Activists Vandalize Vadodara Art Show - Portrait of the Artist as Victim

I will never be in favor of curtailing freedom whether in the name of religion, safety or general mollycoddled sensibilities.

Me neither. incidentally, check out what's playing at the Ranga Shankara on May 19 and 20. It's about censorship and I read some positive things.

Freedom of expression should be exercised with sense of responsibility.
I have question for all who are supporting Chandra Mohan. Will you openly support Danish cartoonist for his cartoons on Prophet Mohammad? Why none of you have written a single line supporting him?

Praveen, if you had bothered to do a search on this site, you would have found numerous articles by the same author(s) supporting even the Danish cartoonists - but I don't think that will convince you, will it.

praveen.. and whose sense of responsibility shall be used when that is implemented? See, I think the artists in question DID use their own version of responsibility, and then others decided it did not match their own.

deepti... I agree. what utter BS. the second you start doing things like legislating morality, there are big issues.

amrita... nice job here!!!

Amrita:
I have a take on this at Desicritics.
Link: India Curbs Freedom Of Expression

Your freedom to think is unlimited and unchallenged.

Your freedom to act and express is curbed both in constitution and in nature(and rightfully so) as soon as you are in a domain which is shared by people who differ with you.

Even if you are participating in a debate you can speak only as long as others are not offended by what you speak and allow you(in the spirit of debate) to put forth your opinion even if it is contrary to theirs.

Freedom always comes at a price(of responsibility). Absolute freedom is nuisance and will almost always interfere and ruin freedom of others unless of course they all abide by what you say(assuming you are some sort of preacher).

Use Freedom only if you understand what it means to others. Your freedom to express can hurt somebody else, in which case his freedom to live without being hurt demands more urgent protection against your freedom to express.

Use Freedom is its most restrictive sense. Freedom comes at a very high cost and just being born as a human or to pay x% tax is not enough to offset that cost.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Absolute freedom corrupts absolutely.

People who use freedom can also be Vandalists.
In fact all Vandalists always misuse their freedom.


I am not sure how private was the so called "internal assessment" else I could have commented on the incident. What is the degree of privacy that can be attached to the said exhibition? Was it namesake private? What if someone posts a nude but doctored photograph of somebody’s relative/friend in the name of freedom and creativity?

I am reasonably sure that for every one way to express creativity in art by hurting group of people there are hundred ways left unexplored, which can do it in a harmless way.


For every voice that says, I can twist and tear Hinduisms in my own way and those who do not agree with me should abandon Hinduism and should shut themselves out, there as another voice (of freedom) which says why do not you create your own cult and practice what you preach (instead of encroaching into my already established belief system) and then let us see how many people will you be able to attract to your clique. Do not use Hinduisms to promote your own ideas and your cult. Be original and build up from ground. That would be the real test of no only your freedom but also the merits of what you preach.

If you are right people will follow you sooner than later. If you are right you do not need Hinduism to justify it. There are lot of assholes who promote their own agenda in the name of Hinduisms just because it gives them a wider audience.

Author’s analogy of banana is flawed because

1) Bananas is not sacred. You do not look up to banana for enlightenment, inspiration, direction and pursuits in life.

2) There is only one person(God, Goddess) who is depicted by all the photos/artistic depictions of him/her. Every banana exists separately. Please refer to "Proper nouns and common nouns" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun for details ;).

What if you are asked to eat banana/apple/orange which was used in demonstration of sex. You may (but purely for the sake of remaining adamant) insist that I will eat that fruit after I wash it, but with Gods and similar figures there is no bleaching processing that can be associated with their characters, espc. When they are no more and exist only as part of belief system/symbolism for thousands of people.

Good article.

Please write an article on attack on freedom of expression when salman rushdie was being banned?

please write one more about assault on freedom of when Mohamemd's cartoons were banned in India?

Please write one more article when a state cabinet minister offered 50 cr rupees to behead swidish cartoonist.

Do we have courage to do so? of we simply shout when somebody demands respectful treatment for Indian ethos?

Hey peeps, thanks for reading!

Aaman/Dee, Sujai, SS - thanks! Nice article btw, Sujai!

Praveen - leaving aside all else, you seem to understand that what those extremists did to the Danish cartoonists was wrong. Then why would you want any of us to follow that example?

Man Singh - thank you. I don't know about "we" but "I" have the courage. I was unfortunately a baby when Rushdie was banned but having heard him speak on multiple occasions let me tell you that that was a very bad example because he himself would oppose the line you're taking. As for the rest, please read what I've said above. And as for "respectful" treatment - how respectful was Jain, not only of Chandramohan but of Indian ethos?

Freedom - a number of things:
I agree with a lot of your points: now please shift the focus from me and apply it to Chandra Mohan:

how did his work violate Indian law? I've given you the sections he was booked under as per a report in The Hindu. Please tell me how it applies.

Who charged in and started throwing punches? Chrndramohan or Jain? So who was the "uncivilized" person in this "debate"?

I went to a university with an arts school and I can tell you in the normal course of things, its a very restricted area. But if you want to know how Jain got access, then there was a piece in the Times of India i think about the VC that should explain a great deal.

[contd]

As for the rest goes:
1) That's exactly my point - if a humble banana is above mutation through symbolism, why not God?

2) Those are your beliefs about the nature of God. Hinduism itself has had very different ideas of the nature of God. Why is the interpretation you chose more sacred than another?

3) That's very interesting - so you're saying it's not God Himself/Herself/Itself that's the issue, it's the people who use his name? And these people are so simpleminded that they will immediately change their views on God the moment they're confronted with a new image?

[contd]

And I agree 100% about a$$holes who want you to follow them - Jain being the a$$hole in this case who took the name of Hinduism to justify his thuggery. Why can't he form his own cult instead of attacking Chandramohan who was only doing what Hindus have been doing for thousands of years i.e. depicting their gods and goddesses through art?

Amrita, a very good article! I wholly agree with you.

#11...
I think he should have been charged u/s 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. I do not know why police choose it otherwise.

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S153.htm

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S295A.htm

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S295.htm

Who charged in and started throwing punches? Chrndramohan or Jain? So who was the "uncivilized" person in this "debate"?


You can be offensive without being physical. I am not sure why did you ask this rudimentary question.

I went to a university with an arts school and I can tell you in the normal course of things, it is a very restricted area

If it indeed was as private as you say, then you stand with a point.
However, if nobody except for people who were appreciative of arts were allowed to see exhibition, how did this news reach out. There must have been one traitor (an affected person who felt outraged with the spirit of exhibition) who went out spread awareness, collected people. It has to be a well planned and thought out activity. Lastly, the onus (though not the duty) that a private event remains private with its details is on the host. I would look forward to reading the mentioned article in Times of India about how Jain got access.

#12…
You got none of my points...and I think I did not get any of yours either...so let us stop it there unless we revise what each other wrote.

# 13... I think you are referring to Kujraho. Firstly we still do not know for sure who all were allowed to visit Kujraho under those times. Secondly, How well does Kujraho fit with rest of Hindusims. Thirdly , today people visit Kujraho with the sense of bhakti. I am yet to find out what was Chandramohan’s intent?. Any URLs?

Unless we know whats and whys, Jain and Chandramohan could both be thugs. One being physical other being professional. Did Jain participated in this act with intent to harm the institute or the individual. Unless he is found so, we should not be calling him a thug just as we are giving benefit of doubt to Chandramohan.
Given the fact that 12 of the 15 people in public I met yesterday, had objections to Chandramohan's portraits, i do not think it will be reasonable to call him a thug. May be eventually both Chandramohan and Jain are punished by law. Chandramohan for abetting a riot by affecting the sensibilities and Jain for committing the riot himself.

Why can't he form his own cult instead of attacking Chandramohan who was only doing what Hindus have been doing for thousands of years i.e. depicting their gods and goddesses through art

The onus to walk away and form their own cliques is on the people who joined later (in your language invented it later). That has been a widely accepted norm all across in the history of evolution and civilization. Monkeys who grew to become more intelligent beings did not keep calling themselves as monkeys nor did they stop other monkeys from jumping on branches all day around or from considering themselves as monkeys. They isolated themselves and formed their own group which is known best by what you and I call us.

The day liberals (me inclusive) understand that they need to have their own clique, religion different from existing one, and that they need to meddle in affair of somebody else, such violence will die its own death.

However I see a problem, what if you agree to an overwhelming content of a religion and do not agree to a few of the things?

But in that case you are a reformist who sets him/herself out to correct religion and not a creative liberal like our beloved “Chandra Mohan”.

Man Singh:

Lets say, I don't condone the use of art for portrayal of something that could hurt religious sentiments but does that mean I would go beat up the people who do it? No.

I would just pick up a pen or type frantically on the keyboard and vent. That is how some of us deal with our hurt sensibilities ....unless of course we have nothing better to do or are being offered a fat lump sum by political parties to go create a ruckus in the name of religion.

Isn't it funny that its always about "freedom" to offend? And always offend the "easy" targets?

Remember when good old barefeet Hussain (yes Maqbool Fida) took a stand about his "naked Saraswati" painting even when fringe Hindu groups protested?

THEN it was about FREEDOM of SPEECH. In fact most of the lefties/liberal Macauleyites supported his "freedom." And so the painting was published everywhere as part of the artist's right to freedom of speech.(this is the "liberal" take on the Mohammad cartoons too - the common thread is the ease of targetting a religion/community by naming it "intolerant" and "old-fashioned" or even worse, "against freedom of speech.")

Yet when Muslims protested his use of Islamic imagery in cinema, MF Hussain voluntarily "withdrew" his film from circulation immediately. AND NEVER A WORD on the artist's freedom of speech! Or indeed any of the usual lefty/liberal agitation!

Hussain - btw is living in Dubai under VERY nice circumstances. I guess not too many of you know India well enough to realise that he was hardly threatened but yes, prefers his "lifestyle." And it makes for better "liberal" copy to say how he is being harassed by Hindu nationalists. Same as when Arundhati Roy wrote about how she was being "harassed by the judiciary" never mind the fact that this particular "champagne socialist" had illegally build a holiday home in a national forest reserve! But its much better (and profitable in the West) to sell oneself as the "prosecuted" artist - is it odd that the biggest auction of Indian art is coming up in London now? Just as Hussain has to go into "hiding" abroad! How convenient!!!!!!

But then the Macauleyites follow good Western "liberal" traditions - the Danish publisher of the Mohammad cartoons had refused to publish Christ cartoons because they would "offend the Christians" a few months before. How very cherishing of "freedom of speech!"

Funny - the hypocrisy in lefty circles has always stunk to high heavens. But the stench has gotten particularly strong on DC recently!

Aditi,

I am a village boy. I have seen dacoits attacking my village a number of times looting away everything my paretnts earned in a year.

Police was paid in advance n reached only after dacoits had run away.

generation of my father was tolerant. When I grew up, I felt it too sad seeing my villagers being bullied by dacoits all the time. When I was in 12th grade, we formed a group of youngusters and discussed the issue with my primary school head master Harkishan Panditji.

Head master was old (passed away last year) but brave and asked us to contact police station. As usual we were ignored altogather.

During winter, nights were long and village was attacked again. Our group of youngusters challenged the dacoits by making `noise' loudly.

Some villagers even started shouting police police etc and dacoits ran away. One dacoit was caught and beaten to death by angry crowd.

Myself and some of my freinds were booked in a criminal case and somehow released after paying bribe to police officer to finsih the case.

Indian civilisational values are being intentionally assaulted by these dacoit type artists today. Secularism is acting exactly as police in rural areas and poor people are suffering.

Hope you know my situation by now.

My concern was why not Salman Rushdie allowed to visit India.

Why not tasleema nasreen given citizenship of India

Why not cartoons of Mohamemd be displayed openly by Husseian of any other artist?

Artist can do a lot help to society. They can create awareness about poverty, illetracy and untouchability. But nope. Thye prefer to paion nude only Hindu Gods and Goddesses.

1000 years back Hindus might be liberal to accept Khajuraho, today they are becoming as intolerant as Muslims or Christians and why not?

To protect yourslef from dacoits, you have to be strong and tough towards attackers.

My feeling is that artists being sort of intellectual class should know their limits better then villagers like me. Artists need to show more discipline and sensitivity in their acts.

Truth is that gangs of Mao, Marx, macauley and Mohammed have a common hidden agenda ie assault on Indian civilisation so that you will find your culture in Museum like Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and many other ancinet civilisations.

Ridiculing is the most effective tool to destroy any civilisation as it creates inferiority complex among native follwoers. India is facing ridiculing of its culture and civilisational values for last 1300 years and have surviwed because some brave men like Guru Govind Singh, Shivaji, Bappa Rawal, Netaji Bose , Bhagat Singh and savarkar took birth in this land otehrwise few more Gandhis will definitely send this civilisation in Museum very soon.

let's be honest. Let's be fare to all. Why target Indian culture only?

Man Singh: I do not disagree with you that sometimes frustration just finds vent in the form of violence. I am sorry that you had to endure the experience involving your father and the dacoits. In response I have a few points to make:

1) "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Using violence to counter an artist's perspective that was not meant at all for public viewing, is only going to make the people whose religious sensibilities were hurt seem like goons who decided to take the law into their own hands. If the art student had crossed the line, his advisors/ dean etc should've been the ones telling him off not BJP/VHP party members. It is an art student for god's sake! It is not some goonda who is standing in the middle of the street insulting people's religious beliefs.

2) Now, having read a couple of your reactions I am starting to think that you might be confusing Indian culture with Hindu culture. The truth is every culture receives its own share of offensive interpreations and mockery.

3) If our country's constitution decided to include "freedom of expression and speech" among our rights, it was with good reason. See, don't misunderstand me. There have been times when I have felt very frustrated at how lightly people take my religion and at some of the comments they make. But you know, what I tell myself? I say, I can either choose to walk away or engage in a logical debate.

Think about this situation:

A man is sitting inside a locked room, steadily cursing under his breath. The cursewords are the usual horrendously offensive mother-sister bad words. Now you decide to break open the lock, enter the room, hear the man cursing and claim that this man is offending your mother and sisters. You gather a crowd and beat him up. Reporters arrive at the scene and guess what they see? They see a reactionary mob beating up a man who was exercising his freedom of speech inside a locked room.

The point is: Nobody will now remember that Chandra Mohan insulted religious sentiments. They will however remember that a man who exercised his freedom of expression was beaten up by politically driven zealots.

How did it benefit anybody? How will we ever be taken seriously if our actions in response to offense/ insult are uncivilized? People are usually influenced by those who make their point with rational and logic rather than violence. Violence versus art is not a fair fight. Now art versus journalism would've been more interesting of a dual.

The question is can you really beat a person's outlook out of him? I don't think so.

Did you know that the sensuality in Mirabai and Jaidev's poetry was also at one point of time considered offensive to Hinduism. If nudity is the issue should we beat up the sculpters who make clay idols of Goddess Kali? When did nudity even become offensive? I thought it was vulgarity that was offensive. We are worshippers of the Shiv Ling. How can we possibly be offended by the natural form of the body? Isn't that how the maker made us? In fact, it was human imagination and sensibility that portrayed our dieties in clothes and adorned with jewelry. Who really gets to decide if Lord Shiva should wear a saffron kurta or deer skin? Has anybody seen these deities? They exist only in our imagination and our faith, don't they? So how can somebody else's imagination or vision affect yours? What is naked and ugly to you is a beautiful and natural form to someone else. So how does BJP/ VHP get to decide what is right or wrong? Will it be equally ok if these political parties get to decide what you can think or say or does this only apply because somebody else got beaten up this time?

I wonder how Junta would react if something offensive was drawn about Gay people. My guess, they would attack the artist for being offensive.

rgds

Freedom - the TOI article states very clearly that people like Niraj Jain were granted unprecedented access to the campus because of the VC's political sympathies. If you've seen the TV footage, the very first wave, you'll see who's the one in them: Niraj Jain. Add to that that this was not a party issue, as said by the local head of BJP and I think its very clear that Niraj Jain was out for some publicity and may have bit off more than he can chew.

The "rudimentary" question of violence is very important in the light of what followed. If you're invoking the law then you have to have confidence in it. Jain first beat up the students and vandalized the place then called in the police like his lackeys to clean up. If you're saying Chandramohan is culpable in the eyes of the law, then Jain is equally so and should've been booked. This was a witchhunt by a publicity hungry individual. I object to my religion being made use of by this man for political reasons a thousand times more than he objects to a few paintings. And yet, here I am writing about it instead of plotting ways to bomb his house. This is the fundamental difference between those who understand democracy and those who merely use its trappings to justify themselves. Hence my comment he bothers me as a Hindu and an indian.

The penal codes you mention, to the best of my knowledge, contain a clause that says the man who committed those crimes must intend its consequences. Pls prove that Chandramohan intended all this.

Also Khajuraho is only the tip of the iceberg. Indian art - erotic Indian art - extends farther than Khajuraho. But as far as Khauraho goes, let me remind you it is was a working temple. This means no matter who else was allowed in brahmins would've been allowed. Brahmins who read religious texts. And yet they didn't tear them down.

As far as early interpretations go: how far back would you like to go? This is a religion that has been around for thousands of years and has seen many reformations and follows many sects. Would you be willing to tell the Nagas that their form of Hinduism is inferior to the southern Vaishnavite tradition or vice versa?

What is interesting about this debate over Hinduism, especially from those on the right, is its very Christian-Western influence. Religious imagery, literal meaning, etc - people who rail about Macauley's children should take a good look at what their own positions are compared to their past and the Abrahamic past.

Ishan - thanks.

Chandra - I highly doubt they'd storm in and vandalize their offices. And if they did, I would oppose their actions. The question here is not Jain's right (or your right) to disagree with the artist - the question here is how he did it and what he expects to come out of it.

Yawn - let me guess, somebody kidnapped you, tied you down, taped your eyes open and forced you to read this, right? If you don't like it, don't read it. God knows, I didnt read you.

Man Singh - to add to Aditi's post, did you know that Chandramohan comes from a background very like yours? Not every artist is an "elite" (whatever that means to you) - some of us are simply blessed by Saraswati. Have you ever thought of it that way?

If we take your example of dacoits against poor villagers, then who had the police in their pocket? Chandramohan or Jain? Shivaji Panicker stood up for his student and his life was threatened. Wouldn't that school teacher of yours have stood up for you? How would you feel if the police then targetted him for that "crime"?

I also sincerely hope that you didn't mean that we should follow the example of the Taliban. Like I was telling someone else the other day, I don't have a problem with them because they're Muslim, I have a problem with them because they would seek to trample over my rights if I shared my country with them.

Aditi, you have quite logically presented your point of view on this issue. But I feel there are some misconception in your mind about my point of view and kindly allow me to share my thoughts again.

1) "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Is absolutely right. But there are two parties here. One is attacker and another is attacked. In my opinion eye of the innocent person attacked is more important to me compare to crooked attacker. I need to take adequate precautions for safety of innocent people getting hurt even if some attackers loose their eyes. It is foolsig to equate attacker and attacked.We have to take stand on which side are we? Are we on attackers side or on attacked. Remaining neutral is virtually supporting attackers. Most of the artists involved in ridiculing Indian ethos are generally politically motivated and serve the interest of gangs of Mao, marx, macauley and Mohamemd and all lovers of Indian civilisation need to be aware of it.

2) " Indian culture with Hindu culture." Nope.Indian culture for me means culture originated from soil of India. Hindus, Budhsit, jain, Sikhs, charwak and many more form Indian culture. Christianity, Islam, Judaims, parsis are foreign cultures. It doesn'nt mean that I am disrespecting them by saying so. I respect my neghbours mothers but my mother is my mother and need special attention. Vinchi code is banned in India no attack on freedom of expression is seen, Mohammed's cartoons are banned , not attack on freedom of expression is seen, salman rusgdie is banned, no attack on freedom of expression is seen, tasleema nasreen is banned, no attack on freedom of expression is seen, But even a demand to ban vulgar MF Hussein or any other gand member of Mao, marx, macauley and Mohammed is made, our own people start shouting loud. I feel it is hypocrisy. If our people are really honest and vie for freedom of expression, they should write articles in those cases as well and paste those banend items in definace with people's demand for ban? can we do that? or do we do that? Answer is big no. I am challenging you and your freidns to paste Mohamed's cartoons here in this webside. You can copy it from www.faithfreedom.org easyly.


3) "freedom of expression and speech" among our rights, Agreed with you. Then stop targeting Indian symbols. be honest and use that constitutional right without any bias and fear. Truth is that follwers of Indian religions are tolerant and vandalism is the maximum limit for them. dare to mock others they will kill artists as a Minumim and let's be ready to get blasted enmass. This is a bitter truth we are shy to recognise.

Keep up good work. express fearlessly but don'nt be selctive. rest is fine.

"A man is sitting inside a locked room,.... a locked room."

Art galary in a college/University is not a locked room. The planning of all crimes start in locked rooms only. Plannning for bomb blasts is equally unlawful and deserve punishment.

"The point is: Nobody will now remember that Chandra Mohan insulted religious sentiments. They will however remember that a man who exercised his freedom of expression was beaten up by politically driven zealots."

I fully agree with here. But my worry is my defence more then my image. I will beat the dacoits if poilce do not help me. I will be declared a mobster. Fine. I saved my wealth getting looted. I saved my life above all. My life is more precious then my image. I will slowly try to persuade media to please present my situation in right perspective if I am alive. If I am dead, I will be no more there to defend my dignity. If cvilisation reached in Museum , who will be there to defend it? Surviwal is more important then image I feel. Of course you have right to disagree.


"How will we ever be taken seriously if our actions in response to offense/ insult are uncivilized?"
Yes you have a point. But again its quetion of surviwal. If I surviw I can present my case and if I die none even will talk about me seriously or non seriously. If I have to choose between civilsied Condolence notes for me after my death and condemnations due to my uncivilisised acts while protecting myself from attacks, I will prefer later. I can make people change their opinion only if I am alive. If I die, everything is finsiehd. WE follwoers of Indian civilisation are caught in nthis dilemma of dignity and surviwal. I prefer to choose surviwal.


" We are worshippers of the Shiv Ling."

I will request you please to read Linga Puran the complete book to define what Lingam means?

For Crooks it means male sex organ. Scriptures define it as `symbol', Shakti, Column, Form of Jyoti. Column of fire, Jyoti of deepak, shape of the universe (Ellipsoid) etc. No where in scriptures , it is said that Linga means male sex organ. Let;s kill this propganda of western translatres of scriptures.

I think our difference of opinion lies only on one issue. You sound to be choosing dignity in place of life while I prefer to choose life if given choice between life and dignity.

You sound to be finding public condemnation worst tyhen death for me surviwal is supreme and I feel I can rebuild my image again if alive. But if I am dead with dignity , dignity will never be able to give me life.

Man Singh, we have already posted the Prophet's cartoons back when they were hot - here's the URL - by a Muslim author, if you're interested in that irrelevant factoid.

i am macaulian and influenced by victorian values where mentioning the leg of a chair is offensive and the word limb is acceptable.

i cannot stand that we call shiva the dynamic god in the hindu pantheon represented by a ling enclosed in a yoni. it hurts my sensibilities. let us go and destroy all the temples of shiva.

all the liberal hindu folks are hurting my sensibilities.

i am also hurt by all the description of seeta in ramayana and her physical beauty in sexist terms. her thighs depicted as the trunks of banana trees and how her private parts shivered and so on.

i am hurt by the jayadeva astapadis which are sung on the radio with such devotion which talk of sensuality of krishna and the rasa leela.

i am hurt by the poet in telugu who is sarcastic about narasimha. we should burn the nrisimha satakam - 100 poems devoted to lord narasimha!

i am hurt at the depiction of all kinds of sexual acts depicted in stone at khajuraho temple and the sun temple in konark.

i am hurt by the non-monogamous (polandry)relationship of draupadi and the pandavas. how cd they?

i am hurt at the illegitimacy of all the pandavas who were not born to pandu.

i am hurt that kunti gave birth to karna illegitimately and later abandoned him.

let us burn the copies of mahabharata.

i am hurt by the unthinking krishna and the 16000 gopikas that he flirted with and god knows what he did with them. i do not know what i should do with the exquisite tanjore painting that i have on my wall with krishna dancing with at least 8 gopikas?

i am hurt about so many things in hinduism.

i am hurt that lord balaji of tirupati has 'kept' bibi nanchaari, a muslim as one of his companions. it hurts my sensibilities.

my hinduism simplifies things - a lesson learnt from islam and christianity (it is also confused - some folks talk of trinity, not unity of command)! one god, one book. no confusion. rama should be my god, ramanaya should be my book.

unfortunately hinduism confuses me with millions of gods, hundreds of books, and myriad interpretations. at least in andhra we believe there are 30 million gods.

so what should i do?

i guess i should join taliban. at least they are clear. or the VHP they seem to have bettered taliban! or i should join the takshaka the twin-tongued snake?

confused.

Cheers.

I think Balaji just got the last word.

You wish:)

Man Singh: Thanks for the systematic rebuttal. I have the flu and happen to have a lot of free time :) so here goes...

1) You said: "Most of the artists involved in ridiculing Indian ethos are generally POLITICALLY MOTIVATED and serve the interest of gangs of Mao, marx, macauley and Mohamemd and all lovers of Indian civilisation need to be aware of it"

I think most of the people create a violent ruckus in the name of religion are politically driven, moreso than artists, no? How come BJP/ VHP gets to decide what is art, what is offensive etc? I wish you would realize that they merely use people's political sentiments as pawns for their vested interests.

2) You said "Nope.Indian culture for me means culture originated from soil of India. Hindus, Budhsit, jain, Sikhs, charwak and many more form Indian culture. Christianity, Islam, Judaims, parsis are foreign cultures."

Sad. If were still living in the 16th century I could've atleast seen your point but in today's time it sounds obsolete.

You said:"Vinchi code is banned in India no attack on freedom of expression is seen, Mohammed's cartoons are banned , not attack on freedom of expression is seen, salman rusgdie is banned, no attack on freedom of expression is seen, tasleema nasreen is banned, no attack on freedom of expression is seen,"

Those WERE perceived as attacks on freedom of speech and there WERE debates of international proportions when those happened too. I don't know why you are not aware of them. BTW did you know that most people who denounced Satanic Verses had not even bothered to read the book. Let me ask you this: have you? What exactly is offensive about it? What is offensive about The Da Vinci Code? What truly is offensive about "fiction"? An active imagination, an alterative perception perhaps? Is that it? Something that doesn't necessarily agree with YOUR point of view....that is worth beating people over? Really?

Also, please tell me how these examples are comparable to an art student who had submitted an art assignment for INTERNAL assessment by professors...they were NOT meant for public viewing. I repeat: If he was being too bold or whatever the professors would've told him/ warned him etc. Why does BJP get to do it? These are the same people who tried to ban sex education in class. These are just uneducated and primitive views.

3) You said "Then stop targeting Indian symbols".

Our basic philosophy differs. For me those symbols are not just mine to interpret. Call me pseudo-secular, pseudo-eclectic or whatever it is that tolerant people get labelled but no matter what you say I will not agree that only "Indian culture" gets targeted...somebody needs to see The Simpsons, Borat, Southpark etc. All cultures get attacked, mocked, discussed, interpretated. People who are not mature enough to accept other people's input or interpretations are simply intolerant. So let us agree to disagree here.


Now this part surprised me most:

You said: " will request you please to read Linga Puran the complete book to define what Lingam means?"

Read a whole book.?! Nah! Do you know what the Sanskrit word "Lingam" stands for? All you need to do is look up one word, not a whole book. Now let's put aside the Lingam, have you ever seen a sculpture of a 'Lajja Gauri" (also, coinicidentally called Aditi)? She is the OLDEST goddess in the history of Hinduism...have you seen her idols? Look them up and let me know if you find those obscene too.

You said: "Art galary in a college/University is not a locked room. The planning of all crimes start in locked rooms only. Plannning for bomb blasts is equally unlawful and deserve punishment."

Let's see: WHO is more likely to plan a bomb blast? An artist who painted his perception of God/ creation/ fertility etc or an angry, intolerant mob of religious/ politically driven zealots who beat him up? Hmm. History suggests that latter.

You said: "I think our difference of opinion lies only on one issue. You sound to be choosing dignity in place of life while I prefer to choose life if given choice between life and dignity"

I think our difference of opinion stems from the fact that other people's artistic exploits to me don't insult my religion or my Gods...my religion, God, my belief, my dignity and faith are much stronger than that. It will take a lot more than an art student's expression to topple those over.

Also, our difference of opinion stems from the fact that I seem to know what Chandra Mohan drew and the fact that he simply reproduced a piece of art that historically already existed. The portrayal of a goddess giving birth or the representation of a cross as a phallus are not new ideas. They have been done centuries ago! You don't know about them and thats why it offends you. Obscenity like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As I said: you see naked as obscene, somebody else sees naked as nature's purest form. You said "For crooks it means male organ". I think "For crooks male organ is obscene".

How does it give anybody the right to beat up someone? It is merely a difference in perception. The fact remains that another person's perception CANNOT possibly violate yours unless of course you choose to let it.

Extremism stems from intolerance. Man Singh, today you agree with the men who beat up the artist but some day like all humans they might find something you differ on and come after you for having an alternate idea. What will you do then? To prevent this from happening democracies have freedom of speech, press and expression. Humans cannot possibly have the same ideas and philosophies at all times.

BTW, you don't seem to have addressed my examples of Mirabai and Jaidev's poetry. You find those offensive too? Just curious?

Thank you for the discussion.

@Balaji: Point well-made!

folks

old religions which are really old are pragmatic. chinese confuciansism or hinduism. pragmatic and practical.

every rule has an exception. ask the brahmin pujari about 'pratyamnaha'. ask about the 'shanti' pujas. there is a remedy for everything. an exception for every rule. only that you have to find the right thing.

there is no cynical religions than the eastern religions.

there are no more religions in the world which understand the human condition better than the eastern ones!

where else do you find a religion seeking god's inteference in the practical world to offer solutions that we love to have? by just offering a coconut?

the abrahamic religions are also finding that it works. pray and god would change the outcome!

what if my enemy also prays? and to the same god?

ravana is supposed to be one of the greatest shiva bhakta!

Aman # 25

I appreciate your courage. You are real crusader for freedom of expression. Wish you good luck and safer future. Hope jehadis will take note of it. I pray for your safety.

Balaji #26

Your association with macauley gang makes you completely cut off from roots and original source of confusion.

I have a simple analogy to further describe why you have so many confusions and offences in your mind:

1. When you were in primary school, you were told `light moves in straight line'

2. when you were in secondary school you were taught `light moves in wave froms'

3. When you can to terciary level, light strated movong in form of enegry bundles known as photons.

4. when you reached at Ph D level you came to know its heisenberg's uncertainity principle that works. None of the above mode of movement is valid for light. It is all uncertain and mode of motion changes with situation.

is there any confusing in the above 4 statements in Physics of light.

Nope I unedrstand. Why?

because you have spent 16 valuable years systematically to study physics and hence you can understand subject without confusion.

macauley's education system deleted Hinduism from our curriculum. We in a haphzard way trying understand this branch of knowleledge by reading english translations by imperialists.

If someone takes a 6 years course in Hindusim sustematically, then I am pretty sure problems will be solved.

To avoid confusion:

1. abandon macaulay hat from head.
2. Stick to our roots
3. Read scriptures in s sytematic way as we read scince subjects. Do some experiments with it as we do in science.

I am pretty sure you will be able to understand how pregnancy is posible even today without sexual intercourse. There is no reason to belive Why it was not posisble 5000 years ago?

Then most of your confusions in mahabharat will die away

Debaters, I am sorry that I am asking Man Singh some queries which may not be related to this forum.

Man Singh:

How did macauley's education system delete Hinduism from our curriculum? I am still confused.

I also observe that you gradually moved away from Indian culture to Hinduism.(Since you said macauley system deleted hindusim from curriculum) By your own definition, Indian culture comprised of Hindus, Budhist, jains, Sikhs, charwak and many more form Indian culture( although I do not agree with your concept of Indian culture. But I still want to understand your view point.


BY the way can you also define how did you select some religions like Islam and Christianity to be Non Indian?

Amrita

The problem is that there are limits to fundamental rights of speech and offending a community or an Individual are beyond those rights (at least that is what I think). For example, I cannot write something offensive about Biharis because It is my right to say something.
Therefore this fundamental right of expression argument used in the chandramohan case is not a balanced argument. I look at the solution to this case as fairly simple. Both parties apologise for their conduct and move on. If they dont, throw them both (artist+BJP activists) into the nearest jail for a month or so. "Naani yaad aa jayegi"

Sanam,

painting Hindu Devis and Devas nude is the core of troble in this topic and to be specific I switched over to Hinduism from Indian culture in genral.

Islam originated In saudi Arabia, Christianity and Judaims originated in Isreal, Zoroastrianism originated in Persia clearly are foreign religion as they were originated out of scriptural limits of jambudweep the cultural entity known as India.

Those who follow these religions are either migrants from foreign lands or associated with foreign invaders and converted to these religion of invaders and helped them in destroying culture and civilisation originated from soil of India.

Some associated with Muslim invaders, some associated with Britsh invaders. That's how classification has been done. It doesn'nt mean these follwoers of foreign religions are less patriotic or anything else. Don'nt jump to Aryan invasion theory whcih has been proved wrong already and another ploy of macauley lobby to permanently eliminate Indian civilisation from face of the earth.


What damage Macauley did to India and its civilisation is very well explined by Presidenet of India dr APJ Abdul Kalam.

Please refer

http://presidentofindia.nic.in/scripts/eventslatest1.jsp?id=660

It says :

Lord Macaulay Quote on Education available in the Internet

"It was February 1835, a time when the British were striving to take control of the whole of India. Lord Macaulay, a historian and a politician, made a historical speech in the British Parliament, commonly referred to as The Minutes, which struck a blow at the centuries old system of Indian education. His words were to this effect: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their won, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." A strong and ever vital education system is therefore fundamental to the survival and growth of civilizations.

Hope I have answered all your questions Sanam.

Let's accept the reality of the past. Today we all are Indians enjoying equal rights ensured by our constitution irrespective of cast creed or religion and let's plan our future while taking lessons from history. If we follwo macauley's path , we will become mental slave of Britsh, having inferirity complex about our own culture religins and civilsiational values. It is visible from writings of many of us.

Look how sucessful macauley was in befooling Indians. he might be laughing in his grave while enjoying posts of some of us satisfied with his crooked policy of creating Indians devoid of any self respect, self esteem busy always prooving their worth to western people.

Aditi, your reposne was really infrmative and have many insights. Many things like lajjagauri I heard frist time of course. Thanks for the enlightenment. Kindly allow me to further clarify where I was not able to communicate to you.

"I think most of the people create a violent ruckus in the name of religion ...vested interests."

I belive artists involved in nudity are on payroll of gangs of Mao, Marx, macauley and Mohamemd whose sole purpsoe is to denigrate Indian civilisational values and prey on new converts. All these foreign gangs have common goal and we should feel oursleves lucky to have courageous man and women who risk their lives in defence of our civilisation. In place of appreciating their efforts we are trying to demonise them exactly the way I was demonised by police for beating the dacoits.

"2) You ...foreign cultures."

Sad. If were still living in the 16th century I could've atleast seen your point but in today's time it sounds obsolete."

This is where our people make mistake. 166 Christian countries around teh globe even today supproting missioneries even today are engaged ib vulture like conversions. 66 Muslim countries openly using their political and economic might to support their conversion and terror proganda. Whenever our people are beaten anywhere in teh world, we do not have even a single Vote in united nations to even raise the issue. It is upto us if we want to close our eyes, leave our house door open for dacoits, leave our cars unlocked based on our assumption that thiefs doesn'nt exist in 21st century and person like me who is requesting to put a safety net around your house or car looks like a man of 16th century. Crooked methods of conversions used in 16th century using money muscle and marriage are equally prevalent even today. I have seen rulers of Muslim countries openly distributing cash to welcome new converts. I have seen people getting promotion if they convert. But if someone wants to turn away from reality, its upto them. My duty is to let people know what's reality even today in 21st century. I have no issue with any foreign religions other then communists, christians and Muslims who are even today active in destroying Indian civilisational values.


"You said:"Vinchi code..Mohammed's cartoons salman rusgdie is banned, tasleema nasreen

Those WERE perceived as attacks on freedom of speech and there WERE debates of international proportions ...of view....that is worth beating people over? Really?"

My point is that out of fear of from other communities above mentioned items were banned even before protest. Hindus have to raise the flag to get the similar sympathy is a real proof that media and govt is biased against Hindu sensitivities and hence Hindus are forced to talke law in their hands out of helplessness exactly the way I beaten the dacoits.


"Also, please ...etc. Why does BJP get to do it?"
I feel if a common Hindu is awakened towards dacoits and attackers on civilisation, BJP will be irrelevant. I wish that day will come soon. All religions will be treated equally by Indian establishment, no special rights to anybody majority or minority. I am pretty sure if Indian secularism become rela secularism, BJP will become irrelevant. please try.


" These are the same people who tried to ban sex education in class. These are just uneducated and primitive views."

Okay. 400 Million people in India are uneducated and not able to digest sex education in classroom. This is a reality and why we want to impose our will on the rest. I feel as part of scinece subjects children are learning quite well about sexual decease. I wonder when people are not taught about biggest killers like asthama and diehearia, why are we so interested in AIDS and sex education. Do we not have anything else to teach? yes aditi I am among primitive and uneducated people. Do I have right to live in this world of educated people?


"3) You said "Then stop targeting Indian symbols".

Our basic philosophy differs. .. So let us agree to disagree here."

I agree upto some extent. Still I feel in India there are millions of books criticising Indian religions and not even single against christianity and Islam because these ppl daring to criticise them will be kileld next day?


"Now ..."Lingam" stands for? Yes lingam means `symbol'. Check with any sanskrit scholar.

"a sculpture of a 'Lajja Gauri" (also, coinicidentally called Aditi)? She is the OLDEST goddess in the history of Hinduism...have you seen her idols?"

Honestly I admit I have never heard any such Goddes in any scripture. Vedas, Puranas, Upnishadas are three offical scriptures and I never read anything about it. Painters and sculpters keep on doing a lot of nonsense and I usually don'nt track their work.


"You said: "Art galary ... unlawful and deserve punishment."

.. History suggests that latter."

Look at history. Follwoers of religions of Indian origin never planted bombs for religion. they did against empire of course. islam and christianity are the only record holdres of using mischevious and vilent jehads or crusades to spread their religion. Communism is their violent religion on earth. Artists like Huesin and company are associates of any of these three violent gangs and there is high probablity that they are misusing their freedom of expression to denigate native religions,

"life and dignity

I ...faith are much stronger than that"

But if a camle has a longer neck doesn mean that someone should feel free to cutit whole? we have lost 28% of our land 35% of our people through such attacks. let me see where our bearing capacity leads us?

"Also, ..reproduced a piece of art that historically already existed...form."
Aditi, historically humans lived in Jungle and naked. Even today everybody knows that kids are produced through sexual activity, it doesn'nt mean that we should strat doing it in open spaces like cats and dogs.

" You ..the right to beat up someone? It is merely a difference in perception."

None has right to beat anybody. Just like me a common villager never beat a dacoit unless dacoit attacked me and my village. people are not beating evert artist on the street. Only those who make mischoef are getting beaten. Though its police jpb not to allow such nonsense but when due to political corectness police fails in its duty, public become active.


"Extremism stems from intolerance. .. and philosophies at all times."

Yes I am with you. Artists also sometime behave like exteremists by going beyong their limits of civilised behavior. Artists expressed their views and vandals did theirs. Why you don'nt want to give equal right of fredom of expression to vandals as well. They want to express their art through beating the artists. Let's they also get same freedom what artists are looking for. Why not?


"BTW, you don't seem to have addressed my examples of Mirabai and Jaidev's poetry. You find those offensive too?"

Spritual people like Mira or jaidev abandoned worldly pleasures and sex and sensulaity was miles away from her. people read her peotry with spritual views associated with it. Therfore spritual people find no offence in it. Of course crooked mind see sex and vulgarity everywhere even in mother feeding the baby is sexist for them. `ram teri ganga maili' became superhit bacuse of raj kapur's crooked protryal and exploitation of figure of mandkini. Do ye feel raj kapur did any artistic portrayal in that?

Definitely not. he simply downgraded mother-baby pious relation for money.

Hope I am able to communicate properly the diference between jaidev Mira and Raj Kapur's portrayel of the same portrayel.

One more thing. Yes Hindus have seen Devas and Devis in real. They can see them even today. they are not imaginary. They are as real as air and water. You also can see them with your own eyes if do proper sadhana. It takes around 6 years for the same. every human being is free to see them and take benefit of their blessings.

Man Singh:

Just to deal with one issue at one time:

1. You said "Honestly I admit I have never heard any such Goddes in any scripture. Vedas, Puranas, Upnishadas are three offical scriptures and I never read anything about it. Painters and sculpters keep on doing a lot of nonsense and I usually don'nt track their work."

I say: Surprising and very unfortunate. Looks like your extensive studies of upanishads might have left out this great goddess...the Rig Veda however managed to include an exhaltation of the magnificent goddess who is believed to be the basis of Hinduism. I learned about this chapter and the description in my third year of Sanskrit training itself.

Quote from Rig Veda: "In the first age of the gods, existence was born from non-existence. The quarters of the sky were born from Her who crouched with legs spread. The earth was born from Her who crouched with legs spread, And from the earth the quarters of the sky were born." Rig Veda, 10.72.3-4

Please use the following reference for further analysis:

http://www.shaktisadhana.org/Newhomepage/shakti/lajjahGauri.html

Let me know if you find this offensive becoz then we will have to reach back into 650 C.E and beat up the people who made that first temple.

2. You also said : "Of course crooked mind see sex and vulgarity everywhere even in mother feeding the baby is sexist for them. `ram teri ganga maili' became superhit bacuse of raj kapur's crooked protryal and exploitation of figure of mandkini. Do ye feel raj kapur did any artistic portrayal in that?"

I say: Good, so you agree that it is people who have an obscene perception, not the art? That is my point exactly. A mother giving birth to a child, breast feeding etc are not supposed to be obscene. There is a famous painting of mother breast feeding a child and ideally it should evoke empathy but sadly there are people who would claim such a painting is obscene becoz it shows a bare breast. Would you be ok with people beating up the painter who made that sketch as well?

3. You said: "Spritual people like Mira or jaidev abandoned worldly pleasures and sex and sensulaity was miles away from her. people read her peotry with spritual views associated with it."

Ok, then I have just one simple question: Why did they use love and sensuality as a medium to convey their devotion if they had abandoned worldly pleasures?

4. people read her peotry with spritual views associated with it. Therfore spritual people find no offence in it. Of course crooked mind see sex and vulgarity everywhere even in mother feeding the baby is sexist for them.

I say: I believe you meant "sexual" not "sexist". The problem is you look at "sex" as dirty, obscene...I see it as a beautiful, eternal, procreative form that keeps this world alive and the human race in continuum. That is how varying perspectives influence art. Would you consider beating me up becoz I think this way?

5. You said: "Yes Hindus have seen Devas and Devis in real. They can see them even today. they are not imaginary. They are as real as air and water. You also can see them with your own eyes if do proper sadhana."

I say: Devis and Devtas are as real as our faith is and as sublime as our beliefs are. They are not mortals to appear in shape or human form but the shakti, the strength as described by the vedas and some beautiful shlokas. Most of our vedas describe God in this manner. Proper sadhana also requires that one to be tolerant, renounce malice and violence...which would then mean that beating up Chandra Mohan isn't such a good idea after all.

6. You said: "Aditi, historically humans lived in Jungle and naked. Even today everybody knows that kids are produced through sexual activity, it doesn'nt mean that we should strat doing it in open spaces like cats and dogs."

I am not sure what this is in reference to...I did not insinuate that people should have sex in public, I am not sure how you came to this conclusion. My meaning: If Chandra Mohan painted something that was already, historically and culturally accepted (fertility symbols such as Lajja Gauri etc) then it was not something new to us. These art forms have been commonly accepted in Hinduism.

Do you know, Man Singh, I am thinking right now that if these religious zealots existed at that time (maybe they did, who knows!) we wouldn't even had Vatsyayana's Kamasutram! So many pieces of sensual poetry and art would've been lost to violence and our civilization wouldn't be as rich as it is now.

Now in an attempt to find out whether you and me are on the same page as far as the Chandra Mohan case is concerned, I am asking you a few questions (you can choose not to answer of course):
1. Do you know what Chandra Mohan painted?
2. Do you know why he chose that topic? Was it an assignment? was he given the topic or did he choose it?
3. Were there any other students that painted similar pictures but weren't attacked?
4. How did the political parties hear of the paintings?
5. Do you know what is currently the action being taken against MF Hussain who has held public exhibitions which hurt religious sensibilities?
6. Name me an extremist Muslim/ Christian political party in India.
7. Have you seen a Devi/ Devta? If so, did the devi wear a ghunghat? If she did not, I take serious offense becoz the devi that appears to me wears one and I think it represents modesty. Your perception is now offending mine.

If you know some of the above answers then maybe our debate is a fair one otherwise I am getting the sense that we may be standing on two different levels of awareness with regards to the case that is the subject of this article.

Also, please refer to Shri Brahma Samhita 5.8 for alternate definitions of the sanskrit word "lingam". Sanskrit is not simplified enough for one word to have one isolated meaning

Thank you for the discussion.

I think the whole debate boils down to this

1.Religions like Islam and Christianity follow a rigid structure.
They have a concept called "blasphemy" which refers to insult to their Gods.

2.Hinduism,on the other hand,allows cynics and doubting Thomases to exist.
There is no concept of "blasphemy" in Hinduism.
We even have numerous cases of debates and peaceful arguments over religious beliefs and laws in Hinduism.
(example Adi sankara v/s Mandana Misra)

When these intolerant Abrahamic religions came to India,they brought with them their intolerance.

This is where the term "competitive intolerance" comes into the picture.
I read this term on some blog(fail to remember which)

The meaning of this is that Hindus are forced to become intolerant in this age because the other two main religions are intolerant.

The whole situation is because of
COMPETITIVE INTOLERANCE

You cannot blame the Hindus for that.

Sri - I don't blame Hindus for it. I can however, and in fact do, blame those who actually indulge in that sort of behavior.

Chandra - you're right when you say freedom comes with certain curbs in the world in which we live. However, those curbs have certain requirements like proving intent. Chandramohan was not only NOT charged under those laws but he doesn't qualify under them in the first place. Jain just bit off way more than he can chew.

Aditi - You *are* standing on two different planes. :)

Amrita

CM was indeed charged on the basis of an existing law and therefore your argument does not hold. Morever I sense all this was an attempt to generate some publicity which they did get. Both Mr Mohan and Mr. Jain are now going to receive massive boosts to their failing careers. Congratulations.

Chandra - yes he was charged under an existing law: the ones I've mentioned in my article. How do they apply to him though? The ones that would have applied to him, the ones they booked MF Hussain under were not used and those require proof of intent. And you're absolutely right that this was a publicity ploy - but while I can't see any evidence of how Chandramohan was involved in it except as a target, I see plenty of evidence that Niraj jain has directly benefitted from this.

Aditi

Rigveda 10.72.3 &4 are here in roginal:

Devanam poovya yuge asat sadjayat
tadasha anvajayant taduttanpaspari (3)

Bhoorjagya uttanpado bhuva asaha ajayat
Aditirdaksha ajayat dakhsaditipari (4)

Now can you tell me where is refernce to `lajjagauri' and which wrod in teh shlokas means legs spread?
"In the .... legs spread, ...." Rig Veda, 10.72.3-4

uttanpada means feetupside of abay in the mothers womb not motehrs legas are spread.

That's what gangs of mao, marx macauley and mohamemd do along with their associates. That's what artists misinterpret and ...


the way rajkapur played with the modesty of a women, artsist are doing the same in the name of freedom of expression.

3. Mira and jaidev never thought their progeny will be so stupid and sick minded that their spritual feelings will be interpreted with sexist angle and people adamantly will demand so in the name freedom of expression.

4. See answer 3 above please.

5. Aditi , tolerance and non violence is prescribed for innocent and civilised people. Crooks deserve punishment otherwise total chaos will be there in society. Thopse who try to make money by paiting their mothers nude and vulgar in the name of art are noway less harami then dalla's of prosptitutes and deserve punishment.
I m sorry for my a bit foul language here.

6. Gist was where is the limit for freedom of expression. Historically humans lived naked. they did everything in open n this was culturlly acceptable those days. Should we strat doing it today in the name of freddm of expression?

We were discusisng based om media reports.

1. "To Do you know what Chandra Mohan painted? " No."
2. "Do you know why he chose that topic? Was it an assignment? was he given the topic or did he choose it?" Whoever is assigned such vulgar topic, whoever did the assignment and whoever allowed him to put in gallery intentions of all this gang are questionable. I know ther are many options in art work other then nudity and vulgarity.
3. "Were there any other students that painted similar pictures but weren't attacked?" Don'nt know. If they did they desrev punishment.
4. How did the political parties hear of the paintings?"

They are human beings as well and have equal right then porn painters and artists.
5. "Do you know what is currently the action being taken against MF Hussain who has held public exhibitions which hurt religious sensibilities?" Yes Hussein is being awarded raja ravi varma award by communist kerala govt as a reward to publicly stripp our motehr India and devi sarasvati.
6. "Name me an extremist Muslim/ Christian political party in India."

every muslim leader in any political party openly works for Muslims interests. Amuslim cabinet minister openly decalerd 50 cr award to kill swiss cartoonist.

Muslim leage
jamaat e Islami
SIMI
Jaish e Mohammed
laskar e taiba
jehadi council.

Most ferocious gangs of dacoits are underground most of the time.
7. "Have you seen a Devi/ Devta?" yes I did.
"If so, did the devi wear a ghunghat?" Nope.

"If she did not, I take serious offense becoz the devi that appears to me wears one and I think it represents modesty." If your devi was wearing Ghunghat the one of us is telling lies.
many other people saw Devi including Saints like Sri ramkrishna and confrimed that devi was not wearing Ghunghat. It was a symbol of slavery put of our head by Muslim invaders not a symbol,of modesty.
Let's throuw away the symbol of slavery.

"Also, please refer to Shri Brahma Samhita 5.8 for alternate definitions of the sanskrit word "lingam". Sanskrit is not simplified enough for one word to have one isolated meaning"

TEXT 5
TEXT
catur-asram tat-paritah
svetadvipakhyam adbhutam
catur-asram catur-murtes
catur-dhama catus-krtam
caturbhih purusarthais ca
caturbhir hetubhir vrtam
sulair dasabhir anaddham
urdhvadho dig-vidiksv api
astabhir nidhibhir justam
astabhih siddhibhis tatha
manu-rupais ca dasabhir
dik-palaih parito vrtam
syamair gaurais ca raktais ca
suklais ca parsadarsabhaih
sobhitam saktibhis tabhir
adbhutabhih samantatah

This is complete text of brahm samhita text 5.

tell me where is the alternative definition of Lingam?

One thing I honestly admit that you are a well read person and intelligent in approach. keep up good work.

Man Singh: I am starting to get a little impatient because the Sanskrit is all over the place and the the translation is botched. I am thinking maybe I should get offended or the entire state of Orissa that worships the goddess you have repeatedly insulted by denying her existence.

The original shloka, correct grammar and enunciations:

"devaanaam yuge prathame asatah sadajaayata
tadaashaa anvajaayanta taduttaanapadas pari
bhUrjajna uttaanapado bhuva aashaa ajaayanta
aditerdakoajaayata daksaad vaditih pari"

Anybody who has performed the yoga asan Uttan Pada knows whether the word UTTAN indicates if legs are stretched or upside down. The word Uttan means stretched and Pada means feet.

The name Aditi is repeatedly mentioned in the verse and it is widely known that this fertile and revered Hindu goddess is referred to as Lajja gauri, Adya Shakti, Matangi, Renuka and by other names. The sculpture which shows her nude form was made 650 CE by the people who made the first temple...not by me or Chandra Mohan.

I am a little weary of giving online crash courses to demolish ignorance.

You have also given the incorrect Bramha Samhita 5.8. Do you know what you have pasted here? It is Bramha Samhita 5.5!!!

Correct:

"niyatih sa rama devi
tat-priya tad-vasam tada
tal-lingam bhagavan sambhur
jyoti-rupah sanatanah
ya yonih sapara saktih
kamo bijam mahad dhareh"

If you truly understand Sanskrit, you will know that this verse is a celebration of the union that you so vehemently denounce as if it were some tabboo.

You refer to gangs of mao, marx macauley and mohamemd and honestly I don't even know how that has any place whatsoever in this discussion. I do sincerely hope that you are not trying to insinuate the my own knowledge of the language is bookish and without study.

You said: "One thing I honestly admit that you are a well read person and intelligent in approach. keep up good work"

Thank you..all i know is I am humble enough to accept if you have information that I am unaware of but I would never have copied and pasted the wrong verse this way.

Don't bring Raj Kapoor into this...you want to discuss Vedas, Sanskrit and quote Samhitas, bring it on. I have never claimed that Bollywood personalities are the epitome of Hinduism. My examples were logically clear and culturally relevant.

This will be my last clarification....I am starting to see what Amrita (#39) meant and am a little tired of all this pettiness.

Peace

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/31107.html

has anyone seen this? The BJP ruled state of MP protects freedom of expression !!

Aditi here are two points:

1. meaning of `Uttan paad' is not `spreading legs' as you yourslef are agreeing. `Streching' and `spreading' have altogather diferent meaning.

2. Brahm samhita also clearly says that Bhagwaan shambu' s symbol (`lingam') is `sanatan jyoti swaroop' and not male sex organ.

material nature is prakriti and consiousness is Chetan and God impregnates material with counscious element and that's how this living creatures originate.

Apart from this my issue is always defence system.

enemies of civilisation misuse such sexie scuilpture sand painting in their propganda to convert to people by declaring that `Hinduism' is nothing but pornographi. Just put `o Hindus awake' and see how nasty things they talk about Hinduism and thei basis is your type of sexist interpretations paintinmg and sculptures.

let's not be source of ammunition for attack on ourselves. As we lcok our house, our cars as we put fence on our garden, as we trim weeds from lawns, we need to put a defence system on civilisation as well. And nasty painters need to be stopped to make sure no additional ammunition is created for attackers usage by these so called liberal artists and painter and sculpturs.

This seems to be a Long and active ... discussion.I respect each point of view expressed here. On one side the issue is being considered as weapon and on the other side being tool. Is that something like who has a knife - a criminal or a doctor? I think sense of (self)responsibility is one which helps person not only to THINK but even FEEL what would happen as an end result of any ACT to not only SELF but to others as well. This applies to both - Mohan (in a capacity of an individual + artist)and Jain (in a capacity of an individual + leader). There could be a list of DOs and DONTs even longer than this discussion. Finally its perception which depends upon education and driven by intention. Would Mohan portray his family members in his work ? Would Jain be able to consider pains that Mohan's parents might have undergone for having him sent to MSU ? I think, its a matter of UNDERSTANDING souls. Won't it be too much to expect it from people who are politically (in)correct and far away from spiritual Living? And a last note - Have we inculcated a habbit of converting Liberty into license under the lable of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ?