M.F. Hussain accepts Qatar citizenship

[ganeshran]

Simply don't agree. You can keep pretending that it is important as long as you want. This is the exact opposite of the situation that I am looking for you to answer.

No its not. you can keep pretending that it is different as long as you want. It is the same analogy as I have explained but you simply refuse/dont want to see the similarity because it puts you in an uncomfortable position.

Dont be amazed at anything without knowing what it is that is being discussed and the context and the whole 9 yards. Answer the damn question if you want this to continue and ofcourse if you are in the business of keeping up your words.

The context was explained in the PMs and my post before in this thread. How the verses in the Bible contain similar sanctions for violence and cruelty and how Christians also carried out equally bad things in the name of religion. Is their ideology evil too?

Do you even understand what is being debated here ? But congratulations on completely relocating the goalpost.

You are the one who relocates the goalpost everytime. You bring in the prophet, the Quran in every thing remotely related to Islam - like the Kashmir thread and this Hussain thread. You argue that we need to get in the nitty gritties of the thing. That is why I am doing the same thing.

[ganeshran]

In the example that I am asking you to respond you and me agree that mothers are to respected. In the example that you are asking me to respond me and the Jihadi dont agree on anything. Hence the analogy is not similar at all. But even then I explained EVERYTHING that you wanted me to answer.

This was my reply to your question on acknowledgment. I clearly stated that I also acknowledge that some people hold their religion and symbols in higher esteem than their family.

Yes I do. I also acknoweldge that some people hold their religion, their holy books and their prophets in higher esteem than their own family. Hope to get a straight answer without you launching yet another tirade on the holiness of Islam or its Prophet.

In yours and Jihadi's case there is no agreement required. The Bharatmata as a symbolic mother is what makes you to think that there is a common ground - but when we abstract the concept and see the BharatMata as a symbol and my mother as a relation - the analogy is simply the use of a personal relationship to drive home ones respect for a symbol to other party. Since the other party doesnt recognize the importance of the symbol, the first party uses the second party's personal relationship to explain the importance of the symbol to him. Here your disagreement with the Jihadi on the Quran is what leads him to use your wife as an example of the Quran's importance to him. The disagreement on the level of sacredness is what drives that whole argument, not the common ground. When the Jihadi says "I know you dont respect my religion, but you respect your wife. To me, my religion is bigger than my wife. So if you object if I insult your wife, I also object when you insult my religion", he is implicitly acknowledging that you hold no sanctity for his religion and hence he needs to explain its sanctity to him by using your wife as an example.

Go take a look at the posts I made responding to Outsider. They were all in line with the theme of repeat offenses by MFH that was being discussed. You were the one that brought in Tasleema and Rushdie and Jihadis and Mary and Jesus what not.

You can see my responses to others when I was discussing the freedom of expression alone. You can also see who questioned the holiness of the ideology and brought it into the debate. Rushdie and Nasreen's cases are very pertinent to Hussain's persecution. They are also hounded in the name of religion and persecuted because they chose to criticise Islam.

[ganeshran]

Arrey yaar that is YOUR OWN assessment. Without knowing where I'am going when I asked the question in Post#543 how do you know what is required or not ? Are you clairvoyant ?

The only way that Jihadi argument fails is if you dont respect your wife, which invalidates his comparison of his holy book with a personal relationship because your respect to a personal relationship isnt high enough for you to object when he insults your wife. So you retain the right to still insult his holy book and his rationalization for violent objection fails. The background for the argument is implicit acceptance of respect to personal relationships like wife and mother. And the arguments fails only if this implicit acceptance is explicitly rejected, which would in turn mean that you will have no objection to someone insulting your wife, which I dont think you would agree to.

He can use anything he wants to try and fly under the radar to gain my respect but my respects are accorded based only on facts and facts alone. So if we were to take this dispute to any honest un-biased judge he will rule in favor of me in a heart beat because of all those verses that I sent to you ( which BTW you agreed to ) But his religion wont pass even rudimentary scrutiny of modern standards of civilization. Why should I simply pretend that it is holy ? I'am not going to . Especially when I know that it is categorically against my religion and my mode of worship. In how many more ways do I need to explain this ?

Bossbhai, the point I am making is that the Jihadi isnt trying to gain your respect for his religion. His use of the religious symbol-personal relation argument itself is a result of his acceptance that you dont care about his religion. If there was agreement on the holiness of the Quran, there would not have been any need to bring in the personal relation and you both would have been arguing about the Quran. Instead, The hypotheical Jihadi here is trying to rationalize his violent objection to someone/you insulting his religion. He is trying to rationalize the murder he undertakes in the name of religion by explaining to you in terms you can relate to - the personal relation i.e. your wife.

If you are going to bring in a case from islam I'am going to naturally respond using realities of Islam. If you want to go back to the original theme of the discussion on why Hussain got dealt with then you need to acknowledge that he is a repeat offender(Which Outsider was disputing ). which is what I was asking you to do if you check those posts on Page#26/27. Instead you bought in Mary and Jesus and tried to pretend that nothing really hurts your conscience which is why I bought in your Mother and then you got stuck properly.

The mary and Jesus portrait was brought in by me to highlight the tolerance level of Christians where a famous painter was able to portray Mary exposing her breast and baby Jesus naked even in 1492 where religious intolerance was pretty high. Further the second point was of the Da vinci code - where no Christian in the western world objected violently when his core beliefs were challenged - and only three countries banned the movie - India, Pakistan and Iran. My point was we need to be secure enough about our religion not to take offence when someone criticises it. Your need to portray Hussain as the repeat offender revolves around framing his painting Bharatmata as a second offense which I already have argued is not an offence - Hussain has as much right over the symbol as you and me. Also the Supreme court (which you used in your Quran publication argument) also stated that the painting is only a work of art and not an offence You brought in my mother only to rationalize everyone's violent objection to the painting and I showed you that the argument goes both ways and hence I brought in your wife to show that your objection to the violent aspect of Islam can also be rationalized just like that. I didnt get stuck on the point, I just offered you another perspective on it which you dont feel comfortable discussing since it involves a close relation of yours.

[ganeshran]

This has got nothing to do with what I asked you in post#590. I repeat again : Are you clairvoyant ?

No I am not. But you seem to be unable to grasp even facts that are directly communicated to you

So just because he is bringing in my family I need to tow his line ? Sorry but this is not happening. And as I have said repeatedly that the situation that Iam presenting to you is quite different wherein we have a unanimous common ground. Are you trying to say that since the guy is blackmailing me that he will insult my wife without knowing the reasons why I don't recognize his religion I should simply bend-over and fall in line like you usually do ? Ain't happening. And yes he would be wrong to embark on such a thing and this would be what any neutral judge who is fair and can see the reasons for my dislike of Quran wil tell you. But the situation is different in the example that i provided. So there yet another attempt to answer your rhetorical question. Now if you have any sense of honesty you will answer my question. Again that is what YOU think. The moment you respond to post#543 you will realize what you have and what you havent.

Again I said, the Jihadi is NOT looking for you to tow his line or yield to blackmail and respect the Quran. I have tried to explain your whole argument in the simple and complex terms but you simply refuse to see the point because it puts you in an uncomfortable position. I will try again. The Jihadi doesnt want you to recognize the sanctity of the Quran. He has no use of you attributing holiness to his book. His aim is to simply rationalize his violent acts because someone insulted something which he values higher than his family. His usage of a personal relationship is only to reflect the hurt he felt on his holy book being insulted which would justify his violent objection to the act. I will answer Post #543 as soon as you answer post #544 in a simple agree/disagree statement. Your answers are simply beating around the bush and you are doing exactly the same thing what you are accusing me of

You have showed absolutely nothing here other than finding ways to try and avoid the trap that you very well know you will fall into head first if you answer the question. Hence the desperate attempts to drive the discussion elsewhere.

Its the exact same trap that you dont want to fall into. You know the moment you acknowlege that the Personal relation-Religious symbol argument's perspective in post #544, it can be retrospectively applied to each and every point that you made on ICF about the violence in Islam and its intolerance.

[urbestfriend]

Looks like this debate is going nowhere with both parties stuck on their position :hmmm: I think it is futile of BB to equate private people with public people or symbols , it is nothing but a provocative technique. BB has also failed to prove MF painting Bharat mata in nude is an offence but repeatedly calling MF as serial offender. To give an example, I might paint a cartoon of Satya sai Baba or nirtyananda which shows them in negative lights ( they are in public domain) , even though I am aware this may hurt his devotees( for that matter his devotees might hold him in higher than their parents) , but I am fully justified in painting the cartoon because I dont recognize the godliness of Sai Baba or Nirtyananda. Similarly I dont see it as offence of MF to paint a nude Bharat mata which is just a symbol to him even though he recognizes there are people who worship the symbol. Unless you can conclusively establish his motive was just to hurt these people and not a work of art, you have no business to call him an offender.Supreme court has clearly established this as a work of art and not an offence so your basic premise of him being a serial offender doesn't hold. Sorry for my poor writing skill...

[ganeshran]

And here is the N+2nd attempt : Your question: My answer : No it doesn't. (And the reasons have been provided in literally countless variations ) Now I dare you to answer my question without firing a rhetorical question in response as a answer.

just like a muslim cannot question your wife's character inspite you insulting his religious symbols, similarly Hussain 's disrobing of the Bharatmata doesn't rationalize disrobing my mother. if you discuss this further, you should also accept my discussion on your above answer.

[The Outsider]

correct and the point is that despite all that happening he went on to paint her in Nude - which is why he is a serial offender unlike your original claim that he apologized once and never did anything wrong thereafter.

So, were VHP and Bajrang Dal at fault after the matter had been laid to rest with Hussain's apology in the 80s to rake up the issue in the 90s? Even his supposed 'offense' of 2005 which I will come to later in the post came after needless attacks from VHP and Bajrang Dal. Do you agree that this is a factually correct statement?

There are Bharat Mata Temples all over the country and you are not allowed to nudify her. There is no precedent. The Muslims never even officially recognized Bharat Mata. Even in this day and age fatwas get issued forbidding them to even sing songs eulogizing Mother Nation - case in point vande mataram - the spirit behind Bharat Mata.

Irrelevant. As an Indian citizen, Hussain has or had as much right to depict Bharat Mata as any other citizen in his art.

There is no sexual connotation in the Nude Saraswati photo either for which he had aplogized earlier.

Saraswati was a strictly Hindu symbol - Bharat Mata is a pan Indian symbol. Hussain apologized earlier for 'hurting Hindu sentiments'. That does not preclude him from carrying on his art in other spheres like Bharat Mata or picking up Quranic verses and using them 'inappropriately' in a song.

Yep what else is new in the land of spineless pseudo secularism?. The double standards are not surprising. Its anyone's guess what they will say about a Muhammad painting. As I have said repeatedly such blatant episodes of hypocrysy is the reason why Hindu Right Wing organizations exist in the first place and do whatever it takes to protect their interests. Forget the SC judges for a moment just look at your own example. Here you are arguing endlessly championing the cause of MFH but you have left no stone unturned to crack down on anyone speaking against Islam on ICF. Do you not see the irony ?

Firstly, in an ideal world courts should not decide as to what is art and what is not. But, given state of our country and the alacrity with which religious groups hijack issues, perhaps it's inevitable at this point in time. But coming to the broader point, there were some like yoda who were arguing in the thread about letting the law run it's course and the courts decide. The answer was in response to those points that the courts did decide in the case of Bharat Mata and ruled in favor of Hussain. If you don't believe in the judicial system, then feel free to ignore this point. I think I've said pretty much made most of the pertinent points on the topic and unless you come up with novel arguments I probably won't reply in the interests of my time.

[ganeshran]

Well if you accorded the same respect to my mother(after being categorically told) as I did to yours I wouldn't disrobe her . Your problem entirely. Now don't bring in Quran/Islam and all that in here . It has nothing to do with this case unless you are a closet Jihadi flying under the radar using a "Hindu" name. Nor do I want to see any rhetorical questions in response.

if you accord the same respect to the muslim's symbol he would not raise doubts on your wife's character and insult her. I already said that the argument can be applied to your case too. I already explained in countless posts why the argument is same. if you want to discuss it again, I am ready to do it too

[ganeshran]

I'am all ears as to why I should accord any respect to the supposed "Symbols" that don-ou are a muslim now. You merely proclaiming that you can use it means nothing. I can similarly state that you cant apply that argument in this case. Argue based on logic and facts not rhetoric.

my religion has nothing to do with my point. the fourth entity in my statement is not me, its any unnamed muslim. your recognition of his religion doesn't have anything to do with the argument. by your own logic the muslim expects you to accord the same respect to his symbol that he does to your wife. when you insult his holy book, he retains the right to insult your wife. If you dont insult his symbol, he wouldnt either

[Javier]

You may not know this but even as of Today she is officially not-recognized by the Islamic community. There exist Fatwas to that effect. So no she is not a truly pan Indian symbol in reality. Those who go to the Bharatmata Temple will be mainly Hindus , Sikhs , Jains , Buddhists only.

Fixed

[ganeshran]

Then why are you bringing a third party into the debate ? My dispute with the muslim is a totally different case. You argue your case based on facts surrounding your case.

This is not a private matter between me and you. It involves a national symbol and the logic you brought in when retrospectively applied, is of interest to muslims too. Its not a totally different case - I am just putting the argument into perspective of views that you yourself subscribe too. Unless you disown your previous views, the muslim is an important entity here.

Yes it has everything to do with that. That separate case with the Muslim exists because I don't recognize his holy book as the book itself doesnt recognize me. In your case you dont have such a conflict as you recognize my right to worship Bharatmata and that in doing so it does not infringe on any of your rights. And disrobing mothers is not a right. Before you get into a different tangent once again. If you think it is Right then you should be fine with me likewise extending the same courtesy to your mother.

Its ironical that you consider recognition of each others symbols as being a prerequisite to the argument being applied. It is not. In fact the whole argument is to drive home the importance of a symbol using an familiar relationship whose sanctity is almost universally acknowledged. As I said the whole argument hinges on implicit acceptance of your respect for your wife. Only an explicit rejection from you of respect for your wife will make the argument fail. In my case the recognition of Bharatmata is a coincidence. In fact you brought in my mother to drive home how important the Bharatmata is to you. Retrospectively applied - the Muslim seeks to insult your wife solely to highlight that the his-Quran relationship is as important to him as your relationship with your wife. Your rejection of his ideology only strengthens the need for him to bring your wife in the discussion picture. When you use the phrase - "Disrobing mothers isnt a right" - there is a logical fallacy involved. You are saying it as if both parties have personal relationships in the argument. they dont. Your respect for the Bharatmata makes you accord the symbol the same respect as a real mother. But that doesnt change the reality that the Bharatmata is a nationalistic symbol - Just like the Quran is a religious symbol which a muslim accords same respect as his own family. An analogous phrase would be "Insulting families isnt a right" or "insulting wives isnt a right".

Lets cut to the chase here : Are you trying to tell me that if I don't want to see my wife insulted I better start respecting the Quran regardless of what the facts (as acknowledged by you ) might say in regards to the contents of Quran ? Is this what you are trying to get at ?

I am not telling you anything. I am just using a personal relationship to highlight the importance of a religious symbol. Its the exact same concept which you applied. I just changed the parties - the underlying logic remains the same

[The Outsider]

BB, since my opinion is irrelevant on the matter and you consider the Supreme Court's opinion to be worthless as well, the only worthy opinions seem to be of people who toe your line of thinking. Anyways, your post is full of red herrings and personal attacks so I won't bother replying.

[ganeshran]

Nor does it change the fact that there is simply no precedent in our conservative society to see Mothers in the nude let alone Mothers that are considered as national symbols. If you think otherwise I would like to see a nude picture of Bharatmata that was done by someone other than MFH.

There is a clear precedent in art for the unclothed human form - even those with divine connections. Michelangelo painted many on the walls of the Sistine chapell, Leonardo da vinci painted baby jesus nude. We need to understand that the Bharatmata belongs to Hussain as much as anyone else - and his depiction was a work of art - probably his most vocal form of expression What would Hussain gain for insulting the Bharatmata - do you think he had some hidden agenda to insult Indians or Hindus? If so why? what did he gain from it in the end except being exiled for the last years of his life

Well you may want to start telling me CLEARLY without beating around the bush as to what the heck you are trying to argue. What would you want me to acknowledge and understand as per the definitions of what constitutes "secularism" according to you ... in the case of Muslim vs Me in order that the dispute be settled ?

There is no dispute to be settled here. I am simply saying (for a long term now) that the use of personal relationships to reinforce a sanctity of a nationalist / religious symbol isnt a correct argument and can be heavily misused to justify violence done in the name of religion. If it is to be applied in this thread, I was arguing for it to be retrospectively applied in every viewpoint that has been discussed on ICF with regards to religion.

[ganeshran]

What next the Mormons believe in all sorts of unmentionable things shall we start to accommodate as per their norms ? Or Christians and Muslims eating beef . I don't give a rats behind what they want to do with Jesus and Mary. My sensitivities are quite different. Otherwise we would all be practicing one single religion.

You reserve the right to come to a decision on the holiness of a symbol using an independent thought process without caring for anyone else's sensitivity in the matter. Hussain also has the same right- maybe using his independent thought process he came to a decision that rendering the Bharatmata in this way was right to him. The key part is that the Bharatmata belongs to Hussain too and not only you.

What is even more important is the need for everybody to understand that there are certain norms of decency that cannot be breached. If you want to go about championing the cause of un-fettered free speech lets start from your mother and see how that pans out.

Unless you are looking for a provocative argument, even the most basic application of logic would exclude personal relationships out of free speech. Something which is not in the public domain cannot be subjected to free speech. Going by your argument, anyone is entitled to raise doubts on your wife's character because he used an independent thought process to determine it and now wants to spread awareness to the world about it. Your objections here shouldnt matter because he is entitled to question it too.

If there is no dispute to be settled why are you using it as an example to settle a dispute between me and you ?

This is not about this dispute alone. I just want to make sure that you subscribe to the school of thought that rationalizes violence by substituting personal relationships for religious/nationalist symbols. If you do, then we must both retrospectively and preemptively apply it to all your arguments on Islam's violent ideology. Because logic cannot be changed on per-thread basis, we should make sure its consistent to all threads regarding religion.

[dial_100]

जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी जब हमने सारे देवताओ को ही बाट लिया है तो अब कौन निर्णय करे के कौनसे देवता श्रेष्ठ है! मानव बुद्धि भैय्या!!! MFH is a nowhere near the real art. There is no question of him painting mother india in the way he did. Just because we all have equal rights on our mother doesn't mean we cross maryadas. In the past few stupid people have done similar things and that was outright filth and so is this issue. All should be equally condemned God knows when will we learn to get some divine feelings towards all the great souls. Just because bharatmata was depicted in a wrong way we cannot imagin such a thing on other divine figures. Such filthy statements were made on this forum in the past on almost all the divine incarnations Lord Jesus, or shri Krishna, Shri Shiva, prof. Mohammed, Fatima and the list goes on. None of us want to recognize anything other than our own shallow beliefs.

[ganeshran]

जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी जब हमने सारे देवताओ को ही बाट लिया है तो अब कौन निर्णय करे के कौनसे देवता श्रेष्ठ है! मानव बुद्धि भैय्या!!! MFH is a nowhere near the real art. There is no question of him painting mother india in the way he did. Just because we all have equal rights on our mother doesn't mean we cross maryadas. In the past few stupid people have done similar things and that was outright filth and so is this issue. All should be equally condemned God knows when will we learn to get some divine feelings towards all the great souls. Just because bharatmata was depicted in a wrong way we cannot imagin such a thing on other divine figures. Such filthy statements were made on this forum in the past on almost all the divine incarnations Lord Jesus, or shri Krishna, Shri Shiva, prof. Mohammed, Fatima and the list goes on. None of us want to recognize anything other than our own shallow beliefs.

Your point is "Some religious things are sacred and statements must not be made against them". Fair enough. The issue with this stand is - "Who decides what all religious symbols are sacred and hence not to be discussed"? What is not sacred to you, might be sacred to someone else and hence he may object when you question it. When we tell people that discussing something is not acceptable, we are essentially encouraging them to accept stuff at face value and not question any matter of faith at all. My take is - everyone should be allowed to question religious ideology and express his/her views on it. The human race evolves because it puts behind dogmas and questions everything in sight. This doesnt mean that we have should go all out and call for violence or downright insult any particular community. But constructive criticism should be allowed. The only thing is such questioning should be applied across the board. Just as we have the right to question others, using the same logic others can also question things which are sacred to us. When we want them to be tolerant, we should be tolerant too. The western world should be emulated in this - most of them have left behind their deep emotional attachment to religion, while not leaving behind their faith. We dont see them take to the streets for every slight to their religion - and there are many many instances.

[ganeshran]

So yeah lets apply the same yardstick to an even more day-to-day routine stuff like eating habits : Shall we now start advocating beef because afterall pretty much the rest of the world eats Beef which supposedly proves that they used a "Independent Thought process" as per your logic ? And as I said nobody has any rights over Bharatmata you only have duties towards here. That is the sort of sacred space where she belongs. If you think he had the right to paint her in the nude then there are millions who absolutely despise such a thing. Do they have any rights at all in this one-way street of "free-speech" that you are constructing ?

Did I ever say that you need to advocate the religious practices of others? I just said that we need to understand that their religious practises are different and not raise violent objections to them. In the beef example - no one said that you need to advocate beef. Just the acceptance of the fact that they prefer to consume beef. I dont eat beef, but I dont stop others from consuming it. You are contradicting yourself here when you say that a symbol belongs to a sacred space which cannot be violated. By your own admission there is no such thing that you will take as sacred which you will take on face value. You arrive at a symbol's holiness using your own thought process (e.g. Quran, The Prophet). Do you think Hussain does not have a similar right to arrive at acceptable ways to render the Bharatmata - that too in art which has a universal precedent of the unclothed human form? Most importantly why would Hussain want to insult the Bharatmata - what did he gain from doing so? Of course the 'millions' who despise such a thing have a right to free speech - of peaceful protest. Violent protest doesnt come in the realm of free speech. It is plain intimidation. Not too different from the 'millions' that despised what Rushdie, Nasreen and the Danish cartoonist did. I was arguing for their freedom of expression, and Hussain is no different for me.

It is you that is looking for a provocative argument when you sit there and argue for the sake of arguing that a Holy deity is free for the taking and to be painted nude. Do you really think you are amenable to listening to an explanation that people consider this detestable ? What part of that do you not understand ? How can you sit there and argue on such an obvious thing that a sacred being such as a mother cannot be painted in the nude?

You are the one who keeps making provocative arguments and trying to take things personal. Again I said, if people consider it detestable then they have the recourse of peaceful protests, not violent intimidation. The Bharatmata painting is a work of art, and Hussain intended it to be. It just became one of the tools in the hands of rightwing parties who wanted to avenge the book banning of Rushdie - which was equally absurd. The millions of people also exist in the Danish cartoonist's argument. They find it equally detestable when their prophet is drawn which is explicitly prohibited in their holy book. It is as obvious a thing to them as it is to you. then why do we sit and argue for hours for the cartoonist's freedom of expression and Muslims to be more tolerant? Because freedom of expression cannot be applied selectively to pander to certain sentiments .

The problem here is that you think you are rational and others are not. When you have been told more than once hey please stay from painting our gods in the nude because there are a few million who find that despicable you would stop. So from my view point you are the one that is irrational. And there is no way anyone can convince you thru facts and figures that what you are doing is wrong. Do you really think you will listen to any argument ? You simply wont budge no matter how Your thought process and moral standpoint is the exact opposite of mine. With due respect there are very things that can shame the super-lefties. Which is why I had to adopt unique methods to drill this into you. And this is why you see the Conservatives in conflict with super-left. so when there is justice system that is truly neutral and un-biased to decide sh!t will happen. Don't expect people to shut up and put up with such nonsense.

If Hussain had painted the Muslim Prophet and he had been subject to persecution from the Muslims alone, your viewpoint here would have been totally different. That is what I call irrational. My viewpoint would still have been the same. If you deny this, we can argue further. What facts and figures did you present in the argument? I can say the same thing - there is nothing I can say that can convince you of Hussain's right to freedom of expression since here your sensibilities are the one which is challenged. Your stand is as rigid as mine.

[ganeshran]

Yeah but my belief system considers Cows as Gods. So now what ? Who needs to yield here as per your definition of Rationalism ? Should I shut up and put up because it is the norm in the rest of the world and hence "Independent Thought process" as per your logic?

I think you live in the United States, where people consume both beef quite freely. What do you do? do you protest against it violently. I live in Bangalore and here too Keralite hotels serve beef quite commonly. Do I protest against serving of Beef? NO. Just because its their eating habbits. I am against ritiual slaughter of cows (all other animals for that matter) in religious practices. But for food purposes we cannnot stop beef consumption just because we find cows holy. Similar to Muslims have no right to stop others from consuming pork just because they dont eat it.

Well I too am not insulting your mom so why are you resisting me then ? And yes there is a big fat difference between Muhammad and Bharatmata. Let me know if you are interested in the nitty gritty details. I have no problem anybody questioning the facts surrounding Bharatmata. Once you do you will find that there is nothing in her history that is even remotely as violent as Muhammad. You will also find that nobody has disrobed her either. What you will also find without any shadow of doubt is that we like to see our mothers fully clothed. So when people fail to see such obvious facts you will be told to fall in line. If you still don't then you deserve what you get.

Ha, you are back to substituting personal relationships for religious symbols. By the same argument, anyone can question your wife's character and fidelity just because you insulted his holy book. The symbolic value of both of them is same to him, even if it is not to you. And he doesnt subscribe to political correctness, he got the doubts through an independent thought process and so wants to spread awareness about your wife to everyone. Dont you see the sea change in your responses when it comes to symbols that are holy to you? You say that you have a right to arrive at a symbol's holiness independently without taking into account its percieved holiness. Doesnt Hussain have the same right? Just because you dont agree with the decision he arrived, you are quick to condemn him, but at the same time you reserve a right to your judgement even if others dont agree with it.

MFH WAS told in a respectful and civil way to cease and desist. Now as per my definition of what constitutes "Rationalism" and civilized behaviour the onus was on MFH to put an end to it. Feel free to tell me how MFH continuining to paint Gods in the nude can be considered as civilized behaviour?

Hussain apologized for his painting of religious symbols in the 90s - paintings done in the 70s. Hussain's Bharatmata was not a second offence. When the Supreme court ruled it was a work of art - you will say courts are pseudo secular. If you consider anything which doesnt fit in with your line of thinking as irrelevant, its not possible to arrive at a conclusion. Again I ask - What was Hussain's motive of insulting the Bharatmata - did he have an ulterior motive of insulting Hindus and India - if so what was the gain he achieved out of it. Also what gain he achieved by putting verses of the Quran in his movie Meenaxi - something which Muslim groups condemned. If Hussain had drawn the Prophet, he would have raised a huge furore among the muslims and I say you would have been on ICF condemning Muslims for being intolerant.

The fact there exists no precedent of a painting Bharatmata in the nude. Show me one single painting of her in the nude other than those by MFH and we can talk ... else you got no case here.

There is already a precedent for drawing unclothed human forms in art. There is a precedent for also drawing divine forms unclothed. In the caves of Khajuraho endless unclothed sculptors have been carved out which there are no religious groups protesting against.

[ganeshran]

Because I have no say in the matter here. I have no other choice but to live with it even if I don't like it. Whereas in India there are actually laws. But such is the level of pseudo secularism and the power that they wield in India thru media and elsewhere that you really are no better off than the Hindus in western country. I mean do you really expect me to buy your "For Food purposes" BS ? Really ? So as I had said this definition of "Secularism" as is defined by the practitioners in India is basically pretty much a fancy way of telling "You hindus you need to bend over to accommodate others at all costs" . Sorry that is not secularism. That is just bendoverism. Will respond to the rest of your post later.

If you think secularism is bending over then I cant help it if we have so much varying definitions of secularism. If you feel that Muslims/Christians's religious concerns are unfairly accomodated, then we should condemn that and I would support you there. Just like I was disgusted by the banning of the Da Vinci code and the Satanic Verses in India. Freedom of expression has to be applied across the board. The moment one is selective in doing so, it translates into appeasement/pandering rather than freedom. But doing another wrong to correct one is simply not the right way to go about things.

[ganeshran]

The way you practice or comprehend Secularism is indeed of the bending over variety. If you feel that pretending that allowing beef eating is cool and no big deal and amounts to a fine display of secularism then the chances of you actually supporting any causes of Hinduism are closer to ZERO. I mean how does one get sooo upside down in their views is what I want to know and is one of the main reasons why I get into these debates. Could you explain to me in simple words how can you justify Killing of cows when they are considered God ? Even the uber pseudo secularist - Mohandas Karamchand - abhorred this. I'am willing to listen so please educate me as to how this is Not bending over in your view.

Since you abhor beef eating so much, please dont bend over in the land of the steak loving populace and come back to India and start a campaign to completely abolish beef consumption here. Would be a great way to start supporting a cause of Hinduism. Your stand is totally hypocritical - you consider all your symbols completely divine without the right of any other community to question it but at the same time reserve the right to arrive at a judgement about other symbols and spread awareness. When you call the symbolic father of the nation a pseudo secularist, you are also insulting a person whom millions in the country rever. Again I ask an important question repeatedly, why does Hussain not have an right to use his own thought process to arrive at a decision on the acceptable ways to render the Bharatmata? Is he denied the same right just because the decision he arrived at is not acceptable to you?

Again lets truly apply the freedom of expression by starting with your mother. After all there is just tons and tons and tons of precedent of women being painted nude. Lets make it work both ways. Cant do right ? Thought so.

As I said, even the basic application of logic would leave out personal relationships out of purview of freedom of expression. The precedent argument was not mine. It was you who was saying there is no precedent on the Bharatmata being painted nude to justify Hussain's rendering of it. Since you value precedents so much, there are also many precedents on women cheating on their husbands and bearing children out of wedlock. Would you allow your wife to do the same?

And as I have explained countless no.of times you simply have no grounds for considering Islam as being holy and asking me to treat them on par with Hinduism. This has been explained ad-nauseum. If you want to refute this with facts and figures then continue that discussion we had on PM else you need to stop accusing me of being selective. Otherwise I have stated that I will stand up for the rights of other Dharmic religions.

No one asked you to consider Islam as Holy. But then dont go about complaining when others dont consider your symbols holy too. It was you who stopped the PM discussion after agreeing with me on the points I mentioned. I am happy to continue the debate with all the facts and figures.