M.F. Hussain accepts Qatar citizenship

[dial_100]

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' date= 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.

That is so right. Human intelligence....How far can it go? So we all live with it. Well, I dont think he ever questioned anything before portraying. All he did was total degradation of the divinity. Just because some stupid VHP and BD guys have done some violence doesn't mean the wrong doing of that senile old man is washed clean now. I think there still remain two wrong doings. Neither 1 is right. 1 of them can be dealt with law. What about the other one??? Anyways, these discussions get nowhere. So as usual, I QUIT.

[yoda]

BTW, just like some are arguing against nudity and their dear and loved ones because it is personal, religion is also personal to many. While one can argue saying heck with you and your personal business with religion, in India there are laws to protect against religious blasphemy, which is for this precise purpose. Right of one person to express himself freely must be weighed against the rights of others which might be trespassed. To resolve these conflicts we have laws. Unfortunately, in the case of MFH, this was not followed.

[ganeshran]

Rhetorical. Let me know if you want to go down that route. I can suggest a few countries for you to relocate.

You are the one who brought in rhetorical debate by taking it personal. Not me. You cannot accuse me of doing something you have been doing something all through the debate.

Where did I say this ? Iam more than welcome to discussing entire Hinduism not just the symbols. As long as you do it using proper logic, facts and reason that is documented upfront by people who are truly neutral. Not the pseudo secular lot in India. Not bull dust like : Since Michaelangelo painted Mary nude and hence it amounts to "Individual Thought Process" and hence we should follow suit. This is illogical. Because our sensitivities are completely different from the western world.

Sure. lets discuss Hindusim using facts and logic. I am open to a complete discussion here. But I do want to know who these truly neutral people are. Because the minute someone says something which doesnt fit your line of reasoning, you will label them pseudo secular, including the father of the nation - the Mahatma. He fought all his life for Hindu-Muslim unity, If he was pseudo secular, then anyone who is not bigoted can be called pseudo too

You were the one that said in post#620 that : "There is already a precedent for drawing unclothed human forms in art." I'am merely exercising that part of your reasoning. Tough

You were the one who values precedent and was asking for it to justify Bharatmata being drawn nude, not me. My reply was to yours demanding a precedent. Likewise, I just pointed out that there is also precedent for wives cheating on their husbands. I am following your line of reasoning here.

Then don't try to label me as being selective.

Its not about being selective. Its about considering your symbols too holy to be questioned while others symbols as coming under the right to independent thought process. The hypocrisy is evident when you insult the symbolic father of the nation while engaging in jingoism about the symbolic mother of the nation. I still ask - What was Hussain's motive in insulting the Bharatmata?

You mean I need to shut up and put up intolerance coming my way from a proven intolerant ideology ?

Hussain also has the same right to question and decide acceptable ways to render the Bharatmata, just like you have the right to decide the holiness of Islam.

That is because Iam awaiting response to my PM sent June12th at 6:03PM. In anycase you had accepted that the violent incidents were correct in your earlier PM . If you have changed your mind then respond with details but making blanket statements like "ohh there was violence all around so its no big deal if there was some in Islam" doesn't count as evidence or logical. Otherwise atleast stop using goody-goody cliche's like "2 wrongs don't make a right" when it suits you.

I accepted there was violence in the name of Islam but in my last PM and one of the posts here, I chronicled all the violence in most of the world that happened in the middle ages. Why wasnt this restricted to areas under the influence of Islam alone? Why did Christians commit as many brutalities in the name of religion? Why was there so much violence in India without religion being used? You conveniently ignore any areas of debate that you are not able to answer and bring in personal relationships to provoke.

[ganeshran]

BTW, just like some are arguing against nudity and their dear and loved ones because it is personal, religion is also personal to many. While one can argue saying heck with you and your personal business with religion, in India there are laws to protect against religious blasphemy, which is for this precise purpose. Right of one person to express himself freely must be weighed against the rights of others which might be trespassed. To resolve these conflicts we have laws. Unfortunately, in the case of MFH, this was not followed.

Yoda, bringing in personal relationships in order to discuss something in the public domain is a very naive way to argue. The moment you start mixing personal and private domain, all kind of bizarre arguments arise. People openly gossip about the relationships/affairs of bollywood stars. If you were doing so and someone asks "Would you gossip like that about your daughter too"? It is a very wrong line of reasoning and is designed to merely provoke. Blasphemy laws exist in Pakistan too and continuously misused to settle personal disputes in the name of religion. The law was not applied correctly in Rushdie's case. In MFH's case it was alright.

[ganeshran]

That is so right. Human intelligence....How far can it go? So we all live with it. Well, I dont think he ever questioned anything before portraying. All he did was total degradation of the divinity. Just because some stupid VHP and BD guys have done some violence doesn't mean the wrong doing of that senile old man is washed clean now. I think there still remain two wrong doings. Neither 1 is right. 1 of them can be dealt with law. What about the other one??? Anyways, these discussions get nowhere. So as usual, I QUIT.

Dial - I appreciate your stand and its consistent across the board, even though its diametrically opposite to mine. I would be happy to have a sane discussion of religious sacredness v/s Freedom of expression if you want to. When it comes to religion, perception and dogma frequently take over intelligence.

[ganeshran]

1. I bought the personal aspect in because your sense of right and wrong is sooo upside down that there is really no way of explaining to you other than in terms that you truly understand. I presented the entire history behind why MFH is no saint and that he is a repeat offender but you never bothered to respond to that. You quite simply and blatantly refused to accept that. If you are reasonable then people will be reasonable with you.

I didnt see any entire history of MFH that you presented. Your whole argument hinges on second offence on his painting of the Bharatmata - which I dont agree was an offence (the supreme court agrees with me). The first paintings were painted in 70s. After 20 years the religious groups suddenly woke up and objected, for which he apologized. the problem is the minute I say that Bharatmata belonged to Hussain too and he is well within his rights to paint it as he sees acceptable - you will bring the personal aspect to prove that its offensive, which would again lead to another 40 post debate on whether the personal relationships can be brought in a debate concerning religious/symbols? and if so, we should do it across the board

2. You have no idea what was Gandhi's opinion about Muslims. He is on record stating that Muslims are by and large aggressive and bullies by nature and that Hindus are cowards. The reason why Gandhi is a pseudo is because of his support for Khilafat Movement and when he literally brushed aside mass murder of Hindus in the Mopla riots and said a few things that I don't want to mention here.

The opinion you mentioned was meant solely during the violence in the riots not across the board. Even for that I am yet to find an authoritative source. The Khilafat was probably the first instance that Hindus and Muslims came together to fight for independence. They put the differences aside and fought on a common platform. The problem with Khilafat was the people were simply not able to follow the strict condition of non-violence that Gandhiji set for the movement. Slowly the populace got discontent with the slow progress and started engaging in violence. There were not only anti- Hindu riots but anti-Muslim riots too The back breaker came with Chauri Chaura riots. Gandhiji decided that the populace simply wasnt mature enough to carry on a non violent struggle and called it off. It takes courage to stick with one's principles and once the Mahatma decided that non-violence was the way India was going to achieve independence - he refused to compromise on it.

3. You don't need any neutral to tell you that fighting against something like Cow slaughter falls squarely within your religious rights. Anyone who tries to "rationalize" this by compromising and pretending that it is for a noble cause ( i.e in consideration of Culinary tastes of others) is simply not a Hindu at all let alone secular. You have bigger problems if you need a Neutral to tell you such a simple thing. Ditto with nudity.

There is no noble cause involved here, why do you refuse to see this. The cow is holy to me, not to other religions. What right do I have to stop them from consuming beef? Jainism also has a stricture which prevents them from consuming onions and garlic because all forms of life are holy to them. Should they fight against onion cultivation or consumption by other communities

4. Reg Precedent : I asked you for an example of Bharatmata being painted nude and you told me that " there is precedent of painting the human form in the nudity " which is why I said lets start from your mother.

Yes, so you were the one who values the precedent and I was simply following your line of reasoning. The need for a precedent was not my argument in the first place. That is why I said lets start from your wife if you value precedents so much

5. Lets see what are Hussains reasons ( and whether they can stand scrutiny ) for coming to the conclusion that Bharatmata needs to be nudified and insulted when no one else had done that sort of a thing. Keep in mind his previous apology in the Saraswati episode.

There is no need on which Hussain works. An artist paints for his self expression and that was his idea of India which he painted on canvas. He doesnt nudify symbols/people because he has ulterior motives in doing so.

6. What has violence in other religions got to do with Islam ? This is a logical fallacy. Especially so when Islam claims to be "THE True religion" and there existed other religions like Jainism and Buddhism that never had any violence undertaken to propagate themselves. You cant reduce the bar to dilute this aspect. This is where you got stuck and that debate got stalled . Feel free to continue and I ignored no part of anything you said. I will meticulously go thru every single aspect of your arguments because I want to know how can anybody in this day and age can say the sort of things that you have. If you prefer we can put this debate on hold till we settle this aspect as it can be time consuming. Upto you.

Violence in other religions shows that intolerance in the dark and middle ages was not confined to Islam alone. It also shows that the violence was pretty much the norm during the middle ages -- either on the basis of religion or geographical superiority. I never got stuck - I already conceded that Buddhism and Jainism were founded on the principles of non violence and never violently propogated themselves. Hinduism was never violently propogated to others too. My point was why werent areas with Hinduism peaceful if Islam is sole cause of violent intolerance? And why did Christians do equally brutal things in the name of religion I have no issues with the time consumption aspect if we are going to get to the bottom of this

[ganeshran]

which is why it would help to actually read what is being written instead of assuming things because you have stereotyped into somebody who is a hardliner and hence whatever he must be saying must be wrong. MFH actually apologized in the 70s.The protests were made peacefully. Then he went on to repeatedly make the same mistake. This is why he got owned. The VHP actually explained there stance in a media article. Let me know if you still want to continue arguing even now. And whether you agree or not BharatMata is Diety worshipped by Many Hindus just like Saraswati and Durga. If he cannot paint Saraswati nude then the same reasons apply to Bharatmata also. This is the end of the matter.

The Bharatmata is a nationlist symbol - she is not a religious symbol. The bharatmata is no different from MK Gandhi - the symbolic father of the nation - whom you reserve the right to discuss and criticise and whom I worship and rever as much as the symbolic mother of the nation. There is no repeat offence. He apologized for the Saraswati paintings because it was not his religion and people started making this into Hindu-Muslim issue. No such thing exists in the Bharatmata case- she belongs to Hussain too. He was well within his rights to render the Bharatmata in the way he saw fit. This is the end of the matter.

[ganeshran]

Gandhi on Muslims straight from the horses mouth from here : http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL028.PDF Cannot get anymore blunt than the highlighted part.

He states his opinion - he condemns both Hindus and Muslims for their deplorable behavior and goes on to say that cowardice is inexcusable (even more so than violence). For a non violent man, that takes some doing to hold something at an even more despised place than violence. If anything - Gandhi is arguing for What is the point of the paragraph? - he is not targeting Muslims alone, he is criticizing Hindus too - for different things but he is not biased in his criticism.

As a coward, which I was for years, I harboured violence. I began to prize non-violence only when I began to shed cowardice. Those Hindus who ran away from the post of duty when it was attended with danger did so not because they were non-violent, or because they were afraid to strike, but because they were unwilling to die or even suffer any injury . A rabbit that runs away from the bull-terrier is not particularly non-violent. The poor thing trembles at the sight of the terrier and runs for very life. Those Hindus who ran away to save their lives would have been truly non-violent and would have covered themselves with glory and added lustre to their faith and won the friendship of their Mussalman assailants, if they had stood bare breast with smiles on their lips, and died at their post. They would have done less well, though still well, if they had stood at their post and returned blow for blow

You wouldn't say this if you knew exactly what the Khilafat meant and stood for.

The Khilafat was a Islamic movement - which Gandhi headed - on the strict condition that it should be non violent. Khilafat was not resticted to Muslims alone - Hindus took equal part in it (probably the only time when both communities fought together). But both communities started losing patience and engaged in violence. There were both anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim riots during the Khilafat movement. Chauri Chaura was merely the tipping point and Gandhiji decided to call off the movement because the people werent matured enough. He earned the ire of both the Muslims and Hindus because of this who felt betrayed - but to the man, his principles were more important than anything. His condition of non violence was not accepted and he called it off.

There is no noble cause ? It is just sad to see people arguing like this ? How does one get brainwashed to this extent ? If it is sacred for you it is your duty to protect it even if it means picking up arms against your own family. None less than Sri Krishna Paramatma said this on a matter far more trivial than protecting Gomata. If you think this is not a noble cause then there is no point having these discussions with me because I can very easily forsee you saying whats the big deal lets all convert afterall it will save us a lot of violence hence a very noble cause.

Brainwashed? Me? Ok, whatever you say. Its not my realm of influence to stop other communities from consuming beef because its holy to me. Just like its not the realm of influence of other communities to stop me from consuming something which they find holy. I have the example of Jainism - they consider all life holy. Anything which is derived from the root they dont consume - like Garlic and Onions. But do they stop other communities from consuming onions? no. Are they bending over? No.

[ganeshran]

Wrong again. There are Bharatmata temples all over India. And the mode of worship is in typical Hindu fashion.

Wrong. Mode of worship is a POV statement. Can you state any neutral source which says Bharatmata is a hindu symbol alone. Temples to worship Bharatmata doesnt mean she is the sole preserve of Hindus.

Muslims officially don't recognize Bharat Mata. They are not even allowed to sing Vande Mataram which is an eulogy to BharatMata let alone bow down to her.

Did Hussain as an individual ever say he doesnt recognize the Bharatmata. Does him being a Muslim alienate any right to the Bharatmata?

Absolutely not. I can assure you nobody worships Gandhi.

He is the father of the nation and symbolically like a father to me. If you can insult Gandhi, I can also insult your own father by your logic. His place in my heart is close to a god and my reverence for him is worship.

He had no right to. If you think he did then I most certainly have the right to paint your mother nude using the exact same right.

You also have no right to insult a muslim's holy book which is symbolically like a family to him. He also most certainly has the right to question your wife's character and fidelity to you using the exact same right.

[ganeshran]

Yes in the realm of influence guided by totally misplaced sense of secularism. If you go by Hindu holy scriptures it is different story. Heck even the law forbids cow slaughter in India (or has MataRome repealed that thru MMS ? )

IIRC that ban was in the state of Karnataka alone and still hasnt yet recieved presidential assent. Also you didnt answer whether Jains are bending over to Hindus by allowing onion and garlic consumption.

yup by fatwas enacted by his own co-religionists.

So, did Hussain acknowledge his co-religionists fatwas and renounce his recognition of the Bharatmata?

[ganeshran]

Gandhi is human being.That too a very fallible one by his own admission. Bharatmata is a diety/Godess and will rank above any Gandhi. It is truly pointless to argue with people who think a sacred Holy Goddess who occupies the space reserved only for Gods can be depicted in nude which is a detestable thing to do in our culture especially for mothers. At this point feel free to come up with any Hindu text worth its salt that states that such a depiction of mother is permissible. Failing which you have no case. But if you insist on doggedly arguing for the sake of it then I most certainly reserve the right to disrobe your mother using your own logic. And Iam not going to respond to this unless you come up with a holy scripture that allows such a depiction of mothers. But it is for the first time that I am being told that my sensibilities were wrong. Hey you know you find out new things on a daily basis. Can happen ONLY in India and we wonder why we got raped and pillaged over and over and over again.

The fact that Gandhi is a human has no bearing in this debate. He is the symbolic father of the nation. He toiled endlessly for years for the freedom of India. If you insult him, I have every right to insult your father and you shoulndt object to this. This is your own line of thinking and not mine. Bharatmata is not a religious symbol and does not come under the sole purview of Hindu culture. Can you come up with any source which states the Bharatmata is a Hindu symbol alone?

feel free to establish that his Holy book is indeed holy in the first place as defined by any civilized norms and standards.

In your own debate there is no necessity for both parties to accept each others symbols. The very fact that he seeks to insult your wife is because you insulted a holy book which is of symbolic value to him just like a family. Your not recognizing the book as holy only strengthens his case for the need to involve a personal family member of yours.

[ganeshran]

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-10-27/india/27840156_1_cow-slaughter-ban-bulls-and-bullocks-complete-ban I cant possibly see how it can not apply to any other states if it applies to Gujrat. In any case I was mainly looking at it from the religious angle and I gave the example of what Sri Krishna Paramatma said. Regardless of what the SC says it is your duty to protect the sacred that is if you are a true Hindu.

If it is not a law in the rest of India, then its futile to argue on it because we will debate on our perceptions and both our perceptions on the matter are diametrically opposite.

I dont think Jains worship onions . There is a big difference.

Jains consider all life as sacred - that is why they dont eat any root vegetables. When Hindus consume onions we are basically going against their religious beliefs. Why do they bend over and accommodate us?

you tell me as you are the one adamantly claiming Hussain recognized her in true spirit. I have no reason to believe he did. PS: I edited my previous post and added a lot more to it.

Why would Hussain paint something he didnt even recognize? The onus is on you to prove he didnt recognize her. Here, there is a difference between recognition and recognition in the true spirit. Recognition is acknowledgement of the symbol, recognition in true spirit depends on what you definition of true spirit is, which is not something we have yet agreed upon.

[The Outsider]

Hindus have been eating beef for centuries - yes from even before Muslims came to India. Beef consumption is common amongst Hindus of Kerela and the North East states even today.

[ganeshran]

It is actually a law in most parts of India. But dont avoid my question on your duty to protect what you consider sacred. Well they may as well not eat rice , wheat and sugar(among many other veg food products) because they are all produced after killing the plant. This is not practical and most Jains realize it. Moreover it is now proven that plants don't have a nervous system and brain that they can feel pain. And animals rank above Plants. This is why you will find Jains who are very militant when it comes to killing animals. There are a lot of things that are impractical that Jain Dharma asks : such as not wearing clothes if you are a digambar jain.

Rice, wheat and sugar are not derived from the root. they dont eat any plants which derive from the root which is considered as life. Life is sacred to them and we trample on their religion every time we eat an onion or garlic. Animals ranking above plants is pure POV. I say they have equal ranks. Regardless of their ranks we are killing something they consider sacred. So why do Jains let others trample their rights when Hindus eat onions, garlic or chicken or meat for that matter? why do they bend over to Hindus? It is their sacred duty to protect all life

I already did. Unless you can logically justify that he paints Hitler as nude to Humiliate and others to glorify you have no case. Though I'am pretty sure you will find a way to justify that too. And yes the chances of you accepting anything that is widely acknowledged and practiced and openly condemned by millions as true spirit is very very slim but what else is new ?

No you didnt. You cannot cite of fatwa that any other muslim issued as a proof of Hussain not recognizing Bharatmata. At the individual level, you have nothing to come up with, hence the diversion. I am yet to see a neutral source of Hussain's supposed interview.Anyways, even if we accept that, Hitler is humiliated not only by painting him nude but with a skull signifying destruction and in a violent pose. It is evident from the photo.

As I said in post#639 ... It is truly pointless to argue with people who think a sacred Holy Goddess who occupies the space reserved only for Gods can be depicted in nude which is a detestable thing to do in our culture especially for mothers. At this point feel free to come up with any Hindu text worth its salt that states that such a depiction of mother is permissible. Failing which you have no case. But if you insist on doggedly arguing for the sake of it then I most certainly reserve the right to disrobe your mother using your own logic. And I'am not going to respond to this unless you come up with a holy scripture that allows such a depiction of mothers.

First you are yet to come up with any source which says Bharatmata is a hindu symbol alone except POV statements. Second the moment you equate a symbol with a personal relationship you also give a license for others to do the same. And by your own logic I also have the same right to abuse your father since you insulted the symbolic father of the nation. And also any Muslim has the right to question your wife's character and raise doubts about it since you insulted his holy book which has the same symbolic value to him as his family. He is also entitled to spread awareness about your wife to the world because he considers it his duty.

[ganeshran]

The root is not considered life or anything but the moment you uproot a plant to get the onions in this case it will kill the plant and since harming is against their belief they don't eat anything that grows underground. The same principle applies to so many food items derived from plants by killing them. And yes Jain Dharma does rank animals as above plants. It is not just my POV. If you want to be a true hardcore jain then you should not even kill bacteria. This is simply not possible and they realize that.

Whether its practical or not is irrelevant here. Its something they consider sacred. And hindus infringe on it - not only by consuming root plants, but also by consuming chicken and mutton. Why should the Jains not embark on a struggle for something which their religion so specifically dictates but yet is acceptable to other religions. As a Jain, its their religious duty to do so.

Who do you consider as neutral ? Someone that agrees with you ?

Its a comment made in an interview - I suppose to a TV channel or newspaper. I have seen this assertion replicated numerous times in blogs, but never saw the original report. The agreeing with me part has no bearing since I am asking for a neutral source in reporting a fact - not airing an opinion.

the onus is on you to prove that you are not trampling on any Hindu cultural norms by painting her nude as you claimed. The very fact that VHP took him to court is proof that people objected. So it becomes your job to prove to me that you did not violate any Hindu sentiments. And this is what I need you to substantiate thru Hindu texts Simple common sense tells anybody that we dont like to see our mothers in the nude. Thereby if you subscribe to civilized behavior- something that you are championing - it is your job to cease and desist. It is also not like painting her in the nude is some sort of accepted mode of conferring honor. Certainly not in a conservative society like what India is today. Dont go bringing in Kamasutra times . We dont live like that anymore. If you do want to bring in the Kamasutra times then lets bring in the entire social norms culture and the whole shebang of those times. Otherwise don't pick and chose things conveniently as they suit your agenda.I doubt if we treated our mothers like this even in the Kamasutra times.

Why is the onus on me to prove that it doesnt trample Hindu cultural norms? I have ad nauseam repeated that the Bharatmata is not a hindu symbol - it belongs to Hussain too and he drew her as he saw fit. The whole crux of your argument hinges on substituting Bharatmata for a real mother - which is what you have been doing in different words for the whole of this debate. The moment you take out this part - there is nothing left in the debate. Its merely a symbol that was rendered in an painting in a unclothed manner. The precedents which you have been demanding all throughout the thread also exist for painting and sculptures in unclothed forms - as evident from the numerous Khajuraho sculptures. I ask - why do you not extend the same courtesy to the symbolic father of the nation - whom you called pseudo secular and insulted. Who ranks above whom is totally irrelevant here, its the symbolic nature of the relationship. Common sense dictates that we dont like to see our father insulted by anyone. Then by the same stick - I dont like anyone insulting the father of the nation or criticising him in any way - since his position in my heart and millions of others is sacred.

Anyhow are you denying the existence of the many BharatMata Temples ? you are denying the official non acceptance of Bharatmata by Muslims ? Thereby pretty much making her as a diety of Dharmic faiths 99% of who are Hindus based on the population demographics ? Iam not objecting to BharatMata being worshipped by others than Hindus but it is beyond any reasonable doubt ( courtesy common knowledge) that she is primarily worshipped by Hindus. And when the Hindus say this is not acceptable you have no other option but to stop unless you want confrontation which is what MFH wanted and got.

The existence of Bharatmata temples does not make her a Hindu symbol. She belongs to every citizen of India. A fatwa issued by Muslims still doesnt make her a Hindu symbol. Did Hussain as an individual deny acknowledging the Bharatmata? If he did, then painting her would make him a total hypocrite - If not, he has equal right to her.

This is a conflict of diametrically opposite ideologies. It is truly sad that you are arguing ad-nauseum that I dont have a right to prevent someone from painting my mother nude. What is even more sad is you are pretending as though it is a no-brainer(Have you ever answered the question of whether you saw anybody painting her nude ?) . But Using your own logic of how you were soo eager to accomodate beef eating on a trivial aspect such as "Culinary habits of others" even though the law is on your side ... but you are gung-ho when it comes to respecting sensitivities of others who have had all the decency to tell you that this is not right ? I mean is it such a big deal to stop painting her nude ? Is this guy such a pathetic painter that he cannot find other means to express his art. How hard is to acknowledge such a simple thing ? Unless ofcourse you are the "Secular" jihadi. I'am sorry but you are hardly secular or liberal. If anything you are the opposite.

See, you are again bringing the substitution of nationalist symbol with a personal relationship. In 80% of your posts on this thread the same argument exists because there is nothing other than it to rationalize the ojection to the Bharatmata painting. I will again invoke the example of the Father of the nation, and the Muslim with your wife. The beef and symbol abstract comparison actually strengthens my stand - In the case of cow - It is holy to me and I will not kill or consume its meat. But the cow is not the exclusive preserve of Hindus, if other communities consume its meat, then I wont prevent them. In the case of the symbol my stand is exactly the same. The Bharatmata is not the exclusive preserve of Hindus. Other communities also have the right to it and hence also the right to render it in a way they see fit. I will not impose my ideology on a third party. This is also my stand to the father of the nation whom I revere. It is my ideology which supports the Mahatma - but others might not have the same view - others might criticise him which I will argue with, but not violently object to. If, in the world of bigoted keyboard warriors I am called a secular 'Jihadi', I will proudly wear the symbol.

[Sir john]

After M F Husain laid to rest, police look for closure of criminal cases

Cases filed for hurting religious sentiments of Hindus after ‘Bharat Mata’ painting controversy The Delhi Police said they will file a closure report in three criminal cases that were filed five years ago against artist M F Husain (95) for hurting religious sentiments of Hindus. Husain died in London last week. A case under Sections 153 (A) and 294 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Connaught Place police station against Husain, Nafisa Ali, chairperson of Founder Action India Trust and two English dailies. Complainant Dr Ram Pratap had filed a report claiming that the artist had hurt the sentiments of Hindus and Muslims by making obscene paintings of Bharat Mata and Goddess Sita, depicting them as scantly dressed. He also noted a painting of Draupadi’s ‘vastra haran’. “Since Husain is not alive now we will follow due procedures and file a closure report in the case,” said K C Dwivedi, Addi

[suraj]

After M F Husain laid to rest' date= police look for closure of criminal cases

I hope Dr Ram Pratap's father & grandfather end up dying away from their families, homeland & the place that surrounded them all their lives because of some stupid "hurt feelings & sentiments" to add MF H was a c h e w t i y a too in leaving the place after 90 yrs

[ganeshran]

I was busy with some personal work today. will reply tomorrow morning

[ganeshran]

They actual do for the Killing of animals. They don't do it for Onions because they themselves realize that it is not practical and IIRC some Jain swamis have rationalized this. And they wont have a leg to stand on when people ask them why they eat sugar, rice and wheat which involve a lot of plant killing. And yes Animals rank above plants.

Practicality is irrelavent here, but i'll get to that in just a minute. Religion A finds entity X sacred. This is contravened by the eating habits of religion B. Still, religion A doesn't get worked up and tolerates religion B's eating habits without compromising on its own faith. It is the exact same argument in both the cases unless you want to add riders to make it apply specifically to your case. Even if animals rank above plants then eating of chicken and mutton by Hindus is even more damning to Jains. Yet I havent come across a Jain who tried to stop me from eating chicken. - let alone appeal for a chicken and goat slaughter ban in the country. But Jains rarely compromise on their own faith - they just recognize that they cant impose their ideology on someone else. Ironically, its the very Practicality you mentioned which is the reason for a beef ban not coming into place in the entire country. Its not only muslims and christians who consume beef, a lot of Harijan Hindus also have beef as a part of their diet. Getting the same amount of proteins through a diet solely comprised of pulses would be prohibitively expensive, so they eat the country boar and beef for supplementing nutrition. A ban would be a straight kick to their stomachs. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm

So once again what would you consider as a "Neutral Source" (before I go waste my time finding this ?

A neutral source would be the media house to which the interview was given, not a rightwing blog which attributes this statement to Hussain, without giving any citation for the original interview. If the statement is authentic, I am sure it had to have some level of context for Hussain to say that.

Because you were the one that proclaimed he is doing nothing that contravenes Hindu culture by painting her nude. Do you simply expect me to take your words at face value ? Ain't happening.

The Bharatmata isnt a Hindu goddess - she doesnt come under the sole purview of Hindu culture. Can you provide a neutral source which states that the Bharatmata belongs to Hinduism alone?

And I have ad-nauseum repeated the opposite. Now what ? Your word against mine. I can play that game very well. Anyhow here are some undisputed facts : 1. She is worshiped predominantly by Hindus 2. Mode of worship is most definitely as per Hindu Practices 3. She is positioned as "Mother Goddess" 4. We don't like to see our mothers without cloths neither do we like to see our female gods without cloths. 5. MFH has apologized earlier for painting a Nude Goddess. Now others are free to worship her. But in doing so they cannot trample on the sensitivities of those others who worship her. This applies to Hindus also. Now unless you are saying that Nudifying mothers and Gods is a matter that is not a big dealio you have no case. If you still want to doggedly insist otherwise feel free to start with a Text from some hindu text worth its salt.

It isnt just what you or I say. If you are suggesting that the Bharatmata belongs to Hindus alone, then you need to provide a source for it. Existence of Bharatmata temples doesnt mean Hindus alone respect Bharatmata - Christians and Muslims are an integral part of Bharat and have equal right to the Bharatmata. 2 and 3 are POV statements. If Hindus worship Bharatmata, the mode of worship would definitely be according to Hindu practices. If Christians do the same, they would do so according to their practices. Regarding Point 5 - Rushdie also apologized for writing Satanic Verses. That doesn't mean what he wrote was wrong - it meant that some people found it offensive regardless of the merit of its content and sought to relay their opinion violently. To avoid further furor, he had to apologize regardless of whether he believed what he did was right or wrong. I dont know if you see the obvious shift in your stands when symbols which are sacred to you are being discussed vis-a-vis symbols sacred to others are being discussed. In the former case (e.g cow, Bharatmata) you seek to set the boundaries of acceptable criticism and dont tolerate others interpreting the same symbols differently than what your sensibilities are. In the latter case (e.g. Gandhi, Islamic symbols), you dont respect the boundaries of acceptable criticism set by others who have their own sensibilities. You try to rationalize this duplicity by debating on the actual holiness of these symbols - but even a rudimentary debate when done externally tramples on the sensitivities on people who find the symbols unquestioningly sacred, and thus by your argument have the right to object violently.

[Javier]

It isnt just what you or I say. If you are suggesting that the Bharatmata belongs to Hindus alone, then you need to provide a source for it. Existence of Bharatmata temples doesnt mean Hindus alone respect Bharatmata - Christians and Muslims are an integral part of Bharat and have equal right to the Bharatmata.

Equal right Over BharatMata? To paint her in the nude you mean? When Muslims organizations / Clerics / Mullahs ( Who have better knowledge of Islam than you or me) have openly condemned the Vande Matram claiming that it contains some verses which declare the soil of motherland as a deity ( something which is strictly against the tenants of Islam ) then why are you being a "Hindu" so hell bent on fighting for a Muslim's right over " BharatMata" which they dont even want ?