Asymmetry in Words and Practise
Many thanks to a reader who brought to my notice M.F. Hussain’s interview with Tehelka. Readers of this blog know my views on Hussain. The interview is interesting because this is the first piece I have read where Hussain gives us a bit of insight on his own understanding of his art. This is a departure from the Page 3 pieces replete with hurriedly-stitched quotes by the painter–all gloss and full of vacuum–and designed to reinforce the stereotype of the man–barefoot, weird, and the rebel-painter.
From this angle, the Tehelka interview gives something we can hold the man to. He cannot deny what he has said.
In the interview, Hussain welcomes all the criticisms hurled at him. He views even his violent opponents as children of the same India family, who need to be gently reprimanded and educated.
….when a child breaks something at home, you don’t throw him out, you try and explain things to him. Yeh aapas ka mamla hai. (This is a family matter.) Those opposed to my art just do not understand it. Or have never seen it.
This is a welcome perspective, and as Hussain unravels his perception of and motivations for his paintings, things get progressively clearer. We’ll examine this a little later. First, his political views.
He wants the BJP to return to power.
The only way I can come back to India, perhaps, is if the BJP comes to power at the Centre. Or maybe, Mayawati. This government has no spine. Their hands are tied. They think if they speak out or take action, they will be accused of appeasement. The irony is, out of power, the BJP uses issues like this to fan its votebank. In power, they would probably control their extreme brigades to look respectable and secular! (laughs) These are the ironies of India.
I’m surprised Hussain says this without dropping a little historical context. This government’s spinelessness is its own doing. More appropriately, the Congress party’s illustrious history of appeasement. The increase in competitive intolerance is the consequence of everybody mastering that divisive game. In Hussain’s case, the secular club led by Congress party looks a little weak and therefore unwilling to take a position on the painter.
M.F. Hussain’s views on his works, and on Indian art in general are mostly right but this knowledge has not translated into accurate pictorial depictions.
As a child, in Pandharpur, and later, Indore, I was enchanted by the Ram Lila. My friend, Mankeshwar, and I were always acting it out. The Ramayana is such a rich, powerful story, as Dr Rajagopalachari says, its myth has become a reality. But I really began to study spiritual texts when I was 19. Because of what I had been through, because I lost my mother, because I was sent away, I used to have terrible nightmares when I was about 14 or 15. All of this stopped when I was 19. I had a guru called Mohammad Ishaq— I studied the holy texts with him for two years. I also read and discussed the Gita and Upanishads and Puranas with Mankeshwar, who had become an ascetic by then. After he left for the Himalayas, I carried on studying for years afterwards. All this made me completely calm. I have never had dreams or nightmares ever again. Later, in Hyderabad, in 1968, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia suggested I paint the Ramayana. I was completely broke, but I painted 150 canvases over eight years. I read both the Valmiki and Tulsidas Ramayana (the first is much more sensual) and invited priests from Benaras to clarify and discuss the nuances with me…I’ve painted hundreds of Ganeshas in my lifetime — it is such a delightful form. I always paint a Ganesha before I begin on any large work. I also love the iconography of Shiva. The Nataraj — one of the most complex forms in the world — has evolved over thousands of years and, almost like an Einstein equation, it is the result of deep philosophical and mathematical calculations about the nature of the cosmos and physical reality. When my daughter, Raeesa wanted to get married, she did not want any ceremonies, so I drew a card announcing her marriage and sent it to relatives across the world. On the card, I had painted Parvati sitting on Shiva’s thigh, with his hand on her breast — the first marriage in the cosmos. Nudity, in Hindu culture, is a metaphor for purity. Would I insult that which I feel so close to? I come from the Suleimani community, a sub-sect of the Shias, and we have many affinities with Hindus, including the idea of reincarnation. As cultures, it is Judaism and Christianity that are emotionally more distant. But it is impossible to discuss all this with those who oppose me. Talk to them about Khajuraho, they will tell you its sculpture was built to encourage population growth and has outgrown its utility! (laughs) It is people in the villages who understand the sensual, living, evolving nature of Hindu gods. They just put orange paint on a rock, and it comes to stand for Hanuman.
This shows the effort he has put in to learn his art, something I respect. No work of Hindu art can withstand the test of time without this spiritual dimension. Hussain’s understanding of Hindu view of art is pretty accurate, his words stem from reflection, and are not mere repetitions of book knowledge. But how does he fare in application? And why do his paintings create such furore and disgust so many Hindus including me?
An answer to that question may lie in his own admission that these are concepts of the Hindu culture. But this answer needs to be sought by examining everything related to his works in the larger background of society and religion. The paintings that have aroused public outrage are starkly religious. And so are some of his utterances and actions.
First, Hussain has made it obvious that he is a practising Muslim. That doesn’t automatically mean he is anti-Hindu but his Muslimhood significantly influences his art in various ways. Islam for example, forbids painting. He indirectly admits that in the same interview.
When I was doing this, some conservative Muslims told me, why don’t you paint on Islamic themes? I said, does Islam have the same tolerance? If you get even the calligraphy wrong, they can tear down a screen.
That Hussain has successfully rebelled against this Islamic prohibition is an argument in favour of his courage and his commitment to art. If, as some people argue, art should be for its own sake, Hussain’s art should be neutral. His works are artistic testimonies to the contrary. As a person who has understood Hindu art, why has he managed to routinely offend Hindus? The reason in Hussain’s case lies beyond competitive intolerance. It is simply because he has understood Hindu art at an intellectual level. Even here, Hussain’s point doesn’t make sense. He says he is enchanted with the Ramayana but has painted Sita seated suggestively on Hanuman’s tail. Doesn’t Hussain know that Hanuman worshipped Sita as his mother? By no stretch of imagination can one perceive either spirituality or religious fervour or even artistic aesthetics in a painting that clearly sends out an incestuous message.
Nudity maybe a symbol of purity in Hinduism but context and tradition is clearly an important determinant in depicting nudity. What is the tradition of practising Hindus vis a vis nudity or nudity in art? As Arun Shourie says about Hussain’s nude Saraswathi paintings,
And as for Saraswati being depicted naked, her image is set out in our iconography, in the mantras by which we invoke her; in all these she is referred to as “….yaa shubhra vastraavritaa….”, as one “draped in white”. That white dress draping her is one of the four distinguishing marks of representations of Goddess Saraswati — the other three being that she holds beads in one hand, a book in another and the vina in a third.
You either claim that your paintings are faithful to tradition or they’re from your own imagination. If it’s the former, you are not faithful to tradition, if it’s the latter, you need to attribute a non-religious symbolism/title for your painting. Why don’t Hindus find the Shiva-Parvati or God-Goddess nude temple sculptures offensive?
In the end, Hussain’s explanations fall flat. His rebellion stops at breaking only the Islamic prohibition against painting. The logical question arises: painting what? He answers that himself.
I said, does Islam have the same tolerance? If you get even the calligraphy wrong, they can tear down a screen.
He has answered that again by withdrawing his film because he didn’t want to wound Islamic sentiments. He shows no such sensitivity while painting Hindu Gods and Goddesses but claiming that they’re works of “deep love and conviction, and [done in] celebration.” As we have seen, that is patently untrue. Without attributing ulterior motives to the man, I can say that Hussain’s works fail because he is not a practising Hindu. As paintings, they might be masterpieces, but in the Hindu view of art, art is not divorced from spirituality and philosophy. To a mere admirer of art, the sculptural masterpieces of Indian temples are classics in form, structure, proportion and geometry. To a practising Hindu, they are manifestations of the Absolute to which they offer their poojas. The rest come next, if they are significant at all.
Had Hussain understood this…
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[…] The learned judge completely misses the point. Hussain’s paintings do not merely contain nudity. Thousands of nude paintings are routinely exhibited across the nation, so why do the Hindus feel offended with just Hussain’s paintings? The judgement overlooks this crucial point. I’ve written earlier about the exact cause(s) of the provocative nature of Hussain’s paintings. The judgement further says, […]
[…] And the investment thing was just a remark by the way. My dear friend, do me a favour. Please read ALL the material on my blog where I’ve spoken at some length about Hussain’s “art.” For starters, this. As for this: […]
And the goons who vandalised his work understood this? Sure, given their profound knowledge of Hinduism, why not.
Hussain is a pervert. But for the fact that he carried the burden of being a “respectable” artist, he could have been a serious threat to society because of his sexual perversions.
Hussain, if he had actually internalized knowedge about Dharma, could not have painted nude godesses. He has read all Dharmic works and treats them just as something curious and exotic, nothing more. This is like me saying I respect Judaism, I have read about it, I am fascinated by it, and therefore I have the right to have picture of Hitler and garland it every day. Nonsense.
MF wants BJP back so that he can come back to India. Cry me a river.
I respect the “goons” who “vandalised” his work. They never claimed to have any “profound knowledge of hinduism”, but then one does not need to have any “profound knowledge of shit” to know not to step in a pile. All you need is common sense. MF’s paintings offend us. The “goons” did the right thing. When we all can paint nude Muhammads, lets talk. Till then, we will do well to lay off the dhimmitude.
Actually, after reading this interview, I think I respect MFH a little more than before. Of course, I am assuming that he is sincere in what he said, which may be a questionable assumption. But the issue that he raises about India having issues with “pehchaan” and still teaching western crap in schools is absolutely true, as I know from personal experience.
As far as his not drawing nude Mohammad, he himself acknowledges in the interview that Islam does not have the level of tolerance for him to do any Islam-influenced art. He does mention that, for example, if he doesn’t even get his calligraphy right then he will be persecuted by Islamists. If anything, the fact that he feels more comfortable in making his art Hinduism-based shows the intolerance of Islam.
The point he makes about Indian education is true. I know so many artists who have not even heard of the great Ananda Coomaraswami (as Hussain mentions in the interview too). We continue to remain a colonized culture where the next generation of smart artsy types study Shakespeare and feel proud in doing Shakespearean dramas in our college festivals. Why are our art students studying Greek body form and not Indian? Is it any wonder that our education system continues producing the self-hating white wannabes?
If you find nudity per se offensive, then I think it’s certainly not a very Hindu perspective. If anything, finding nudity offensive is a product of icotrian prudery, and a sign of a colonized mind. In rural India or in tribal places, it was not very uncommon for women to wear nothing above their waist. In fact, even the great Dr Coomaraswami has published pictures of rural Sri Lankan women in such a state of clothing - would you find those offensive too?
If you find it offensive that MFH, a muslim, painted nude Hindu icons, then that’s not a very tolerant perspective either. Hindu ethics would require us to appreciate the art regardless who the artist is. And you can call anything else to MFH’s art, but the man knows his aesthetics and his works are certainly not “a pile of shit”.
Sandeep, I think you are confusing Hussain’s love and appreciation of Hindu art with the requirement that an artist *should* paint within the *boundaries* of Hindu spirituality or tradition. Imposing boundaries on an artist will only ensure that all we get is repetitions of the same tradition. If every artist did that, how would the tradition evolve? You need the rebels and freaks to challenge conventional wisdom or artistic tradition. You may not like it, but then in a free society you have a right to look away from it. Christians do not like the Cross in a Glass full of Urine type of art either - but the test of a liberal society is to provide a safe environment even for offending dissenters.
“And the goons who vandalised his work understood this? Sure, given their profound knowledge of Hinduism, why not.”
And what would Muslims, with their profound knowledge of Islam, done to him if he had painted nude paintings of women from Prophet’s household? Hindus were lenient with Hussain because of their tolerance. He should thank his stars and you should stop your belly ache.
Gujju bhai, your freedoms stop where my freedoms begin. Otherwise, there will be conflict. I cannot come and abuse your mother in the name of freedom of speech and ask you to appreciate my creativity in thinking up new abuses.
Sanjay, you are confusing the private domain vs. the public domain. You are in your rights to sue me for libel if I abuse your mother for no reason. However, I am well within my rights to criticize *the views* published by your mother if they happen to be in the public domain. Art, religion and culture, by definition, exist in the public domain.
Think about it : by your logic, nobody would be able to criticize anybody! It’s absurd.
Sanjay,
If we want to claim higher moral ground than Islamic intolerance, then we cannot set Islamic intolerance as the benchmark to decide what’s permissible in the society, can we? If we follow your logic then we will be forced to stoop down to the barbarity of Islam - why would I want that? If the superiority of Hinduism over Islam is based on the higher tolerance of Hindus and Hinduism, then you cannot jeopardize the same tolerance by becoming intolerant because then you’re just as intolerant as them!
If you believe, as I do, that India and Hinduism represent higher ideals and a better way of life than uncivilized Islamic societies, then a necessary price we have to pay is to live those ideals of tolerance. That’s not dhimmitude, that’s a requirement of walking the talk.
Now is not the time to be talking about ideals. We have a lop-sided battle going on, and “nothing concentrates the mind of a man like the thought of being hanged”, like Churchill (someone I hate otherwise) said. Once we have parity within societies, we can start a civilized discourse. That is what I meant by “when we will be able to paint a nude Muhammad”. Currently, muslims will kill if they can if they find out that you have as much drawn the pictire of a clothed Muhammad. In India, they cannot do this with impunity. Yet. In Pak, they can, and have.
Tolerance of injustice is cowardice. Pretending that cowardice is something noble is dhimmitude (aka pseudosecularism)
They are donning the clothes of the defeated native. Americans do it all the time with Native American regalia. You will even get a lecture of how much Americans respect Native Americans and how their grandmother was a native american (btw, it’s never the grandfather).
It is an effort to problematize Hindu culture along specific lines and then claim primacy in interpreting that culture. See how Hussain laughs at the Khajuraho explanation of Hindus.
Talk to them about Khajuraho, they will tell you its sculpture was built to encourage population growth and has outgrown its utility! (laughs)
Problematize peculiarly, gauge the necessarily incoherent response, and then claim primacy of interpretation.
Sorry, Ashish - I think that abandoning our ideals to stoop down to the level of barbarians somehow does not strike me as the noblest way to win this war, which at its heart is a war of ideas and philosophy as much as it is of anything else. By all means, go ahead and paint nude Mohammads - and then punish any Muslims in India who threaten the artist with death. Using brute force to shut up an artist who paints nude Hindu goddess when such depiction is already a part of Hindu art just makes you look like a Hindu version of the Islamic barbarian that you are trying so hard to fight. In marketing terms, you are diminishing an elite segment brand (Hinduism) by bringing it down to the level of the cheap brand (Islam) when you start competing with that brand at its level of intolerance. That’s not going to win you the brand war, it’s only going to let the other side point at you and say, “hey, we may be barbarians but you are not that much better than us, are you?”. This is why the Hindutva movement gets painted with the fundamentalist brush in the media - it’s the same old tactic that the western press uses in its hyphenation of India-Pakistan relationship. We must fight against the hyphenated Hindutva-Islamofascism characterization of the Hindutva movement, which we cannot do unless we differentiate our ideas in a visibly superior fashion. The concept of tolerance is a key to this and we must define that on our terms, in a way that gives advantage to brand Hinduism and positions it much higher than brand Islam.
Gujjubhai,
Yes, we must differentiate Hindutva from Islamic radicals/supporters of islamic radicals etc.
But the time for sitting tight and just arguing about *all* the insults to Dharma is gone. I don’t say vandalize the house of every meuzzin because we are fed up of his shrieking at 5 in the morning; I don’t say argue with all muslims because they pray to Muhammad who served as the preacher and guiding light for the arguably most brutal genocide in history; I don’t say start riots for the isolated incidents of beef being placed in Hindu temples, for the stoning of Hindu processions, I don’t….All these incidents we can talk about and file police complaints about.
But I draw the line at drawing nude dieties. Islam (and other intolerant ideologies) must realize that there is a limit to the amount of humiiation that Hindus will swallow. The occassional vandalization etc. wakes people up. It makes people feel that there is a problem.
Remember that Prithviraj forgave the islamic invader 16 times even after defeating him. The 17th time, the barbarian defeated Prithviraj, and the pious muslim promptly poked his kaafir prisoner’s eyes out and beheaded him.
There are some things which should not be tolerated. I grew up advocating Gandhism. Then I read about the Islam and Christianity from their own holy books, and also learnt what kind of love they were spreading worldwide. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. Showing them that there is a limit is the only way. If we do not, they will continue their merry, established way, and we will be left discussing things forever. Then a time will come when things get so bad for hindus that the valve on the pressure cooker will blow, and Hindus will be out on the street.
Muslims, of course, have been taking the safe way out and instead of collectively throwing MF out of the community, they have all turned into apologists for MF.
I am sorry, brother Ashish - I think we just have different opinions on this. You draw the line at drawing nude dieties, I don’t. I have explained my reasons for it. I believe that a religion that builds temples such as Khajuraho and celebrates the body through Yoga etc is far more sophisticated than Victorian Christian prudery or barbaric anti-image philosophy of Islam. To bring it down to the level of intolerance of the Abrahamics will be an act of disservice.
The other problem I see with the Hindu anger resulting in violence is that it will further destroy brand Hinduism. Let me explain what I mean by showing you the Graham Staines example. Sure, Staines was a kameena missionary but was killing him beneficial to Hindutva? Look at how the missionary propaganda machine has been milking it forever - it’s hard to find any article in a major media outlet around the world without a reference to the Staines murder.
My friends, physical violence without any strategic thinking is just stupid. We need to learn from missionaries who have perfected their strategy in attacking Hinduism from all sides. The source of their power is their control over media and education, not physical violence.
They have perfected the narrative of “caste system - poverty - Hindutva fundamentalism - Christian charity - Mother Terresa - VHP Bajrang Dal goons”. This allows them to use every negative incident for propaganda. This propaganda gets amplified through media and educational institutions. Think about a guy like Kancha Ilaiah - how many brains must he have influenced as a professor? Is it any wonder that Christian money is funding T channels, media, educational institutes and so on?
This war of ideas will not be won by mobs rampaging in streets, my friends. We need to become a lot smarter and a lot more strategic to win this. Otherwise, we will win battles but we will lose the war. Killing Staines has not stopped proselytization in Orissa and beating up MFH is not going to win over any Muslims.
Ok, I would beg to differ with the majority. Above all, I believe in the individual’s right to freedom of expression. What that boils down to is, MF Hussain is free to paint what he wants. If you don’t like his paintings, don’t buy them. Heck, don’t even look at them. But you cannot burn them or vandalize the art galleries. That would be akin to the Muslim destruction of Nalanda university.
Saying that his paintings hurt our religious or pious sentiments and hence they should be banned is bull. By the same arguments, we will never be able to criticize the actions of the paed Mohammad, because the Muslims will claim our criticism hurts them. By the same argument Muslims would be right in wanting to kill Taslima, and the Vatican would be right in condemning Da Vinci Code.
Why should our religious sensibilities be more important than Husain’s right to artistic expression? And who decides what is more important in a set of conflicting interests? If it is going to be decided by brute force, then we are not living in the enlightened 21st century but in 7th century Arabia, where a young poetess; mother of 6 children could be killed when she was suckling her infant child, because she wrote some verses mocking the great prophet.
Our barbarism cannot be justified on grounds of Islamic barbarism. We are not competing with them for the bottom spot of the world’s most intolerant ideologies. I am sure most people on this forum won’t agree with me, but this was just my two cents on the issue.
By the by, I have seen some of Hussain’s paintings, and while I don’t understand art much, I did not feel mortally offended by looking at them. Its just that they did not strike me as deserving of much attention.
Gujjubhai:
I think the occassional vandalization etc. wakes people up. It makes people feel that there is a problem.
—-
That is OK. My point was everyone has to have a limit. As long as people know that, where they set that limit is up to them…:)
This is about getting a level playing field first. I have been in this a long time, and trying to act civilized all the time will not get us a level playing field. Our opponents are masters at playing the victim when they feel threatened (current Indian scenario), and playing the oppressor when in the majority (Malaysia)…
Shailendra:
This is not about paintings being offensive enough. They are nude, and that crosses a limit. I have partially listed lots of insults that Hindus have put up with. This is my limit. When Muslims come up with a list of insults they have put up with, they too can draw the line at Taslima: but wait, what Taslima is saying is in the Koran, so she is not making things up. Saraswati is never nude. MF has painted her nude. I do not see any parallel between MF and Taslima.
:)
@Gujjubhai
Before you go far too ahead in giving the Steines example, try to do a little search on what actually happened [Arun Shourie’s detailed column, BBC, Der Spiegel etc]. The ground realities are far different than what you mentioned. Some research please before you cite.
Yadbhaishya, I think you misunderstand my point. Of course, you assume that I have not done my research which insults my intelligence but I will let it pass.
Here’s some research you could do : do a Google search on Graham Staines and see whose narrative predominates. In a media war, truth is the first casualty. It is their story that predominates through infinite replication, amplification and multiplication, not Arun Shourie’s or the Wadhwa Commission’s.
My point is this : any violent action by Hindus will only help the missionaries’ in their media and marketing war against Hinduism. Graham Staines’ murder/death fits into the “Christian persecution” narrative, which is why I gave that example. Every such incident will be used very cleverly by the missionaries to exert mental domination over Hindus. It will also be used by them to raise money for “the brave missionaries civilizing violent Hindus”.
For example, take a look at this:
http://icmcindia.org/projects.htm
Let me quote:
“St. Graham Staines School: Located at the Promised Land, the Tamil medium schools educate almost 500 semi-orphans who also live at the Promised Land and are supported by sponsors from developed countries.”
The guy is already being marketed as a saint!! Don’t you think that exploiting him would’ve helped the church raise money for the school? Now imagine how many poor Hindu children going through those Tamil medium schools will be brainwashed into hating Hinduism, hating themselves and converting to Christianity? The death/murder of Graham Staines, if it was an attempt to deter conversions, has backfired because he is now marketed as a martyr and will be used to induce guilt in generations of Hindu children for hundreds of years. An alive Graham Staines could’ve influenced at most a few thousand peope, a dead-martyred-and-marketed Staines backed with the money and media power of missionaries will convert millions.
This is exactly what will happen every time Hindus perpetrate violence against missionaries or artists like MFH. MFH is already a darling of the p-sec media and he is already marketed as a symbol of the barbarism of Hindu right. Sure, beating him up or burning down his art work will give a momentary satisfaction to Hindus offended by his work. But it will also harm brand Hindutva and make Hinduism weaker in the war of ideas fought through the media.
Look, Hindus need to be marketing savvy, raise resources (money) and build institutions that can counter the onslaught of the church. Knee-jerk acts of violence will just play into their hands and those acts will be spun and exaggerated through their media machine. The Sangh is doing some great work through Ekal Vidyalayas etc but their marketing and media strategy sucks. In general, Hindus have no voice in the mdeia. Even when they do, they have no consistent marketing message, or a narrative that can counter propaganda from anti-Hindus. The least we can do is not indulge in acts of violence or stupidity (such as that idiot Raj Thackeray targeting North Indians for petty electoral gains among Marathis) that will harm us in this situation.
“My point is this : any violent action by Hindus will only help the missionaries’ in their media and marketing war against Hinduism.” should read “My point is this : any violent action, real or perceived as such by the media, by Hindus will only help the missionaries’ in their media and marketing war against Hinduism.”
gujjubhai,
well reasoned arguments — you seem to be a liberal hindu(and i do mean that as a compliment). and i think most hindus think like you or can be persuaded to think like you. but the reality in india is that we have asymetric secularism: first place to ban rushdie and ban the davinci code;two sets of laws based on which religion you belong to; different reservation standards for minority institutions; pilfering of cash rich hindu temples by politicians. the list is quite long. india is not like u.s.a where you can publish both muhamad cartoons and jesus-in-urine, because the laws/police mechanism is strong enough to enforce freedom of expression above all.
the only people in india interested in changing this asymmetric secularism is the sangh parivar. whenever they have unleashed violence, it’s been only as a result of extreme provocation(otherwise india would have burnt to the ground by now) and i think by in large they have furthered not hindered brand hinduism. but i really do hope a strong bjp leader comes along and corrects the anomalies in our secular system and turns us into a truly liberal democracy like u.s.a
till then whole lot of seething hindus, who otherwise are basically liberal, are going to ignore what you are saying. in a mobocracy like india it’s best not get too enlightened — think of all those pandits singing about kashmiryaat just before they got kicked out.
The days of liberalism and idealism are over. Yuu cannot be tolerant when faced with intolerant creeds. Iron cuts iron. As Gita said: “Wickedness to the wicked. Good to the good.” Neither Muslims nor Christians care about idealism or some kind of high moral values that should govern their conduct. They are actually after territory — in Kashmir and North East. The day they acquire a critical mass, they will shove all idealism and liberalism down the throat of Hindus and tell them to shove it. Islam and Christianity are draconian political ideologies masquerading as religions. If your only strategy in dealing with them is to act like a saint and promote moral values, they will cook your goose soon enough. Hindus have lost enough land and Muslims and Christians have gained a lot. The latter must be doing something right over the last centuries. Hindus are like innocent babies who thing if they express their good intentions toward others, all problems will be solved. No wonder, their country’s landmass has shrunk by 1/3rd over the last 50 years, and they are not being hounded out like vermin from Kashmir and north east.
Keep rolling in the mud of your idealism and high moral ground till the barbarians start banging on the door.
Well, first of all, I think you have a highly exalted idea of what the US is. In fact, this is another example of how well the propaganda machinery works. US is not a liberal democracy, it is essentially Saudi Christianistan. Its government funds missionaries, supports them with their diplomatic/military power and does all it can to spread Christianity everywhere. Look at Worldvision, a vicious evangelical organization that is active in Orissa. They get hundreds of millions of dollars from the US government. But when I go to timesofindia.com, I see a nice touchy-feely ad from WV about adopting poor children! Every child adopted through them becomes another Christian foot soldier.
Here, see some more:
http://icmcindia.org/Newsletters/2007%20October%20November/Newsletter%2010%2011%2007.htm
Scroll down to the bottom of that page and you will see a senator from the state of Nevada visiting this conversion operation in Tamil Nadu.
Make no mistake, people : US is to Christianity what Saudi Arabia is to Islam. They are funding, propagating, and going to war for converting other countries. Converting people to Christianity a fundamental principle of increasing US power. See the history of how they converted South Korea in just 40 years and wiped out Buddhism from half of population. Is it any coincidence that South Korea is the only non-white country fighting along with the US in their current wars? See also how the US converted Philippines.
Secondly, even in the US, not a single newspaper dared to publish the Mohammad cartoons. That is because most of their media is also hugely dominated by the left, which is also appeasing of Muslims. Of course, it’s balanced out by right wing media such as Fox. But even those guys didn’t publish anything. What you do see is free expression of anti-Christian art, which is done as much to market them as a symbol of “Christian tolerance” or “US secularism” as anything else.
Thirdly, the way to get rid of asymmetric secularism is to win the war through media, elections and money. No election will be won by violence or destabilizing the economy. Even in Gujarat, after 2002 there has not been a single riot or act of vandalism etc.
Fourth, Hindus are losing the war of conversion. Every day new converts are becoming enemies of Hindusim. These converts are victims of a well-organized campaign launched through huge amount of money and brainwashing in educational institutions. Hindus are losing this war because there is no coherent strategy to link education, media, money and marketing to counter their opponents.
See the interview of this traitor, for example:
http://www.icmcindia.org/Newsletters/2007%20August%20September/Conversation%20With%20Pastor%20Jay.htm
Every day, thousands of Pastor Jay’s are working hard to convert Hindus. They are well-funded, well-organized and have the power of media on their side. Is beating up MFH the best way to fight these locusts?
In general, let me talk about what the world is according to Islam:
Muslims are strictly fordidden from killing people who have not (in the past) and do not (at present) oppress muslims. Now islam has a peculiar definition of oppressor. If you, a non-muslim, are approached by a muslim and asked to convert, you can either convert or not convert.
If you convert, Halle Berry! Welcome to islam! Peace!
If you do not convert, you can choose to not convert but remain as a dhimmi or an oppressor. Nothing in between.
Dhimmis are the ones who let muslims levy taxes on them, whose daughters can be kidnapped at will by the muslims, who have to be seen singing praises of Islam, and hiding anything associated with their own non-islamic religion (though they can practice their own religion in private. Basically, lose all your self-respect. Then you are a dhimmi (or zimmi) and it is the duty (zimmedari) of muslims to tolerate you (as long as you remain a dhimmi).
If, however, you choose to not convert and also to not become a dhimmi, you are interpreted as an aggressor/oppressor who is not allowing Islam to flower, flourish, bloom, and/or prosper. And therefore, you deserve to be killed.
Now if you had opposed Islam at any point, but later converted, you still could be killed. The precedent which authorizes this is as follows. In brief, the prophet Mohammad was, in the early days, driven out of Mecca for preaching Islam. After some months, he attacked back, and the Meccan army surrendered. He asked them to “embrace” Islam. They did. Then he said, “But since you had fought against me once, I will punish you”. He cut off the hands and feet of the army of Mecca, and left them to bleed. (He also told the people of Mecca to convert within 4 months, or else he would not be responsible for the consequences. The Meccans got the message).
@Gujjubhai
I get the point about mentioning Steines.
Could not agree more with you on the Shiv Sena theatrics. But becoming market savvy, raising resources take time and they are happening. Meanwhile I have an immediate solution to this problem. Let people like you and me not equivocate on issues like tolerance etc. Why don’t we for a change, take a firm stand on the balderdash art that MF spits out every so often. But again it all boils down to ‘you’ acknowledging ‘my’ hurt feeling seeing a nude Bharat Mata painted by MF Hussain.
But will you pray tell me what is the difference between you arguing that “if they want a martyr for their cause, do not give them that” and the argument from Farooq Abdullah that India will “go up in flames” if JeM’s Afzal Guru was hanged? Maybe just that one subject is a soft “water-under-the-straw-mat” kind of operator and other is an open aggressor, but the direction of your argument is just the same.
In MF’s case, nobody is creating a martyr of him, far less, no court/government body has even seriously reprimanded him thanks to the lakhs of ‘rationalists’ like you and more thanks to the ever-tolerant hindus of the land. Whatever MF may claim, he is still due attending court summons in India and if he is so “pak”, he is yet to prove himself (not by hiding in London/Dubai but coming out into the open).
Also, the argument that the underlying (sub-conscious) tolerance that one inherits if they understand Hindutva is correct, but Hindutva or its survival has always been paid in kind by copious amounts of blood, and the blood was of hindus. [And the amount of damage that principles of absolute non-violence Buddhism drivel has done to our culture, country and temples is just a whole mountain in itself which is irrelevant to this post]
Oversimplistic ideas like “(only) tolerance has kept us alive till today and will do so tomorrow”, and that “Hindus should let Muslims kill them left and right and not raise a hand” kind of Mahatma principles. They have a context and they have to be applied with your own intelligence, not independent of it. Hindu sentiments (if they exist) have a limit too and we do not have to necessarily extend that limit every time we have to fit someone else’s domain.
We are off on a tangent here with Staines.
The amazing thing about this interview is exactly what Sandeep has quoted.
>> I said, does Islam have the same tolerance? If you get even the calligraphy wrong, they can tear down a screen. >>
Let us dwell on this for a moment.
He openly claims that he curbed his natural instincts because he was conscious of the Muslim response. Taken a step further, he was not just conscious but either (a) feared and/or (b) respected the Muslim sentiment.
He was pretty convinced that Hindus would not “mind” too much if he let his artistic mind run wild with Saraswathi, Sita, etc. After all, they got Kajuraho - so they will either lap it up (the psec media types) or they will swallow it and try to rationalize against some bigger goal.
There are two problems :
1. He is a muslim. Sorry, but this means he has less rope than a hindu artist. This is like a white guy poking fun at black icons in Harlem or at an extreme using the Nigger word.
2. His calculation proved horribly wrong. There are enough Hindus who wont take this crap and will respond in a similar manner to Indian Muslims.
Maybe he is just paying the price for his miscalculation. If he had been tapped after his very first piece, he may have well concluded that “you know what, both Hindus and Muslims in India are too touchy. Just like I respect (or fear) Muslim reaction - they even get jumpy if I get the calligraphy wrong, I have no choice but to respect (or fear) Hindu reaction. This damn country is too primitive for my sexual artistic genius. I am just gonna have to paint something else”.
Gujjubhai,
Staines and conversions are a completely different issue. You have raised many points but they are more linked to our old friends. Privileges and benefits.
For a minute, let’s take religion out of the equation. On his nude Bharat-mata painting:
In February 6, 2006 issue, India Today, a national English weekly published an advertisement titled “Art For Mission Kashmir”. This advertisement contains a painting of Bharatmata (Mother India) as a nude woman posed across a map of India with the names of Indian States on various parts of her body. The exhibition was organised by Nafisa Ali of Action India (NGO) and Apparao Art Gallery.[18]
Hindu Janjagruti Samiti (HJS) and VHP has protested persistently against Husain displaying the painting on the websites and in an exhibition. As a result, on February 7, 2006 Husain apologised and promised to withdraw the painting from an auction.[19][20]
The painting later appeared on Husain’s official website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_F_Husain
There is a whale of a difference between a dumbass and a scumbag. A dumbass may offend people inadvertently, but a scumbag does it on purpose. Those who argue that Hussain was merely a dumbass ignore (deliberately?) three points:
1. The nature of his art involving Hindu deities is offensive not only in the Hindu context, but is regarded obnoxious in almost every culture and religion. For example, a picture of a nude Arundhati Roy rubbing against the extended leg of a naked Chomsky will anger leftwingers.
2. Hussain painted his own mother, Teresa and Fatima in a conventional manner, fully clothed etc.
3. When a cartoonist caricatured a naked Hussain, the latter had him arrested.
Friends, I only talked about Staines example to illustrate how acts of violence could end up hurting Hindus. I think that anything Hindus do against MFH - whether violent or non-violent protest - must take into consideration how the p-sec media will spin it. Whether we like it or not, the reality is that p-sec media does influence a large section of the people in India and abroad.
The comparison with Afzal Guru is spurious because the principles involved are fundamentally different. Hanging Afzal Guru shows the resolve of the Indian state to crush terrorism mercilessly. Not hanging him is an act of appeasement. Hanging him is a strong and positive story for India. However, in MFH’s case, it’s a case of faceless mob acting violently or otherwise in the name of Hinduism. That denigrates Hinduism and compromises the moral high ground of Hinduism on erotic art against the stupid Islamic intolerance of most art, erotic or not. That’s a negative media story and feeds into the p-sec media’s caricature of Hindutva followers as uncultured goons.
I must say that I completely agree with what Gujjubhai has to say about this. I will certainly look at MFH in a slightly higher light.
What Sandeep, sanjay et al. are forgetting is that nobody has the right to not be offended. There is no such religious or political right. A lot of different things offend a lot of different people, and what offends one now is not necessarily likely to offend later in life, or within different circumstances. One can not base one’s sense of ethics or morality on a purely subjective basis, as that is not true morality, but rather only one’s private, arbitary morality.
As Gujjubhai mentions, one of the most admirable things about western liberalism is not that it produces things like Piss Christ, but that one has a right to produce Piss Christ. I am a philistine in that not only can I not create visual art, but that I can not even appreciate it, so I am not going to comment on any aesthetic appeal, or lack thereof, in MFH’s art.
However, while I regard myself to be a pious Hindu, I do not have any problems with MFH’s paintings, even the Sita-Hanuman one, precisely because Hinduism is a liberal religion. It lacks both the dogmatic rigidity of Christianity and the barbaric intolerance of an obscurantist Islam. Hinduism’s beauty lies in the fact that it is a religion which does not discard anything, as it recognises that religion is not an end, but rather a means to an end. That is why Hinduism is not a missionary tradition, because as ironic as it may seem, Hinduism does not care about Hinduism. Hinduism’s chief concern is not with religion, but with God. And as a Hindu, one can “sin”, but one does not offend God, as God in Hinduism is neither jealous of his honor, nor angry towards his creation. That is why “Hindus” storming MFH’s house is so appaling, because God in Hinduism does not demand jihad for His sake, and hence it is patently un-Hindu to demand that anything which offends Hindus be eliminated. I am not refering to the militant aspect of any religion, as I know that unfortunately, Hinduism is a weak religion and lack even the bare minimum of militant tendency.
While I agree with Sandeep and you guys on most matters, I think the one mistake you made here is the same that Christians and Muslims make, and that is the mistake of taking Hinduism (and art) literally. I think that if one takes Hinduism literally, one misses 99% of what makes it so colorful, rich, profound, sensuous and complex in the way that a deep revelation is supposed to be. When one sees the Christian\Islamists say that Hindus are “demon worshippers” or that they are “infidels”, it is because they missed out on 99.999% of what makes up Hinduism. And it is precisely why it is perfectly legitimate for MFH to paint what he does, because the beauty of Hinduism is not limited to art, and nor can it be limited by art.
Hey guys,
It is interesting that we debate our views to consolidate our response. It is part of our glorious culture. Now my take on this subject is a mixture of both what Ashish advocates and Gujjubhai’s concern for brand Hinduism. The reason is I wish we also start proseletyzing as semitic religions do. We are all aware of the media propaganda unleashed by left-wing and anti-Hindu religious groups. To counter it we have to resort to both.
On what Ashish had to say, he is simply reiterating what Vivekananda advocated and that is to possess a Hindu soul and a Muslim body. We need a mixture of both. So Gujjubhai and Ashish please do not disagree but try amalgamate both your ideas.
On Khajuraho being representation of Hindu religion is stretching the logic a little too far. I do not know how Kama Sutra and Khajuraho have become representations of Hinduism. If Hitler, D.H.Lawrence, Casanova, Witch-hunt, Killing of Jews, Killing of Native Americans, Killing of Australian aborigines and Slavery can be representations of Christianity then I wish to take it that way.
And for nudity please be aware that all our murtis and idols were sculpted nude but were always dressed up at temples. It is only Moghuls took over that temples went into decay and were not cared for properly.
The issue here is MF HUSSAIN himself pointed out that he painted Hitler in nude so as to insult him. It that is the opinion he holds about nudity then he really meant to insult Hindus by painting their symbol in nude. End of story.
The other day PTV was showing a tele-film in which Hindus were plotting the destruction of a soft-spoken poor Muslim. They proliferate hate and I am not suggesting we do the same but we cannot remain quiet either. We like it or not media everywhere is against Hindus more so in India. How are we going to counter it? We need brand our religion/culture/way of life.Guys we need to fight a very long battle for the sake our nation. I have to thank Sandeep for bringing us together. I also sincerely hope we somehow turn this confluence into useful,fruitful partnership in future.
“What Sandeep, sanjay et al. are forgetting is that nobody has the right to not be offended. There is no such religious or political right.”
With due respects, get your head out of your arse.
All this reminds me of an episode that happened with Swami Vivekananada.
SV is a guest at some Nawab/Nizam’s place and Nizam’s vazir goes on a rant about us ‘idolators’;
You know the routine: God is not in any idols, God is bigger than idols, etc etc.
SV calmly requests the vazir to pick up the Nizam’s portrait and asks him to spit on it. Since Nizam’s not in the portrait, Nizam’s bigger than portrait, spitting on his portrait shouldn’t be an big deal, right?
The point sinks in pretty fast.
Now, coming out our good friend MFH or anyone here who’s ‘not offended’ by nude images as we have a very liberal religion and we led the world in building Khajurao or writing Kamasutra. Here’s a suggestion, only suggestion, so please do not get ‘offended’:
why don’t you draw nude images of your own family members and host it on a website? And put it for auction at ebay? There are sites that’ll even pay you for ‘right’ kind of images.
If one lacks artistic or photoshop skills, help can be arranged since we are all friends here. And please, I repeat, do not be offended by my suggestion. After all, it’s all for a good cause of furthering art and our love; and like MFH, I can assure you that it could done with utmost love with no malice/lust.
Any takers?
Good point Kumar. Hope this offer will be snapped up by people who are sworn not to get offended at any cost.
Kumar,
With all due respect, this is the kind of argument that exasperates me. The question really is not whether I or anybody else on this site would like to publish nude pictures of ourselves or Hindu deities. The question is whether a third party (say, yourself for the sake of argument) has the right to stop me from doing it if I chose to do so just because my nude picture offends you.
In fact, the existence of pornography, explicit movies and prostitution in all societies including India shows that there are many people who do not mind publishing nude pictures of themselves or films showing them having sex. So yes, if India did not have draconian laws concerning nudity etc, which are really a relic of Victorian prudery, then there would be many people doing exactly what you describe: publishing nude pictures of themselves and their families, and selling those on ebay.
The existence of badly made adult movies in most Indian languages which, let’s admit it, we have all seen in our teenage years; existence of magazines like Denonair; acceptance of nudity on late night TV channels and so on shows you that in spite of all the restrictions that Indian state wastes its time in enforcing, there are many people who have no problem with depiction of nudity or sexuality. For that matter, many female goddess murtis are sculpted in the nude and are on display not just in Khajuraho but many other temples. Bare breasted women and goddesses are depicted in Ajanta-Ellora paintings. Then how is your argument valid?
So, to answer your question, would I publish a nude picture of myself on the Internet? Probably not - hell, its ugliness will offend more than it will offend you
. But do I have the right to publish a nude picture of myself even if it offends you? Absolutely!! That’s what differentiates a civilized society such as India and a religion such as Hinduism from barbaric prudery of Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
I mean “its ugliness will offend me more than it will offend you”
.
And for those of you who think that Hinduism lost territory and influence to Islam or Christianity because of being nice, that’s an incomplete analysis. The history of why Hinduism lost to these religions is much more complex than that, and I think to ascribe it to the inherent civility of Hinduism is a very simplistic way of looking at it. After all, Krishna did convince Arjun to fight his brothers in a war, and kill them. I don’t want to derail this thread by debating that issue as I am having a great conversation with all of you, but I hope we can at least agree that there were many things at play. We can also hopefully agree that the parameters of war are different in this age compared to the past and we need to do a fresh analysis of how Hinduism can fight against the Abrahamics.
I am not advocating a pacifist society, far from it. I want and India that is militarily strong and defends Hinduism. I also want a Hinduism that is not shy about marketing its intellectual appeal or liberal principles or highly refined philosophy compared to Abrahamic religions. In fact, I want Hinduism to become much more proselytizing.
What I am arguing is that the inherent liberal-ness of Hinduism is a strength that needs to be marketed well against the Abrahamics and consequently, Hindus need to display those qualities so that brand Hinduism is strengthened. Hindus then need to constantly hammer this attribute through media to differentiate against Islam and create an aspirational brand targeted at a segment of liberal Muslims and Christians.
Look, historically wars were fought by soldiers on the battlefield. In this age, wars are fought through media, money, PR, control of education, elections, laws and so on. See Rajiv Malhotra’s mind-blowing analysis of how control of knowledge-production in western universities has been used to systematically demean and denigrate Hinduism. Look at why Christian organizations are fighting for extending benefits of reservation to converted Christians because that would remove an economic incentive against conversion for a Hindu SC person.
If we don’t learn to put issues such as MFH’s paintings in a bigger picture, then individual acts of violence in such cases will only harm the Hindu cause. We have already lost the media and education battles to the 3M axis. Our children are educated in convents and learn in universities full of people like Kancha Ilaiah. The Indian ELM is completely ruled over by the Hindu-hating Marxists.
Of course, as I am seeing to my dismay, we have even bigger issues from the opportunistic Hindutva politicians such as Raj Thackeray who are now destroying Hindu unity and dividing us on regionalism. People, Hindus lost historically because we were not united. For centuries we have been pitted against each other on the basis of caste, creed (sampradaya), region, language and so on. A debate on issues like MFH will be further exploited by the ELM to divide us between “liberal” and “fundamentalist” Hindus. Isn’t it time for us to become smart and stop killing ourselves by our own stupidity?
Shanth:
My tried and trusted rule of internet talk: never disagree with anybody, but just keep pushing the truth across!
Gujjubhai:
I humbly submit, the MFH issue is not separate from psec/marxist/missionary/anti-hindu media issue. It is the very root of all these issues. Continual separation of issues is what has brought Hindu society to such a sorry state. See everything as one big issue, and see what happens. Hindu anger is far, far overdue. Once the ball is set rolling, see what happens. Hindus are not as weak as they think they are.
If we cannot even raise our voices as our goddesses are painted nude by an famous *Indian* painter, what standing do we have to damand action on any other Hindu cause?
Well, brother Ashish, since you’e already decided what the “truth” is, it appears that you will not be swayed by my arguments. Hmmm…absolute certitude in belief - ironically, that’s perhaps the most fundamental Abrahamic principle
. Clearly, this is not a debate then, is it? Well, you can continue “truth by repeated assertion” and choose not to respond to opposing arguments in a logical fashion, but that, my friend, does not make your views “true”. Reminds me of the old story of not being able to put any water in a vessel that’s already full.
Still, I am thankful to you for provoking my thinking and motivating me to write my arguments that I hope at least provided you with a different perspective. I remain open to being persuaded by logical counter-arguments to my view. Otherwise, I think I’ve said all I had to say on this topic. I guess I’ll have to leave it at that and hope that people like us who are united in our purpose but have widely differing perceptions of how to achieve them will not end up fighting against each other rather than the common enemy.
Thank you Sandeep for creating this great forum for us like-minded folks to exchange opinions.
“People, Hindus lost historically because we were not united. For centuries we have been pitted against each other on the basis of caste, creed (sampradaya), region, language and so on.”
This is an strange conclusion. Which society is not divided?Was never divided? Divisions among us has not let us anywhere to the extent of violence that division among others resulted in. The same goes about the so-called betrayal syndrome. Backstabbing, betrayal, disunity, divisions, all are human tendencies. What matters is whether a group can coalesce around an issue when it matters? Textbook unity is artificial. Can’t be done.
Here’s Rajiv Malhotra on MF Hussein -
Just this past week, M.F. Hussein, India’s best-known artist, completely withdrew his movie, “Meenaxi,” with no more than a graceful remark that “some Muslims took exception to one of the songs.” The fierce objection from many powerful Muslim groups was on a relatively mild problem (as compared to the academic scholarship that Ganesha represents a limp phallus), namely, that the name of one song was a phrase that refers to Allah in the Quran, and that its use to honor the heroine was an act of blasphemy. Unlike Courtright, Hussein did not make any attempt to turn this into a campaign to be seen as a “victim.” Nor did Indian writers protest against any of these violations of “intellectual freedom,” because the institutional scripts they follow did not encourage them to do so.
Washington Post and Hinduphobia
Gujjubhai,
Old rule of the internet: the guy you are talking to never gets convinced. People reading your arguments may well be, so write for them.
Its fine if you cannot see the logic in what I say, I have been throught that phase. And just maybe know more about Islamism than you do. Just maybe..
I would ask you to remember what I said. If you cannot see the logic today, see if you do in 5, 10 more years as you know more and more about Islamism.
Read about Islam, the way it is practiced, the motivations throughout history etc. That is the truth I am talking about, not anything else.
Cheers!
@gujjubhai
If you find it offensive that MFH, a muslim, painted nude Hindu icons, then that’s not a very tolerant perspective either. Hindu ethics would require us to appreciate the art regardless who the artist is. And you can call anything else to MFH’s art, but the man knows his aesthetics and his works are certainly not “a pile of shit”.
===but for hindus it is not art ,is it?for mf hussain and psecs it is art .for people like me (that is right wing hindu fascist pigs) it is the gods we pray to….===
Sandeep, I think you are confusing Hussain’s love and appreciation of Hindu art with the requirement that an artist *should* paint within the *boundaries* of Hindu spirituality or tradition.
===so no boundaries for an artist but boundaries for others–that does’nt meet fairness criteria===
Imposing boundaries on an artist will only ensure that all we get is repetitions of the same tradition. If every artist did that, how would the tradition evolve? You need the rebels and freaks to challenge conventional wisdom or artistic tradition.
===y should challenging conventional wisdom stop with the artist .y can’t i say it has bcom conventional wisdom that –conventional wisdom must neccessaily b challenged–i freak out and rebel against this and say let art b circumscibed by genuine hurt ===
You may not like it, but then in a free society you have a right to look away from it.
===i)in a free society e1 cannot b allowed to crap anywhere and others asked 2 look away–again this does’nt seem fair
ii) y should’nt the artist be asked to look away from things that others revere ===
Christians do not like the Cross in a Glass full of Urine type of art either - but the test of a liberal society is to provide a safe environment even for offending dissenters.
===when i beat up an artist with a stick i am also an offending dissenter–u should then argue to provide a safe environment for me also.===
Sanjay, you are confusing the private domain vs. the public domain. You are in your rights to sue me for libel if I abuse your mother for no reason. However, I am well within my rights to criticize *the views* published by your mother if they happen to be in the public domain. Art, religion and culture, by definition, exist in the public domain.
===this is utter rubbish.whether u come and whisper abuses for my mother in my ear or shout it out from a public platform i’m going to beat the hell out of u.for want of a better term ‘good manners’ requires that neither u abuse my mom nor i yours–this can b the only solution.===
Think about it : by your logic, nobody would be able to criticize anybody! It’s absurd.
===criticizm and abuse r different.but here u seem to be right===
If we want to claim higher moral ground than Islamic intolerance, then we cannot set Islamic intolerance as the benchmark to decide what’s permissible in the society, can we?
===no we cannot===
If we follow your logic then we will be forced to stoop down to the barbarity of Islam - why would I want that?
===bcoz poison kills poison,latho key bhooth baato sey nahi mante,bcoz arjun picked up arms even against his own kin–that is dharma etc===
If the superiority of Hinduism over Islam is based on the higher tolerance of Hindus and Hinduism, then you cannot jeopardize the same tolerance by becoming intolerant because then you’re just as intolerant as them!
===again u seem to be right.but there can b a surfeit of tolerance too…tolerance only till the water level reaches your head after that if you continue to show tolerance than be prepared to get submerged–which is what is happening to hindu society(MO).===
If you believe, as I do, that India and Hinduism represent higher ideals and a better way of life than uncivilized Islamic societies, then a necessary price we have to pay is to live those ideals of tolerance. That’s not dhimmitude, that’s a requirement of walking the talk.
===but while u are taking that talk out for a walk and come across a river don’t step into it and drown—-that would not b smart will it?use an alternative path,even if it is the same one used by the uncivilized.===
In the end my position would be
i) artists are not special entities of society–they should be subject to the same requirements as everybody else.
ii) Tolerance may be the hindu way but any idea cannot be carried to an extreme.
iii) i grant you the point you make that perhaps society will not progress without new challenges ..i don’t have the solution for this, except saying that then everyone should be subject 2 the same rules–criticism for and by all or for none.
iv) If we can’t reach the ideals of point iii)then I am allowed to criticize and fight with my mother (u can insert paint nude goddeses here)–you don’t get the same rights(even if your criticism is valid).It is imperative that you understand this.
v) The hindutva movement will get painted with a black brush in our media no matter what they do,it is extremely naive to think otherwise - psecs are basically against hinduism,so l say let the dogs bark just concentrate in keeping your caravan in a running condition–we have a long way to go…….
Regrds
gujjubhai,
disagree with you on a couple of issues. you seem to be concerned about branding hinduism and that non-hindus will convert to hinduism if it’s seen as liberal and peace-loving. but the strange thing is that few people in free and prosperous countries convert to another religion. buddhism has probably the best brand and also the best ambassador in dalai lama. but over the last 50 years less than 1M in the west have converted to buddhism. mass conversions take place only in countries where the people are poor(korea in 60’s) or when the religion does not have state support(hinduism to islam in bangladesh).
so let’s look at india’s situation. there’s a 15% muslim population expected to go to 30% over the next 40 years. there is not a single country in the history of the world where a 25%+ muslim population has not caused civic strife. just look at civil war situations like lebanon as the worst example or the dhimmi status(destruction of temples, etc) of malaysian hindus as the best case example. 70 years ago a hindu could practice his religion freely from borders of pakistan to borders of bangladesh. now, not even in a indian state like kashmir he can live freely. this situation has come to pass because of muslim aggression, but far more importantly because of spineless hindus. picture nehru debating with manekshaw about how brand of india would be hurt in united nations if troops were to be sent to kashmir. thanks to patel, a gujjubhai:) india was saved further humiliations.
in india we have a situation where you have a ruling class opposed to hinduism(notice how the widow of staines was given a padma shri…when do the 59 victims of godhra carnage get their padma shris?) and huge number of poor hindus who can be easily induced. the thing we need is both people like maharishi and vhp doing the honorable job of propagating hinduism; but also we need the hotheaded warriors of bajrang dal, to let the marauding invaders know that there are people who are willing to shed blood for hinduism. thankfully the wise leadership of the sangh parivar has got a tight enough leash on these youths. but to say these guys are not needed or their actions are undermining hinduism is totally wrong and you are inadvertently falling into a psec trap. defending hinduism at this point in time of india’s history requires following the rules of the wrestling akhada and not that of cricket’s gentlemen rules.
totally unrelated point…raj thackeray started a secular party with green color in his party flag and then he makes fun of a hindu festival(chaat puja)…how can you call him a “hindutva” leader?
aparjita:
People like you will never allow Hindus to be assertive or think militarily. Limitless liberalism is a disease, just as limitless intolerance is a disease.
People who are intolerant wihtout any limit manage to destroy others. People are tolerant without any limit manage to destroy their own selves.
Have you ever heard of the wonderful saying: “Nip the evil in the bud?” You are quite ignorant of how the Muslim or Christian mind works in relation to non-beleivers. The work of MF Hussain is nothing but exploratory forays as to how much further can the Muslims go in insulting the faith of non-believers.
You are a novice in this game. Hindus have begun to be mocked everywhere for their ignorance of world matters and history. And this endless talk of Gandhian tolerance and promoting moral values at all costs is beginning to sound tiresome and idiotic.
Aparajita:
Please do not carry the comparison too far I said just to know not to step into a pile of shit, you do not have to have a deep knowlegdge of shit. What you need is common sense. That was my point. I said as much in the original post too.
I am an amateur artist myself, and I know, yeah, aesthetically MFH’s painting has some value, but that aspect is far overshadowed by the offense it gives. I am not comparing his paintings to a pile of shit. I am saying you should have the commonsense to see through any aesthetic value.
———————————————————
In general:
Too many people are clueless about the negative aspects of Islam/Xtianity, aspects which are in full swing today, and are not just ancient, historybook-worthy facts.
People talk of logic, as if it is something that exists in a vaccuum! Trying to finesse things with logic without knowing these facts (which can be seen occurring around the world) is like running in circles and buying better and better sneakers so that you can run faster. All you are doing is running round in circles. Yes, you may be running faster, but you are getting nowhere.
Science would fall apart without the use of experiential knowledge and evidence. Try writing a paper using logic alone; the entire scientific community will laugh at you.
gujjubhai,
in the second part of my response, i want to clarify a few other things to you. the way you respond to your enemy depends on how honorable your enemy is. look at how u.s treats two different enemies…burma where very little american interests are involved and the al qaeda. with burma it has economic sanctions and that’s it. with al queda it has gitmo and renditions(which is basically outsourcing torture). american lives was lost and as a result all their civil rights rules were thrown out and they got as barbaric as the al queda. and that’s the sensible approach to take. gandhi’s agitation worked against the honorable british; but against the psycho hitler, it would have meant mass suicide. please look at the enemies hinduism faces. do you think islamists have got any honor/ethics?
my opinion of mother fu#$ing hussain is that he is a talented islamic artist who is using his art to deliberately provoke hindu sentiments. slapping 3000 cases against him from all corners of india seems to be nice enough response to provoke him back…as for the psec media and it’s role. you are overestimating the role of the tv-wallahs. rise of bjp as 2nd national party was continually opposed by these deracinated fools. mayavati who is building the 3rd national party seems to have learned the lesson. till date, she doesn’t have a media spokesperson and refers to them with the words “phaltu log”. like the indian idols who get huge hype for a month and then they are back to working in their family store, these tv-wallahs are just legends in their own mind. when you are tailoring a response to any political or cultural situation, best thing to do is ignore these morons.
please consider all my points and think about them. you remind me of the columnist sudhir kulkarni. he got kicked out of bjp because he wrote the infamous “secular jinnah” speech. he writes for indian express now. 5 out of 6 paras in his column makes sense(warning about islamic fascism, conversions etc.), but then he ruins the whole damn thing in his final para by going “bjp must do these 10 things to help out muslims”. arrgggh. feel like saying to him and you: close brother close, awful awful close…but just make that final leap to sanity.
Good post CD1. Sudhir kulkarni is a commie agent who infiltrated the BJP and did immense damage to Advani’s image. When BJP caught on, he was kicked out. The ease with which he got to write a column for Indian Express is suspicious as that dyed in the wool commie Shekhar Gupta won’t touch a right-winger with a barge pole.
As for Hindu liberalism and promotion of moral values in the world, you are right. The strategy has to be fine-tuned according to the nature of the beast you are facing. This one-size-fit-all strategy of permanently preaching moral values to people who are sworn to destroy you and your country and culture is hare-brained and coined by idiots. It is much better to be practical and a realist.
Gita directs Hindus to fight to the finish to protect the Dharma from Asuric forces. All our gods are armed to the teeth. Then from where has this desease of “non-violence at all costs” entered the psyche of Hindus? Hindus who promote non-violence and moral values as an answer to all threats facing our civilisation are surely smoking chillum.
Aparajita,
If you find it offensive that MFH, a muslim, painted nude Hindu icons, then that’s not a very tolerant perspective either.
Let’s clear something upfront, his art and attitude would be equally (if not more) offensive if he was a Hindu.
An idiot is an idiot; doesn’t matter if kneels towards Mecca or bathes in Ganges.
@sanjay
===r u really addressing me?i ask bcoz i am wondering what could i have possibly said to warrant this reaction?
You believe that “Limitless liberalism is a disease”–I made the point that tolerance cannot be unlimited.Isn’t it the same thing?Allow me to quote myself:
“again u seem to be right.but there can b a surfeit of tolerance too…tolerance only till the water level reaches your head after that if you continue to show tolerance than be prepared to get submerged–which is what is happening to hindu society(MO)”.
But my frame of reference was “freedom of expression”….i thought it could be a battle won ,without pointedly addressing the hindu-muslim subtext of the debate.
Perhaps i should have made it clear i do not have any firm convictions on it(meaning freedom of expression) ,except for this –all rules should apply equally to all(and i think herein lies all the problem).That is all that i tried to articulate.
When i read u,gujjubai, and ashish somehow all seem to have at least some valid points…..
I’m just one post old on this blog so you don’t know my views on whether hindus should ” be assertive or think militarily”.But your accusations are a novelty for me–generally (being a hindutvadi and what not)i’m the bigot in any group.
You call me a novice but i am not playing any game –l am just like any other hindu who takes pride in her heritage,interested in self-preservation and not willing to passively accept hand-me-down ideas from the psec media of this country .I’m also not prepared to get bullied by fellow hindus if i don’t see any worth in their ideas–you c I happen 2 b a big fan of the truth.And hence sanjay –for the first time I mention Gandhi and say i do not subscibe to his ideals.And Oh yes,the “nip evil in the bud” is a wonderful saying –do we have another one for when the evil bud has blossomed into a flower?Somehow i think hindu society may have more use of the latter. Take care and regards===
@ashish
===Don’t worry my views r my own and no reflection on your original comparison.
you want me to see aesthetics in his art ?I don’t .And u r welcome to call me a philistine . I don’t care .
When i c his “painting” of Sita Ma, i c neither art nor aesthetic value, but vandalisation of all that i hold sacred.I do not know whether that qualifies as “commonsense” but that is my honest reaction,and thats how many hindus will perceive it too..
regards===
@kumar
If you find it offensive that MFH, a muslim, painted nude Hindu icons, then that’s not a very tolerant perspective either.
===kumar i’m not competing for that “most tolerant perspective” slot/trophy===
Let’s clear something upfront, his art and attitude would be equally (if not more) offensive if he was a Hindu.
===hmmm…no…..not for me–who was it that said “he maybe a Son of a bitch but he is our SoB” makes sense to me.===
An idiot is an idiot; doesn’t matter if kneels towards Mecca or bathes in Ganges.
===sometimes u feel a little more tolerant towards ur own idiots===
I am really amazed how some of you otherwise smart guys can be so easily duped into walking into the trap set by Comrade Aparajita.
Fresh off the press from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10651857
Of course, many commentators here may pretend that the Economist doesn’t matter. People who see the Economist as the most prestigious media brand in the world and consider it a magazine that is extremely influential among the ruling elite around the world would beg to differ.
The questions that have always troubled me is this : why are Hindutvawadis not paying any attention to the consistent narrative all across the media - whether Western or Indian - that portrays Hinduism and Hindutva in a negative light? Why is it that they do not see it as a tremendous threat to Hinduism’s and India’s soft power? Why is it that they do not see that soft power matters as much, if not more, in today’s world than hard power? Why is the first instinct always to lash out with acts of physical violence without thinking through the consequences? Why do they not think of exercising soft power to achieve their goals which can be a lot more effective in the achievement of their goals?
In a world where leaked photographs from Abu Gharaib are a more effective in the psychological war than the billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands soldiers fighting in the physical war, media matters more than ever before. Hindutva movement is in the desperate need of a Josef Nye.
Media is a only a dream for Hindus. Anti-Hindus even control the Temples.
This is not only a result of 50+ years of Nehruvian control but also the dismal outcome from the past 800 years of foreign control where the framework of the discourse has been defined by abrahamics. The very premise of dividing everything Indian/Hindu into Sacred versus Secular domains forces Hindus to engage their enemies on the enemy terms. What are you going to do when a christain asks you whether your tikka is a “religious” symbol? If you even answer the question, you will have fallen into a trap. And they never relent. It always continues.
Gujjubhai and the other guy (sorry not enough time to fish out your name),
I have a suggestion for both of you. Can each of you write a piece laying out your arguments? I find your arguments stimulating. I shall publish them as a post with due attribution, etc.
If you’re interested, please send me an email at sanwriterATgmailDOTCOM.
gujjubhai,
>Why is the first instinct always to lash out with acts of >physical violence without thinking through the >consequences?
hinduwadi’s first instinct is to use physical violence? ummm, i think you confusing hinduism with the “religion of piss”. ram was called a drunkard by karunanadhi who vowed to press ahead with ram setu. but the project has been effectively stalled by the vhp without shedding a drop of blood:
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=223&page=2
compare that to the 100+ casualities as a result of the danish cartoons.
soft power is as important as hard power and believe me the hindutvawadis do practice soft power: ravi shankar/mata/mahrishi at the rich/international level, baba ramdev/morari-bapu at middle-class level, vhp(with eklavaya/ghar-vapasi programs) at the poorest level.
media’s power, alteast in india is absolutely over-rated. once and only once…the bofors scandal has it changed the course of political history in india. rest of the time they act like your stray neighborhood dog — 1 out of 1000 times it will alert you to the thief, the other 999 times absolutely random and pointless barking. witness the entir media pitted against modi in gujarat and the bizarrely funny spectacle of interviewing solanki/vaghela on the cm’s post on election-result day. but the public humors the tv-wallahs because seeing rakhi sawant pontificate on animal rights is entertaining enough…but don’t confuse power with cheap publicity:
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=223&page=3
hindutvawadis follow the ancient wisdom layed out by: sAma, dAna, bheda and daNDa. but a bunch of fools starting with gandhi/nehru object to the danda part. how will united nations look at the violence. what will the economist think of hindu’s acting out in self-defense….well kolkata would in bangladesh instead of india if not for one of original the hindutvawadis:
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=223&page=25
and i could give a thousand other examples between 1948 and 2008…but the most recent one of taslima. she has self-censored herself and apologized. but that’s not enough. the “dhimmi” dasmunshi is demanding the she “bow down” and grovel further before she can released from virtual house arrest. on the other hand, sudershan-ji and togadia(who have made the same utterances as taslima) strut around india like the lions that they are, because of…the threat of reactive violence. if the “daNda” of the sangh parivar was not there, by tomorrow all the temples in 25%+ muslim areas in india would be burnt to the ground….but but but the gandhi parivar would protect the hindus…like it protected the pandits(it’s own family caste morever) in kashmir?
Aparajita:
No one called you a philistine! Jee-eeez! Please read posts fully before replying. Thanks.
In general, about using the “Piss Christ” painting as a counterexample to MFH:
Xtians in the US protest against but do not vandalize this painting of jesus showered in pee.
Please realize that xtians in US have a *lot* going for them. They have a voice in both the houses of Congress, they have a big voice in the White House. The Southern Baptists have deep pockets. They have many media outlets for Jesus, many full-blown Church-only channels, and the mainstream cable ckhannel FOX which is very much pro-xtian. When anyone talks of “religion” in the US, xtianity is the only thing they mean. They will talk about sub-divisions within xtianity, like Lutheran, Methodist, Unitarian, Catholic, Protestant, etc., as if there was nothing else in the world.
They can afford to let the odd painting slide. Its no big deal at all for them.
Hindus in India do not have a thousandth part of the rights that xtians have arrogated for themselves in the us. When we do, lets talk of “tolerating” MFH. But until then, any comparison is apples-to-oranges.,,
“In general, about using the “Piss Christ” painting as a counterexample to MFH:”
That is a bad example. What about the rioting and ransaking of a theater by Christians in Hyderabad when it was showing Da Vinci Code? What about Christian threats to any Hindu in Nagaland who dares to light crackers on Diwali?
“Protestors belonging to Christian organisations staged a noisy demonstration in front of Prasad’s IMAX theatre in Hyderabad and broke the booking counter’s glass panes, forcing the management to stop screening the controversial film The Da Vinci Code on Friday afternoon.
A group of 50 volunteers of All India Christian United Front gathered in front of the theatre, holding placards and raising slogans. Theatre management cancelled the show that was to begin at 3.15 pm.”
http://us.rediff.com/movies/2006/jun/23davinci.htm
“A people who believe in nothing will always lose to an enemy that believes in something.”
Do Hindus believe in something? If they do, then it is worth defending. Both Christians and Muslims defend their beliefts aggressively, and that is why have captured so much territory in the world over the years.
Sandeep,
Thank you : I am glad that you find my arguments stimulating. I have very modest ability to write anything more than a couple of paragraphs, so I must respectfully decline to write the piece. However, my thinking on this topic is by and large captured in the comments I made and you should feel free to use any or all of them in your own piece. Attribution etc is an immaterial triviality, just getting my thoughts published in your blog and the ideas debated by a larger audience is reward enough for me.
For me, the best thing in this interview is where MFH mentions his dismay at our art students not studying Coomaraswamy. That struck a note as it’s the exact concern I’ve had for a long time. And the reason why he expresses he has the concern is the same as mine. It all relates to how I see the Indian education system as an instrument of mental colonization producing self-hating, aspiring-to-be-white, neo-slaves who always denigrate our heritage while looking up to even the trashiest pieces of Western Culture. For example, I am deeply troubled to see Rakhi Sawant do a Michael Jackson:
http://www.humsurfer.com/view/rakhi-sawant-a-k-a-michael-jackson
This is not because I find it vulgar or anything. It is troubling because it’s been about 20 years since MJ has been thrown away from any public respect for being a pedophile! I am shocked to see the *popularity* of such aping of a third-rate, has-been pop-singer. Also read Prakash Karat’s interview on Rajiv Srinivasan’s website where he talks about being religious until he was 14-15 but then it seems he was clearly influenced by the priests at his convent school and turned a Marxist in Scotland.
There are deep fundamental reasons and power plays that explain why India is full of p-sec self-hating lefties. It’s been my quest to understand how this works through analysis of money, education, media etc as well as the psychoanalysis of the self-hating Indians I run into every day in my life. I urge you to undertake this experiment and understand what the root cause of such mental-moulding is. The results will shock you with their uniformity. The greatest threat against Hinduism is not taking on this power play that creates enemies out of Hindus themselves. It’s as if the enemy is Agent Smith in Matrix - whoever is touched by one agent becomes an agent himself and goes over to the other side. Hindus must look beyond the individual agents and fight against the agent-producing mechanism. That is one hell of a tough fight and one that we are currently losing pretty badly.
Thanks again for creating this wonderful blog.
Gujjubhai, Any chances that global warming could have influenced MFH to draw those controversial images? Billion Hindus lighting lamps at idols (at least) since the time those maurading Aryans rode down the Khyber pass in their horse chariots
- that’s a lot of heat man.
“since the time those maurading Aryans rode down the Khyber pass in their horse chariots”
Only people who smoke pot today believe in the Aryan invasion theory. Which brand do you prefer?
As far as global warming is concerned, the way you are gassing from your bottom, you seem to be a bigger threat to the world’s environment than the Hindu lamps.
Hey Guys,
I am happy at the fact that we all agree that there is a lot of work to do. Hinduism has be a revelation to me in the recent years. I am finding many things fascinating. For a person who was on the margins of pan-theism and renouncement of religions to acceptance of Hinduism I think I have undertook a long journey. The simple truths that are enshrined in this wonderful lifestyle that evolved over a thousands of years advocating some of the best practices to lead a fruitful life on Earth is worth propagating and fighting for. Sajay I am fully with you when you said we should believe in something to fight for.
Tomorrow’s wars will fought with information and we have to gear ourselves for it.
Again we ought to thank Sandeep for bringing us together.
Sanjay:
You misunderstood. Some people have used US xtians “tolerating” Piss Christ as an example of Xtian Tolerance. I was saying that US xtians grudgingly left Piss Christ alone because they already have a huge a lot going for them. As you have pointed out, Xtians will not be so forgiving when they are threatened in other places. In the US they own so much of the country, that these little threats don’t bother them, they know their empire will not even be be scratched.
Hindus, on the other hand, are constantly under attack, and can not afford to take things lying down..
Sanjay, You seem to be new around here, but I could gassing.
My apologies for not putting the sarcasm quotes around the post. But even if I did, you wouldn’t have noticed the difference - happens due to poor reading skills or consumption of the different gases from different bottoms.
And please don’t gas up on this post please.
Aparajita:
===sometimes u feel a little more tolerant towards ur own idiots===
I hope your ‘u’ doesn’t refer to me since my scron/contempt for the artist/paintings would not be any different irrespective of his religious affiliations.
==hmmm…no…..not for me–who was it that said “he maybe a Son of a bitch but he is our SoB” makes sense to me.===
I understand; without that line of reasoning, rest of the argument crumbles. But for some SOB is a SOB, ain’t matter if the SOB is ‘ours’ our ‘theirs’.
Take a poll here and see as to how many around here would have approved/admired MH’s work if MH stood for say Mahendra Haldipur or Michael Hart?
@ashish
Aparajita:
No one called you a philistine! Jee-eeez! Please read posts fully before replying. Thanks
===I want to acquaint u with this word — it begins with I ends with Y and the middle three letters, in the same order are R,O and N–but i think somehow u won’t get it.regards.===
@Ot
I am really amazed how some of you otherwise smart guys can be so easily duped into walking into the trap set by Comrade Aparajita.
===i presume that ur a fellow hindutvadi or alternatively like me a fascist pig–so i am only going to shake my head in disbelief and then take my this talk :
“sometimes u feel a little more tolerant towards ur own idiots”
out for a walk.regards===
@kumar
sometimes u feel a little more tolerant towards ur own idiots
I hope your ‘u’ doesn’t refer to me since my scron/contempt for the artist/paintings would not be any different irrespective of his religious affiliations.
===let me correct myself “sometimes one(in case of further doubt i don’t mean by it a universal one) feels a little more tolerant 2wards ones own idiots(as currently i feel for OT who is calling me a comrade)===
hmmm…no…..not for me–who was it that said “he maybe a Son of a bitch but he is our SoB” makes sense to me.
I understand; without that line of reasoning, rest of the argument crumbles. But for some SOB is a SOB, ain’t matter if the SOB is ‘ours’ our ‘theirs’.
===neither of us is giving reasons/evidence y it should be so–so you r as much entitled to your opinion as i am to mine===
Take a poll here and see as to how many around here would have approved/admired MH’s work if MH stood for say Mahendra Haldipur or Michael Hart?
===it seems u already know what the majority opnion will b .i don’t mind even if i am in the minority of one,i’m not specially seeking to join the bandwagon.for me logic/reason/morals (someone was discounting all these above)all matter to arrive at some conclusion.my thoughts on freedom of expression are slowly crystalising but about that in the next post.and once again it is perfectly ok by me if you think otherwise.regards===
I know Sandeeps post was a specific reference to MF Hussain but underlying that is the question whether there should be unl