sexual crimes and murder?
ReplyDeleteInfact one even sees some such bogus gurus condemning Hussain as a bogus. If one wants to condemn the behavior of a fundamentalist how can one do so while acting like a fundamentalist?Exactly who is the hypocrite here?
Have you ever wondered how the same people who condemn Hussain...
ReplyDeleteMost of the Gurus (include Kanchi swamis) you talk faced legal actions. Whether they were punished or not is another debate. Social activists, leftists, media and many more were after them day and night.
They lost popularity, position ... Almost nobody flee the country and took shelter in another country.
Of course those Gurus would not flee the country! No other country would accept them or their strange practices.At least in India they can avoid conviction by citing that what they did was within the limits of their religious freedom(ex Nityananada making women sign papers to justify tantric sex as consentual ). Also witnesses can be bought up easily here. They live in a country where they belong to the majority religion and the Govt would never want to alienate a majority by questioning their religion or leaders with mass following like Sai Baba or Shankaracharya. So cases will eventually hav eto be hushed up.
ReplyDeleteIn Hussain's case he belongs to a minority religion. So when he says whatever he painted was within the religious context of the majority religion how many from the majority religion are going to help him?
Considering the complexity of the court cases and the possible implications of it becoming a Hindu Muslim issue, it was even in the Government's interest to keep him away from India. Even he knew it was in the best interest of peace that he would have to saty away.Of course he could not apologize for something he did not view as wrong because by apologizing it would mean he was a coward who was admitting he did wrong even though he believed he was right. What option did he have but stay away?
For a follower of Abrahamic fatih(Islam,Christian or Jew) manner of dressing is indicative of purity. So a purest soul - a nun or priest or rabbi etc is most heavily covered. Nudity is indicative of shame, impurity.So a Hitler naked is a Hitler in shame.
ReplyDeleteIn Eastern faiths(Hindu, Jain etc) clothes are associated with the body-mind(personality). Purity of soul is attained when one transcends the body-mind.The purest souls who have realized the oneness of Self often are nude like the digambaras or naga babas, yogis etc. So nudity is indicative of the highest level of purity here - one who has transcended the body-mind and its pretentions. This is why Gods are most often naked in the temples. Even a stone lying by the roadside will be painted saffron and is worshipped as God - no clothes needed to call it or respect it as God. A brahmin painted naked is a Pure brahmin and a muslim fully clothed is a pure muslim. A hindu God(Pure Energy) naked is the purest form of God, no question of painting any imagery of God in Islam. So it is absurd to compare apples and oranges and condemn a painter or his paintings with this nonsensical logic. It is called kutarka. People like Sri Sri ravishankar only expose their own ignorance of their own faith when they go on to make such illogical condemnations....Such illogical statements only seek to stir up the confusion and ignorance in people's minds and provoke violence etc...
SIn is not in the action but in the reaction......
Sid-
ReplyDeleteIndia is a secular country but when a muslim paints a nude portrait of the hindu goddess there are bound to be problems.Had he made a nude portrait of any of the islamic deities then we could have seen what support he would have received form his own community.
even after publishing a nude portrait ,did he get a scratch on him? No . Did some extremist groups protest ? In a country of billions ,a few hundreds protested and even if they did considering they are extremists ,dont they have the right to AT LEAST protest!!!! when a cartoon of the prophet is published WITH CLOTHES ....People end up dying , buildings are burned down .So i would say India the second most populated in the world was very much tolerant .By your statements you dont seem to from India because if you were you would know in India there is absolutely no difference in the way a muslim or a hindu is treated. Our famous and well respected president was a muslim ,the king of bollywood is also muslim worshipped by the entire country.So please get you facts right.