Dear High Court (or Supreme Court, etc who cares) Judges,
1. Anyone can prove any stupid drawing to be a work of art. I can regurgitate the standard lines from liberal authors to justify a nude painting of any Non-Hindu religious figure. Will it be accepted as a work of art? In secular India?
2. Nude paintings are pornography. If you consider pornography as an art, well it is art. But it still is pornography. Why not lift the ban on pornography? Canvas is just another medium, isnt it?
1. Anyone can prove any stupid drawing to be a work of art. I can regurgitate the standard lines from liberal authors to justify a nude painting of any Non-Hindu religious figure. Will it be accepted as a work of art? In secular India?
2. Nude paintings are pornography. If you consider pornography as an art, well it is art. But it still is pornography. Why not lift the ban on pornography? Canvas is just another medium, isnt it?
16 comments:
DarkStorm
Accusing the judiciary of bias is going to be futile. One way out of this situation is to get even. Basically, do unto others what other have been doing to us.
Call it reciprocity, or freedom of speech. But accusing the law or judiciary of bias does hurt because it does not win any convert to the cause of hindus. It actually drives away people who believe in rule of law and equal rights.
Looking at art in terms of nudes or covered means a lack of art appreciation in my opinion. Art, rightly, should not be considered with such questions. If people of many religions in India are likely to rise up in violent protests if someone would dare to make a nude painting of their gods or prophets, is a problem for that group of persons, they are still living in middle ages. Why do Hindus need to turn back to middle ages, just because of others? I mean have a look at Konark, all gods and godesses are nude there. Unless your grouse is with a non-Hindu daring to do it?
I have quite a few things to say, but have to restrain myself because the Supreme Court has given this decision. However, I can recall your attention to the following: Exhibition on Aurangzeeb creates protest among muslim bodies
It was Francis Gautier who tried to hold the exhibition, named “Aurangzeb as potrayed by his courtiers & Historians”
If I remember correctly, Chennai police denied peremission to hold the exhibition, and closed it down by force on the first day itself.
In my comment under an earlier blog, I asked, rhetorically, "Who is ruling our country? Aurangazeeb?"
I can regurgitate the standard lines from liberal authors to justify a nude painting of any Non-Hindu religious figure.
Bad question. Did you create a nude painting of Mohammed or Jesus? If not, you are just speculating.
This is especially in response to Sunil Dkeepak
I have not been to Konark, but I have read a lot about the temple there. It is said to be a temple for Surya Bhagavan, and is shaped like the "chariot" of Surya. "There are also human, divine and semi-divine figures in sensuous poses. The poses contains couples in various amorous poses, and are derived from the Kama Sutra". The words "divine" and "semi-divine" do not suggest they are depictions of gods, goddesses, or deities. A Yaksha for example, can also considered to be a "divine" being, but he is not offered worship. There is no suggestion at all that Surya Bhagavan himself is shown in the nude or in an amorous pose. Somebody correct me, if I am wrong.. My guess is that these amorous sculptures were meant for sex-education or sex-stimulation. They were, I repeat, NOT meant to be depictions of gods and goddesses.
It is also argued by many (including, perhaps, the CJI and brother judges of the SC) that nude sculpted figures are seen in temples also. As far as I know, such scupltures are on the outside walls of the temples, and they can never be found in the actual place of worship, or the sanctum sanctorum. The erotic figures were probably meant as decoys for persons (e.g. mleccha) who did not have the sincere intention of offering worship, thereby making them stop before they could enter the actual place of worship. In any case, these sculptures were not meant as exhibits as "works of art".
As an aside, I might add that In Kodungallur in Keralam (our CJI's home state), there is a Bhagavati temple, the presiding deity being a form of KAli. Devotees who go on a sort of pilgrimage on foot to worship there, sing bawdy songs all the way, but they don't sing the songs inside the temple.
Look at the double standards.
The simple *cartoons* triggered such disproportionate riots , protests , with a Jagannathan getting asphyxiated , bludgeoned and killed; calls for the head of the Editor.
Which court or judge spoke for Jagannathan?
Let us get over this illusion that supreme court of india is one big sacred institution peopled by saintly lawyers & judges.Ethical bankruptcy has crept in practically most of them.As in corporate circles etc.That court (or countrymen) which debates about the very existence of our Maker Sri Ram commands no regard or awe at least from people like me.
Its so stupid of our courts.
I hope some sense prevails in these stupid corrupt judges.
Otherwise, we will create 'art' works of their mothers and daughters.
Unless that happens these rascals wont realise.
To most people who blindly say that we have nude statues in temples, these fellows who never visited temples whould be told that people dont pray to those statues and these are not inside the sanctum sanctorum.
These statues/carvings are on the outside. The symbolise that we leave all such feelings outside and be pure from inside when in the sanctorum.
Once , due to an oversight , an engineer was sent to Hell instead of being admitted in Heaven.
Soon , YamaDharmaRaja was asked to send the engineer back with a warning , He would be prosecuted if He did not oblige.
Lord Yama guffawed and replied:
" Where and how will you get hold of a lawyer? As they are destined to stay & suffer eternally in Hell".
Paintings and sculptures are NOT pornography simply by featuring the nude human form. Cases in point: Botticelli's Birth of Venus and Cellini's Perseus. Smearing all nude art with the pornography brush is unfair and in fact rather prudish. Pointing out double standards vis-a-vis the reaction to depictions of non-Hindu religious figures is, however, making a good point (insofar as the issue is merely one of double standards).
According to the PTI report as I saw it in rediff.com, (8 September) the SC bench that heard the case said: “There are many such pictures, paintings and sculptures and some of them are in temples also.”
This is very curious, because it appears that the Bench took it upon itself to produce this argument for the respondents. If the respondents themselves had to do it, they would have had to file a sworn affidavit with documents supporting the alleged "fact" that such paintings and sculptures are inside temples. In that case, the petitioner would have had the opportunity to refute the arguments and alleged "facts". The petitioner was denied that opportunity. Actually, in the absence of an affidavit, the "facts" are not even on record of the Court.
sohan ,
The issue of double standards does not start or stop there.
Many tamil movies have come up with scurrilous stuff and blasphemous songs denigrating *only* Hindu Dharmam.
Think about it.If thorium or uranium deposits are found beneath the vatican , some top kaangresswala's private property , tr baalu & dmk people's residences, some big mosque in Delhi or beneath the supreme court itself would there have been such moves towards their pulverization as is being undertaken towards Raamar Paalam ?
This MF's paintings are not merely nude depiction. They are sexually explicit depictions in unnatural poses, that too of figures considered sacred by Hindus. This is certainly pornography and not mere pornography, say depicting MF Hussain's mother. This pornography is deliberately sacrilegous, hence constitutes the worst possible crime. It should be severely punished. Anyone who supports or minimizes the crime should also be punished as an accomplice
I think the most sensible comment has come from karyakarta52. Fact is that Hussain's depiction of Hindu Goddesses is extremely obscene and is in fact derogatory of all women. This old fogey Hussain has been hyped and promoted by the entire pretentious secular arty network. Sorry but the Court worthies do not appear to have applied their collective minds properly on this issue.
>>>>Basically, do unto others what other have been doing to us.
sansk,
Will the Indian courts uphold my right to paint non-Hindu religious figures nude?
>>>> I mean have a look at Konark, all gods and godesses are nude there.
sunil deepak,
are you sure they are Gods ??? No , nyet, nahi, nako,..
Same goes with the oft repeated pseudo-secular brigade favourite - Khajuraho. Nowhere are Saraswati and Durga painted or sculpted nude. It is not difficult to realize that it is all so fake. The same pseudo-secular brigade supported calls for execution of the Danish cartoonist.
>>>>Paintings and sculptures are NOT pornography simply by featuring the nude human form.
Sohan,
its the "intent". As murali pointed out, mf hussein blew his top when he was asked to paint mohamed.
DarkStorm
I think they must.
Just see how it cuts both ways. A communist speaker has expelled several MPs (mostly of BJP) from LokSabha based on charges of bribery.
The whole thing is in SC and speaker is refusing to even accept the judicial authority in this case.
Now, Punjab assembly has expelled a CONman ex CM called Amraindar Singh on the charges of graft.
By the same standard, speaker of Punjab Assembly is beyond the judicial review.
Just see how the Cons are crying murder at this issue.
A few more cases like them, and the SC will come to its senses.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Will the Indian courts uphold my right to paint non-Hindu religious figures nude? "
Motto for Hindu Survivalists :
"Do unto others what others are doing to you."
Post a Comment