The Power of Universal Humanity

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear fellow Forumites,

As you all know, I have been posting here on various topics with the idea that we need to evolve as a community who can be affluent and successful within the framework of our modern (today's) way of living. I believe deeply in the universality of all beings under the same Ishwara, and I believe that religions spring up based on the culturual context of the people in different parts of the world. For example, it will be insane to expect the people who live near the north pole to be vegetarian. God has made us all, and all the religions in this world and I believe that each culture comes up with it's own unique and singular way to describe it's connection to Ishwara.

Hinduism is unique. We advocate a way of life. And unfortunately that way of life also is codified in what we call as 'Varnashrama Dharma'. I say 'unfortunately' because such a concept where a society has to be divided in to four different functions with birth right accorded to each Varna is now a debatable concept. Never mind the reality of today's life. There is a group of people intent on establishing the primacy of such a system today, irrespective of what the different interpretations of scriptures today.

My belief is that our religion holds a Universal Truth and that is already contained in our scriptures. That it has two very important parts:
1. That the Varnas above the most unfortunate of each of us (shudras), are there to pave the way for such folks to attain salvation.
2. That the Brahmins as the keepers of culture and the well being of the whole society existed mainly for the welfare of other varnas.

But now we see a different slant. We see an aggression towards other varnas, who for various reasons do not support our role. We see a constant twisting of facts to make India a land of 'Hindutva'. I reject this objective on two ideas: 1. India is a composite of different cultures and so has to be secular 2. Hinduism as we know it is splintered. For example, A poster on this very Forum (Kamakshi Ji) has commented about the differences between the smarthas and iyengars in this very forum!

I started on this Forum because I thought that Sri Silverfox Ji and Sow. Chintana Ji provided ample editorial leadership.

But now you see all sorts of hate postings about other religions and politics is allowed to be posted, despite warnings from a few of us. And to add to it, the admin has seen fit to comment derogaterily about our postings.

I, so, give up. I will not post anymore. This site unfortunately will become (as it has already) the mouth pieces of a few folks ( who by the way have no compunction to hide their identity from other Forums and speak in unisin). By the way, my id has always been and will always remain so as 'KRS'.

So with deep regret, I have to say that this site has miserably failed to serve our community. And to Sri Silverfox Ji, Sri Praveen ji, Sri RXRajmao Ji, and to Sow. Chintana Ji: I am sorry. You have failed those of us who believe in the universality of brotherhood. YOU HAVE FAILED. I will no longer post or associate myself with this Forum. Let the Fundamentalists have their day.

It is a crime to raise expectations and not fulfill them.

Namskarams to all,

KRS

 

[Kamakshi]

On my, my! I am being dragged like Draupathy in kaurava sabha!

If at all I have commented I had said that Brahmins should not be divided on subcastes and Iyers and Iyengars and Raojis and they should intermarry! Perhaps that is my fault.

Why is Hinduism put down as an outdated religion? Why are Brahmins branded as inimical to other varnas. Someone wants it to be so and gripe at it for ever.

More we try to explain who is a Hindu and who is a Brahmin there will be umpteen opinions and discussions and catching each other's throat. Do we need this?

We all know and be Hindus and Brahmins instinctively and we need no explanation and definition of our being. OUR PRIDE IS IN OUR BEING.

I would not have responded to this posting but for the fact that my name was dragged. Many people have left , some are very good posters, driven out by this gentleman. I ain't going to shed a drop of tear if he wishes to leave. Only that his reasons for leaving are concocted.

Why blame the admin? I was once admonished by Chintana if I recall for having difference of opinion with KRS. I kept away respecting the admin. I didn't concoct reason to throw mud on the hand that fed. For some it is OK to use others but not respect their rules. Great logic!

My request to the admin is: Please entirely remove this thread. Not worth keeping on the forum.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear KRS-ji,

I do not know you in person. But I love you for your words. Thankyou for being what you are.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

I thought I was done, but of course as usual some mis leading statements are being made. Please, if interested go back and read Kamakshi's past postings, especially addressing to Sri Silverfox Ji.

I brought it up as an example of the divisions that some folks bring to this Forum, even among TBs.

Unless we learn to respect others (however wrong we may think they are) irrespective of their religions and politics, we will not succeed. A t'housand year war' will only bring doom. At the end, Hinduism will lie among the ruins of the exact religions and philosophies that are not following the natural laws.

When you hate, you become that. Kshatrias were never taught to hate. There is an old dictum that if a warrior takes out the sword from the sheath, he needs to use it.

Dharma, that we extoll is for the humanity. The almighty did not favour any one group. The 'civilization' marches on relentlessly, without mercy. One has to adapt or perish. All souls are equal. Only their manifestations appear to be unequal. And any civilization that does not care for it's unfortunate segment will not survive for long.

I have said enough. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Kamakshi]

KRS,

I accept all the blames that you cast on me if it satisfies you!

au revoir!

 

[Ramaa]

kāmākṣhi dhevyaṁba thavārdra dṛṣṭyā
mūkasvayaṁ mūkakavīryathā'sīt |
tathā kuruthvaṁ parameśa jāye
tvathpādhamūle praṇathaṁ dhayārdhre ||

 

[Saab]

M.F. Husain, Pornography And Artistic Freedom: What Are The Issues?

Dr. Babu Suseelan

Gratuitous depictions of sex and artistic portrayals of lovemaking have existed throughout history. Several traditional artists have used the theme pornography, erotica and nudity with a degree of artistry or good taste . Recently M.F. Husain, the Islamic painter, through his pornographic painting of Hindu Goddesses added the issue of taste, morality, decency, obscenity, religion and artistic freedom for discussion. Sex, nudity and pornography are central to M.F. Husain . Modern marketing system and profit making corporations have promoted M.F. Husain in unexpected ways. The unholy nexus between Islamic nude pointer M.F. Husain and art sale houses has serious implications for Hindus. M.F. Husain deliberately with malicious intention has depicted nude pictures of Hindu Goddesses to arouse the public sexually and sell his erotic painting for profit. M.F. Husain has a subversive aim to use his erotic painting as a weapon to attack Hindu sentiments.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]With his erotic and tasteless paining of Hindu Goddesses , M.F. Husain broke every taboo possible. Husain has been facing several judicial trial in India and he is absconding from several high profile obscenity trails. As a Muslim, Husain may have several reasons to paint nude pictures of Hindu Goddesses. One of the effects of such nude paintings is desensitization. Viewing sexually explicit paintings over a long period of time reinforces negative stereotypes of Hindus. It is also intended to make Hindus dissatisfied with their religious practices and belief system. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Given the astonishing success of the pornography industry, it seems hard to imagine that Husain’s purpose of paining nude pictures of Hindu Goddesses is an expression of his artistic freedom. The painting is also a part of psychological operations to influence attitudes and behaviors to create negative emotions against Hindus. The form of communications can be a pornographic picture or nude paintings for spreading negative information to change in target group behavior. The weapon is not how it is sent, but the message it carries and how that message affects the recipient. The ultimate aim of such operations is to convince the public to take actions against Hindus. Husain’s exhibition of nude paintings of Hindu Goddesses and mass marketing of his pornographic drawings is nothing less than intellectual and political subversion. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]While Husain is very eager in attacking Hindus with his vulgar, obscene paintings, he is very sensitive about drawing nude pictures of Mohamed or Jesus, and he goes out of the way to avoid appearing to do so. Husain’s deliberate attempts to defame and insult Hindu Goddesses is a real threat to artistic freedom, spiritual practices and religious tolerance.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]THE LIMITS OF FREEDOM[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The stability of a society depended on the exclusion by common consent, of certain things from the sphere of public display. Undoubtedly, Husain should be shamed and his nude paintings ought to be banned. Husain overstepped his freedom and went beyond the idea of “mere insult” . Husain and his ilk have not fully realized the harmful nature and effects stemming from the pornographic exhibition and sale, which has the ability both to directly elicit immediate behavior change (short term) and to cultivate (long term) hatred against Hindus. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Pseudo secularists claim that painting of nude pictures of Goddesses Lekshmi and Saraswathy is an expression of free speech. Bogus secularists find virtue in bashing Hindu values and say that Hindus must tolerate that is offensive or evil. The notion that irresponsible and disrespectful conduct is necessary for freedom is nonsense. To separate freedom from responsibility and respect for religion is tragic. Artists and painters are entitled to rights, provided their methods of free expression are not vulgar. Imposing limitations on free speech and expressive art is justified in order to protect the public from potentially inappropriate material. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Free speech or free expression of personal ideas are not an absolute right. Hindus have many legitimate reasons for protest and seek judicial intervention to regulate drawing of nude pictures of Hindu Goddess under the guise of free speech. Free speech as absolutism is something of a fraud, masking the real issues including Hindu hatred. There can be no doubt that nude painting by Husain poses the greatest threat to Hindu religious sensibilities.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Secular leaders usually say “Hindus need to be more open minded” or Hindus are too closed minded”. This is presented as though it is actually a valid argument. In reality it just shows they have run out of arguments. They hide behind it to disguise the complete lack of any rational reason for Hindus to accept what they are telling. Calling Hindus as closed-minded is pejorative. It is a fallacious rhetoric. In fact, the closed minded ones are the believers who insist some fantastic story is true despite a complete lack of evidence to support it. They are too closed minded to accept that their fantasy might be false. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong. It is not closed minded to reject claims that make no sense. It is not infringement of liberty to protest nude drawings of Hindu Goddesses. Bad ideas, vulgar art, pornography and erotic paintings are actually disruptive to good morals. These disruptive ideas should be discarded. By weeding out vulgar art and bad ideas, freedom and goodness can flourish. Hindus are indoctrinated by the secular media to accept irrational and insulting arts when there is no reason to believe it is esthetically appealing or morally right. And if Hindus will not reject pornography and erotic art that insult Goddesses, then Hindus are in freefall. Hindus should learn that one should not be so open minded that their brain will fall out.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The bogus secular crowd suffer from indifference, apathy, and do not demonstrate sophistication needed to be viable and visible, let alone assertive, in the changed political world. Therefore, in order to survive, practice and preserve our eternal Dharma in this changing world of information warfare required to move beyond mere survival. It is time, indeed, for Hindus to think of public affairs in a new way. Hindus should come together for the purpose of upholding our values, and self-esteem and have to fight with full, righteous confidence.[/FONT]

 

[KRS]

The above article poses many questions, holds many deliberate false assertions. Let us examine the facts:

1. 'Vulgarity' is in the eyes of the beholder. For example, would one classify Kama Sutra as vulgar? Some Hindus do because they have unconsciously adopted the Victorian mores (as they say 'western values'), brought on bt the English. The Hindu society from the begining has celebrated human figure not as Kama's tool but as a piece of His creation to be aesthetically viewed. Hence our sculptures, paintings and literature have dealt with nude figures without vulgarity.

2. Only when a viewer evokes in their mind an unnatural thought relating to let us say by viewing a nude figure, it becomes vulgar. For example, if one sees a bare chested sculpture of a nymph in a temple and gets aroused, whose vulgarity it? So, the difference between what makes a nude figure 'vulgar' or 'aesthetically pleasing' is what number of folks who see it so in each category. To give an example, the famous nude painting of 'the Birth of Venus' by Botticelli while viewed, perhaps may evoke the wrong thoughts in say about every two or three out of hundred people viewing it. Just because such a minority have wrong thoughts, it is ludicrous to say that this picture, which is admired as an artistic aesthetic master piece can be called 'vulgar'.

On the other hand, let us take scenes from some Tamil movies, which we all agree are close to pornographic and vulgar. Actresses dancing with water pouring on them, kissing scenes without the kisses, songs with double meanings all fall in to the universally accepted charecterizations of vulgarity. The difference between the two is that the representations in vulgarity and pornography are mainly intended to create such thoughts in the majority of the viewers.

So what about MF Husain's nude paintings? I have seen them and I do not view them as vulgar. This does not mean that some others may not view them so. With the acknowledgement that he is a world renowned and acknowledged artist, I do not think that what he painted was to arouse vulgar sentiments.

So, the real issue is what business is it for a muslim to paint nude pictures of Hindu gods? Now, one has to remember that MF Husain is an Indian citizen, knows about Hinduism and his artistic muse seems to invoke in him a desire to express such ideas artistically. To censor him on this, seems to me is against what Hiduism is not about, that is dogmatic.

Let other religions control their masses. Let us give freedom to our artists to express what they desire in any form. People will automatically reject what they perceive to be vulgar. We do not need moral police controlling our religion.

Regards,
KRS

 

[hariharan1972]

Sri KRSji,

I noted your comments on M F Hussain with interest. Knowing for a fact that you are open to counterpoints, i take the liberty of disagreeing with you, ever so slightly.

Firstly let me get this off the way. I disaprove of the hounding of M F Hussain, so whatever i have to say in the following paragraphs doesnt in anyway condescend the manner he has been treated.

1. You are right in saying that 'Vulgarity' depends on the person who views a work of art. As much beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, i suppose, so does vulgarity. However, i am thinking aloud whether 'this vulgarity' that you infer (i am led to believe so, since you invoke KS) is more to do with the 'erotic variety'. While i acknowedge that per se, there is nothing 'erotically vulgar' about M F Hussain's depiction of Hindu goddess, i question his intentions.

I say so because for a man of such intellect it isnt really rocket science to know that his action could cause distress to a Hindu majority, albeit non theocratic, nation. While artistic freedom is to be respected, i wonder whether it is a one way path ; isnt the artist supposed to 'reciprocate' the love and affection that he gets, across the board ?

And by doing what he did, did he 'reciprocate' it ?

2. To buttress my point about 'vulgarity otherwise than as in erotica' i quote my own case. A few years back, when i was younger (implicitly i am still young ), when i was in high spirits, i cracked, what is typically a party joke about 'Virgin' Mary, The Pope and Bill Clinton.

The fact that i have mentioned a certain word in quotation, is the giveaway on the 'kind' of joke that i cracked.

After the laughter had died down, my boss, a genial quiet man, advised me : "Never crack a Mary joke before a Catholic".

Gosh ! it hit me hard then that among the peer group having a drink was a true blue catholic. He was such a wonderful friend and took the joke on his chin.

Do i need to tell you how i felt the rest of the evening ?

The long and short of my story is that i crossed the line that evening ; i committed a "vulgarity". The joke by itself isnt too vulgar, at best suggestive, perhaps could find it's way into any party joke book, but in not respecting the feelings, traditions of a fellow colleague, a fellow human, i think i committed a grave mistake.

I had indulged in "vulgar" behaviour. Period.

Now in this context, how would you want to qualify M F Hussain ?

3. Akhil Sibal, son of Kapil Sibal is the advocate of M F Hussain. Appearing in a TV channel once, he retorted, to a question on why M F Hussain has never painted The Prophet (PBUH), "But Islam doesnt believe in Idol worship".

Now I wonder whether M F Hussain is an artist first or a Muslim first ?

Which is the bigger attribute ?

If it is the former, he should care two hoots about his religious credentials ? If it is the latter, he should clarify whether Islam mandates or allows denigration of the symbols of other religions.

Whether Islam is a religion of Iconoclasts ?

I also wonder why all his "creative ability" is reserved for Hindus ? If he has never seen The Prophet (PBUH) in flesh, neither has he seen Goddess Saraswathi.

How come his neurons are whipped into action only for Hindu Goddess, i wonder ?

4. I seek your views on whether 'creative freedom' has some responsibilities or should it be allowed a free run in gay abandon ? If policing of the VHP / BD kind is reprehensible, should artistic freedom be allowed to freely trample the sensitivities of a vast majority ?

It is true that to appreciate art, especially modern art, it requires formal understanding of art ; not something everyone is blessed to have ;

So should the artist be more careful, cognizant of the fact that his art could be more often misunderstood than understood and hence act more responsibly ; sensibly.

At the end of the day, should the bull or the china be more responsible in a crockery shop ?

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Hari,

As usual you raise very valid points. I wanted to address the main crux of your posting in my original response, but for want of time and space, left it alone. Anyways, my response below is in 'blue':

Sri KRSji,

I noted your comments on M F Hussain with interest. Knowing for a fact that you are open to counterpoints, i take the liberty of disagreeing with you, ever so slightly.

Firstly let me get this off the way. I disaprove of the hounding of M F Hussain, so whatever i have to say in the following paragraphs doesnt in anyway condescend the manner he has been treated.

1. You are right in saying that 'Vulgarity' depends on the person who views a work of art. As much beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, i suppose, so does vulgarity. However, i am thinking aloud whether 'this vulgarity' that you infer (i am led to believe so, since you invoke KS) is more to do with the 'erotic variety'. While i acknowedge that per se, there is nothing 'erotically vulgar' about M F Hussain's depiction of Hindu goddess, i question his intentions
As you correctly infer, yes, I was addressing the vulgarity associated with the erotic, as that was the main point in the posting that I responded to. However, as you correctly point out below, vulgarity spans all kinds of communications and activities.

I say so because for a man of such intellect it isnt really rocket science to know that his action could cause distress to a Hindu majority, albeit non theocratic, nation. While artistic freedom is to be respected, i wonder whether it is a one way path ; isnt the artist supposed to 'reciprocate' the love and affection that he gets, across the board ?
We do not know his 'motives'. All I have read are 'imferred' and/or from third parties. Unless the artist explains, we do not know. However, he has apologized without explaining his original motives.
These paintings in question were done during the 70s, and as serious artists do, it was his 'Saffron Art' period. A good artist expresses universal themes through his art. Just the fact that he chose his themes this way, tells me that he was very comfortable with his subjects (meaning here the Hindu representation of Gods). I do not think that an artist when the muse strikes should worry about an audience's reaction. Almost no artist worth his salt will do that. He can only express his ideas that come out through his art. It is a complement to Hinduism that he chose to paint the subjects he did, without any fear.

And by doing what he did, did he 'reciprocate' it ?
Again, this is an issue only if you think that he was out to insult Hinduism. I can not infer such a motive unless the artist explains, because, from the art itself, I do not infer any such vulgarity.

2. To buttress my point about 'vulgarity otherwise than as in erotica' i quote my own case. A few years back, when i was younger (implicitly i am still young ), when i was in high spirits, i cracked, what is typically a party joke about 'Virgin' Mary, The Pope and Bill Clinton.

The fact that i have mentioned a certain word in quotation, is the giveaway on the 'kind' of joke that i cracked.

After the laughter had died down, my boss, a genial quiet man, advised me : "Never crack a Mary joke before a Catholic".

Gosh ! it hit me hard then that among the peer group having a drink was a true blue catholic. He was such a wonderful friend and took the joke on his chin.

Do i need to tell you how i felt the rest of the evening ?

The long and short of my story is that i crossed the line that evening ; i committed a "vulgarity". The joke by itself isnt too vulgar, at best suggestive, perhaps could find it's way into any party joke book, but in not respecting the feelings, traditions of a fellow colleague, a fellow human, i think i committed a grave mistake.

I had indulged in "vulgar" behaviour. Period.

Now in this context, how would you want to qualify M F Hussain ?
Yes, your behaviour was indeed vulgar, because in the presence of a Christian, you clearly insulted his beliefs. Again, as I have said, I do not infer any such insult from his paintings. Irreverance may be; but insulting, in my opinion, no. And irreverance is allowed in our religion.

3. Akhil Sibal, son of Kapil Sibal is the advocate of M F Hussain. Appearing in a TV channel once, he retorted, to a question on why M F Hussain has never painted The Prophet (PBUH), "But Islam doesnt believe in Idol worship".

Now I wonder whether M F Hussain is an artist first or a Muslim first ?

Which is the bigger attribute ?
Again, let MF Husain speak. To me, looking at his paintings, he comes across as an artist first. But that is my own inference. People who think that he has trampled on Hinduism have every right to think so, but in my opinion, a lot of these folks would not have even seen the said paintings.

If it is the former, he should care two hoots about his religious credentials ? If it is the latter, he should clarify whether Islam mandates or allows denigration of the symbols of other religions.
I agree that one should be careful about denigrating other religion's symbols. The issue here is whether he has done so here. If the paintings are not 'vulgar', but only his motive is imputed to be 'vulgar', then he should be allowed to speak to his motives. Problem is, as you stated in the begining, he is being hounded out. But, when and if he speaks, we should accept his explanations.

Whether Islam is a religion of Iconoclasts ?

I also wonder why all his "creative ability" is reserved for Hindus ? If he has never seen The Prophet (PBUH) in flesh, neither has he seen Goddess Saraswathi.

How come his neurons are whipped into action only for Hindu Goddess, i wonder ?
Again, for whatever reason, his muse has come through this way. It is silly to ask an artist why he paints such and such subjects and why not other subjects. Art, by definition, is about expression of ideas that the artist holds dear. We can, I guess infer all sorts of things, for example, I can say, may be he does not find the prophet as an interesting idea. This is where artistic freedom comes in. And here is an acknowledged, world renowned artist - he is not a hack. To me such an artistic freedom trumps everything else, even if his motives were wrong. If they were, then his art would not be viewed in an artistic light but rather would be viewed as a common place third rate hate art. Which will not be considered to convey any sense of artistic, aesthetically expressed subtle universal messages. His stock as an artist will take a serious dive.

4. I seek your views on whether 'creative freedom' has some responsibilities or should it be allowed a free run in gay abandon ? If policing of the VHP / BD kind is reprehensible, should artistic freedom be allowed to freely trample the sensitivities of a vast majority ?
I have addressed this above. Serious art by nature, appeals only to a select few. The vast majority is not even aware, unless someone usually with political interest whips it up as an issue, as is in this case. Art should not have any limits as it is the expression of the world through the sensitivity of the artist. It is also very subjective. As I have said, the value and appreciation of an artist's work is judged eventually by the people who understand art.
It is true that to appreciate art, especially modern art, it requires formal understanding of art ; not something everyone is blessed to have ;

So should the artist be more careful, cognizant of the fact that his art could be more often misunderstood than understood and hence act more responsibly ; sensibly.

At the end of the day, should the bull or the china be more responsible in a crockery shop ?
I am against censorship of almost all kinds, except the age based ones. An adult should be allowed to see, read and judge whatever idea that is put out there. The filtering mechanism will be automatic. I believe that people know to choose what is good for them. There is no need to treat adults as children, by the big brother government.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Happyhindu Ji,

My view is a bit different from yours.

Anything that one worships should fall under the category of what the majority would consider as sacred. Currently, our Hindu culture does not consider nuditity as part of sacredness. This is entirely okay.

My point is that in our profane culture, which includes day to day art, we have stopped differentiating between what is aesthtic and what is vulgar. More importantly, we have stopped differentiating between what is sacred and what is profane.

Hence this muddled outlook. We allow actual vulgarity in a lot of different ways, but define vulgarity in a very superficial way, such as nudity. And this is the culture that once gave us Kama Sutra!

Regular art is not sacred. I have seen many a page of Silpi's famous pictures of our idols from the Diwali edition magazines, torn and used for serving peanut masala on the beach. I have seen beautiful iconography of our Gods discarded in the rubbish after the calendars they were printed on thrown out year after year. There is nothing wrong with these types of normal behaviour on our part, because we recognize that those representations of our gods are not sacred, unless we per each of our sensitivities attach such sacred values to them. How many of us keep crumpled pictures of our gods in our wallets?

Same goes to what MF Husain did. Unfortunately he studied modern art, which is not understood in our culture well. He is the foremost practitioner of this western discipline in India, which essentially does not give to direct sense access, like our traditional artists would paint (such as Raja Ravi Verma). This is why a common man can not readily understand and appreciate modern art. And this is the part of the dilemma facing western art tradition. By pushing the envelope of what is defined as art, most of the contemporary western art (visual and novel) have moved away from the direct experiential form in to a realm where only a very select few can appreciate them.

Any western art is based on creating new schools of expression (unlike ours, which essentially try to improve on the old standards). In fact, there is a serious discipline of study called Iconology, which teaches how to interpret the representations from different schools of visual arts. We also follow the influence of the western world - because of the rule of English, we also have western culture as a part of our own.

This is why, we should not get confused between what is sacred and what is profane. MF Husain was not painting something sacred. He used the representations of things familiar to him to express his ideas. And without understanding what it is, we are ready to stone him! People who have no idea about his art are having a field day, only because as a Muslim he had the temerity to paint Hindu Gods nude! We forget that he is an internationally acclaimed artist of a very high caliber. People like Mr. Husain, in my experience have no hate in their bones.

This is the danger to our religion. We are becoming more and more like the religion we as Hindus shun, the Islam. If only we stop to think for a moment!

Regards,
KRS

if i had money, i'd have bought all of those paintings and given them off for worship.

there is a garbharakshambika idol sculpted into one of the pillars in the meenakshi amman koil in madurai. it used to be uncovered. then it got covered with a cloth. why such moral policing of our faith...why allow ourselves to be conditioned by so called victorian and islamic 'ideals' - why not celebrate how women were in the past - divine and feminine.

 

[Brahmanyan]

The Power of Universal Humanity.

Dear Sri KRS.,

An interesting discussion indeed. But please tell me, do we have a separate "Hindu Culture" ? I agree with most of your views. except that,to my knowledge we do not have such a single culture which directs us with "do-s and don't-s. We have varied cultural practices among the Hindu communities according to the region in which they live. For instance marriages in north take place during night hours as against day time in South. I can quote hundreds of such differences.

Talking about Nudity. We have never considered Religious Nudity as vulgar. Most of the sculptural representation of "Bhikshadanar" is in nude only. Till few generations back, among many communities upper portion of females was not covered and it was considered normal in many places. Old photographs and our Temple sculptures of female form will support this. Vulgarity or not in Art lies in the eyes of the viewer and the intention of the Artist who had done the piece. Great works of western art depicts characters from Bible, including Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. As for M.F.Hussain, it is a considered opinion that he enjoys controversies. Started as a cinema banner painter he has turned into an artist of repute now. For which Hindu religious figures have helped him a lot. He is selective in his subjects and confines mostly to Hindu mythology. It is good that he does not touch subjects from other religions. Otherwise he would have become another Rushdie or Taslima.

Sacredness of a painting or an icon is infused after regular consecration only. I do not think some one keeping a picture of God in his wallet or in his chain with reverence is wrong.

Well. Before concluding this post a few words about "Kama Sutra". People consider this book, a work on sexology only. But it is a book on Sociology too. Sage Vatsyayana has written in detail about the social issues prevailing during his time in the same work. Quite interesting piece to read.

Regards,
Brahmanyan.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Brahmanyan Ji,

Nice to hear from you! My response is in 'blue':

Dear Sri KRS.,

An interesting discussion indeed. But please tell me, do we have a separate "Hindu Culture" ? I agree with most of your views. except that,to my knowledge we do not have such a single culture which directs us with "do-s and don't-s. We have varied cultural practices among the Hindu communities according to the region in which they live. For instance marriages in north take place during night hours as against day time in South. I can quote hundreds of such differences.

I agree. I was only talking about the common cultural practices as they relate to the subject we are talking about, that is about prudishness as it relates to both sacred and profane. I should have made this clearer. I was not making any universal observation.

Talking about Nudity. We have never considered Religious Nudity as vulgar. Most of the sculptural representation of "Bhikshadanar" is in nude only. Till few generations back, among many communities upper portion of females was not covered and it was considered normal in many places. Old photographs and our Temple sculptures of female form will support this. Vulgarity or not in Art lies in the eyes of the viewer and the intention of the Artist who had done the piece. Great works of western art depicts characters from Bible, including Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ.
Exactly my point. But as you might have noticed, our society has become more victorian even when it comes to religious nudity. That is the way it is today, more and more (there are exceptions). Vulgarity while is in the eyes and heart of a person viewing, reading, hearing a piece of art, one should also consider that there are definitely some works of 'art' that are considered vulgar by the majority. In this sense, when a huge majority that understands a subject, views something as vulgar, then it is vulgar. Yes, a good portion of western art, post Christianity covers the characters from that religion. But western art, started well before Christ.

As for M.F.Hussain, it is a considered opinion that he enjoys controversies. Started as a cinema banner painter he has turned into an artist of repute now. For which Hindu religious figures have helped him a lot. He is selective in his subjects and confines mostly to Hindu mythology. It is good that he does not touch subjects from other religions. Otherwise he would have become another Rushdie or Taslima.
Every artist starts humble - I hope you don't hold it against him to have started as a cinema banner painter to earn his livelihood. He started his career in 1940s and it is not fair to say that he is selective in his subjects. Again, as an Indian, growing up amongst the Hindus, he probably saw the Hindu icons as composing of various interesting aspects to be perfect for his avant-garde expressions through modern art.

I applaud him because he also got in to trouble with fundamentalist muslims on one of the sufi songs in one of his movies. By the way the 'saffron' art is only a fraction of his whole body of work. And his controversies did not start till the middle of the nineties.
It is also not correct to question an artist's selection of his subjects. Just because he has selected Hindu icons and not others (by the way, he could have easily depicted Christian icons as well without having any fear of physical retribution) it is not fair to assume that he did so because of fear. We should take an artist's choosing of any subject as the way his muse spoke. On the same token would we question Rushdie about his 'selective' covering of Islam only? The issue comes because we see MFH as a muslim first and not an artist. An good artist is beyond any boundaries that tend to limit his expressions. Unless we understand this about art, there will be clamour to limit the freedom of expression by any artist, given to the whims of arbitray tastes and feigned injury to majority sentiments!

Sacredness of a painting or an icon is infused after regular consecration only. I do not think some one keeping a picture of God in his wallet or in his chain with reverence is wrong.
Yes, I did not say it was wrong. I was pointing out about how we treat the profane in one respect with our icons, but hurl stones at others who use the same icons for other profane purposes.

Well. Before concluding this post a few words about "Kama Sutra". People consider this book, a work on sexology only. But it is a book on Sociology too. Sage Vatsyayana has written in detail about the social issues prevailing during his time in the same work. Quite interesting piece to read.
Yes, I agree.

Regards,
Brahmanyan.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Brahmanyan]

The Power of Universal Humanity.

Dear Sri KRS.,

Thanks for your detailed rejoinder to my post. I have no dispute on the views expressed by your good self. I only wanted some clarifications on certain points.

As a respected Senior Member, I hope by now you must have got an idea about my views on many subjects dealt in this forum. I have always tried to unshackle myself from the petty attachments of groupings in the name of Country, Language, Religion, Caste or economic disparity etc. I have nothing against any individual on this score. I respect the works of M.F.Hussain, an alumnus of J.J.School of Arts Bombay. But it is my view that "my freedom of expression" should not affect the personal feelings of others. I am doubtful whether M.F.Hussain has responded positively to the sensitivity of others while selecting his subjects for painting.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Brahmanyan Ji,

I sincerely hope that I have not offended you in any way with my rejoinder to your post. My only aim was to properly explain my own postings.

My own stance on MFH's paintings came after a bit of research and contemplation. My life abroad for the past thirty eight years also has helped me to form my opinions. Hopefully my reasoning based on that experience has helped a bit in clarifying the issue.

I agree with you that a person's freedom of expression should not impinge on other's personal feelings. But as I have said, in this case, both the intentions of the artist and the feelings of the Hindus may need to be examined in the light of the facts about the western art, the complicated relationship between the muslims and hindus in India and as well the Indian citizenship and what it entails.

The Indian government in my opinion has behaved shamefully when it banned 'Satanic Verses', as it's useless non support of Taslima recently. When the control of an artistic expression falls in to the hands of a government, everyone loses. I definitely bring to the table, the tale of how the modern American government was formed on the basis of freedom (as understood then) and free speech.

If each of us want to shut down any speech that is offensive to us, then there will be no free speech at all! It is an all or nothing phenomenon.

Having said all this, I respect your view that you were offended by MFH's paintings. I guess we are discussing about how to deal with the aftermath. I will never ever diminish your sensitivity on this.

Hope this explains.

Pranams,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS.,

Thanks for your detailed rejoinder to my post. I have no dispute on the views expressed by your good self. I only wanted some clarifications on certain points.

As a respected Senior Member, I hope by now you must have got an idea about my views on many subjects dealt in this forum. I have always tried to unshackle myself from the petty attachments of groupings in the name of Country, Language, Religion, Caste or economic disparity etc. I have nothing against any individual on this score. I respect the works of M.F.Hussain, an alumnus of J.J.School of Arts Bombay. But it is my view that "my freedom of expression" should not affect the personal feelings of others. I am doubtful whether M.F.Hussain has responded positively to the sensitivity of others while selecting his subjects for painting.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan.

 

[hariharan1972]

Sri KRSji,

An afterthought after i read your response.

The kernel of your message seems to be that "Hinduism shouldnt fall into the trap of being too restrictive ; Hinduism's strength is it's resilience and tolerance" and such "commercial works of art dont have any spiritual sanctity".

This is what i understand.

Now sir, my questions are as follows :

a) Hinduism which is based on Sanathana Dharma is all encompassing ; liberal and unrestrictive in it's construct. While my views on the "Vanarashrama Dharma" is a bit too confusing for my own comfort, i dont know as yet whether it is Hinduism's strength or it's weak link.

Whatever it may be, the fact remains that others (mainly Christianity) have made inroads into Hinduism by exploiting the "ills" of the caste hierarchy.

So i feel there is a threat to Hinduism, however small, so far as keeping it's flock together.

So wouldnt we conveying a message to others that we are too meek to protect our turf if we keep brushing aside everything ?

b) I feel that the beauty of Hinduism has been nurtured by every generation ; so in that sense we are indebted to our ancestors for passing on the rich heritage to us.

Now shouldnt we repay the debt by passing on the legacy to our succeeding generations ?

If we take everything in our stride and keep faith in the 'Sanathana Dharma's' ability to defend "itself" arent we exposing our system to abuse ?

Afterall there is nothing "physical" apart from us, the followers of Hinduism should defend it from abuse, isnt it ?

c) A hypothetical question for you sir.

Assume the 'kazhaga goons' of TN want to destroy some famous temple in TN.

Should we raise in protest or not ?

Afterall, this temple is NOT all that Hinduism has got to offer ? Surely Hinduism can survive without this temple too ?

What would be your take sir ?

And if we should defend the temple, why and how is it different from viewing MFH's work critically ?

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Hari,

You ask very valid questions. My response is in 'blue' below:

Sri KRSji,

An afterthought after i read your response.

The kernel of your message seems to be that "Hinduism shouldnt fall into the trap of being too restrictive ; Hinduism's strength is it's resilience and tolerance" and such "commercial works of art dont have any spiritual sanctity".

This is what i understand.

Not only the commercial art has no sacredness to it, in this case we agree that the painter is an acknowledged world class painter in modern art. So, without understanding the iconology of his paintings properly, one can not ascribe any 'bad' motives on his part.

Now sir, my questions are as follows :

a) Hinduism which is based on Sanathana Dharma is all encompassing ; liberal and unrestrictive in it's construct. While my views on the "Vanarashrama Dharma" is a bit too confusing for my own comfort, i dont know as yet whether it is Hinduism's strength or it's weak link.

Whatever it may be, the fact remains that others (mainly Christianity) have made inroads into Hinduism by exploiting the "ills" of the caste hierarchy.

So i feel there is a threat to Hinduism, however small, so far as keeping it's flock together.

So wouldnt we conveying a message to others that we are too meek to protect our turf if we keep brushing aside everything ?

My issue is not about not defending Hinduism, but rather protecting it from real outside insults and denigration and not the feigned ones. When we protested the way our Acharyal got arrested and treated, when we protested the YSR's interference with the Tirupathi temple affairs, when we protest against the destruction of Rama Sethu and countless other real insults against ourreligion, we are defending our faith.

But to go after a modern artist and his creativity in the name of protecting the sacred does not make any sense to me. As an artist, irrespective of his birth religion, he should be free to paint whatever he wants. His art belongs to all people in the world, not just to one religious group.

b) I feel that the beauty of Hinduism has been nurtured by every generation ; so in that sense we are indebted to our ancestors for passing on the rich heritage to us.

Now shouldnt we repay the debt by passing on the legacy to our succeeding generations ?

If we take everything in our stride and keep faith in the 'Sanathana Dharma's' ability to defend "itself" arent we exposing our system to abuse ?

Afterall there is nothing "physical" apart from us, the followers of Hinduism should defend it from abuse, isnt it ?

I have never said that we should not rise up to protect our religion from the elements that wish us harm. Remember, for example, in this very Forum, I have supported the scrapping of the Rama Sethu project on the grounds that it hurts Hindu sentiments (I remember us even having a lively conversation about an article by an Indian historian lady, trying to establish that Rama Sethu may not be where it is at all!).

We need to fight real fights, not these bogus fights that end up reducing our credibility and tar us all as fundamentalists. When we start fights that has nothing to do with any insults to our religion today (Ayodhya issue is a prime example), then we diminish the way we should defend our faith. I recall a High Court petition by a person representing a group of folks asking for the ban of a movie very recently on the basis of a non existent scene! This was before the movie's release! Is this a correct way to go about defending the religion?

c) A hypothetical question for you sir.

Assume the 'kazhaga goons' of TN want to destroy some famous temple in TN.

Should we raise in protest or not ?

Afterall, this temple is NOT all that Hinduism has got to offer ? Surely Hinduism can survive without this temple too ?

What would be your take sir ?

And if we should defend the temple, why and how is it different from viewing MFH's work critically ?

You are assuming that what MFH did is comparable to destroying our temples! Of course we will rise up if our temples are destroyed.

My contention is that MFH did not paint these figures to insult Hindus. My contention is that his paintings are not vulgar. My contention is the very fact that he chose our Gods to be represented in his art, should make us proud, and not vice versa. Do you have any arguments with any of my contentions? Even if you do, I can only say that if your Hindu sentiments were hurt by those paintings and please read his apology on that score. What else you want him to do? Destry his own works that the art world appreciates , but a few staunch Hindus say are hurting their sentiments? If it hurts someone's sentiments, then, please do not look at those paintings, but a few Hindus should not have any power to decide what a lot of us appreciate in those paintings. What about the people's sentiments, who appreciate his paintings? What about the hounding of a ninety year old man that may deprive more of his future paintings, that may not now come as a result?

MFH's paintings have been viewed critically by people who understand the modern art and iconology and have already passed judgements in a positive manner. Chritie's in NY just auctioned off a few of them for a good sum. I do not understand how a few peole can pass any artistic judgement on something that they do not understand, but want the works to be banished anyway! This has nothing to do about defending Hinduism. This clearly smacks of over reaching in an area which should be beyond such controversy.

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

goodbye

Well, its time to say good-bye; and it happens to be on the same page the intension was first expressed.

i do offer my heartfelt apologies to anyone hurt by my ranting.

i have effectively deleted most of my posts and kept the rest most minimal as possible.

Kunjuppuji and KRSji, you will be missed.

thankyou.

god bless.

 

[kunjuppu]

happy,

there is no permanent good bye till we leave this earth.

any time you feel like browsing this url and penning a few thoughts, will be welcomed by me, like summer rains on parched earth. i feel we need more people of various views to keep this forum alive.

the participation is indeed small, as i see it.

i do not think you have hurt any feelings. you should give least credence to any such thoughts.

see you again

 

[malgova.mango]

Kunjuppu!

Even leaving the earth is not permanent, you have to come back and exhaust your karma.

Regards

 

[happyhindu]

Thanks much for your kind words Kunjuppu-ji. Am very touched.

i hope to continue to read and post, not on any personal topics, but on general issues.