M.F. Hussain accepts Qatar citizenship

[ganeshran]

Do you not believe me when I say that Muslim Ulema have issued fatwa banning Muslims from bowing down to Bharatmata ? I have never seen a Christian worship BharatMata Either. Those who go to the Bharatmata temple are predominantly Hindus and its ofshoots. This is simply common knowledge. Just because the concept was Pan-Indian doesn't mean that everybody bought into that. If you are going to simply pretend otherwise you are most welcome to do so but dont expect me to respond any further on that regard . Let me know clearly if you understand this. Further more as I said in that post Others are more than welcome to worship her but it cannot under any circumstance be done in a manner that is un-acceptable to Hindus ( and vice-versa). Clearly this hasnt happened as the protests against MFH clearly tells you. Last time I checked keeping Gods clothed was a perfectly reasonable request. Unless you claim that India has galloped towards being the uber-nudist society that considers clothing as reprehensible. Everything else is just simply plain irrelevant and just an attempt to argue for the sake of arguing ... but I will deal with it anyways.

Again, existence of Bharatmata temples and visiting of Hindus to it doesnt make her a solely Hindu symbol. There is a huge difference between Bharatmata being worshipped by Hindus and Bharatmata belonging to Hindus alone. Muslims might not worship the Bharatmata because their religion specifically forbids them to worship anything other than their god, but it doesnt forbid them from holding her in high regard. Because one community worships a symbol, doesnt make it the sole preserve of that community - especially when the symbol is specifically targeted to transcend religious boundaries. If you want to argue on the terms of Bharatmata being solely a Hindu symbol - you need to provide a source that specifically states so.

Jains dont worship Onions. Hindus Worship Cows. There isnt even a case here for you on that regard other than to simply argue for the sake of arguing. But I will play along ... Jain swamis have announced that it is impractical to go after those who eat onions. Protein aspect is a non-starter as a vast majority of the nation gets by without having to resort to beef. And I see that you conveniently skipped the point about Rice,Sugar, Wheat. Going strictly by the Jain Principles they will end up eating only fruits and leaves. This is obviously not possible even for the Jains themselves.

No difference. (Most) Hindus worship cows and hence dont eat its meat. Jains worship life and hence dont eat plants like onions and non veg like Chicken and mutton. Hindus eat all three of these thereby directly violating the religious principles of Jains. You are the one who is arguing for the sake of arguing to rationalize a hypocritical stand. Practicality is irrelevant, Violation of religious principles is a fact. Beef consumption in India predates arrival of Muslim and Christians and references exist in Vedas too. Protein aspect isnt a non starter either. Vast majority simply doesn't get the protein it needs because pulses and mutton are too damn expensive. Many Harijan Hindus eat beef because it is the only cheap source of meat available to them after the country boar. Banning beef would directly impact their diet and nutrition levels.

If there are damning facts about Bharatmata such as those that I sent to you in a PM that shed light on the intolerance of Islam then Iam more than willing to do the same to Bharatmata. Feel free to open a thread on that regard and I will post a public apology ... else you have no stand here on that count. I don't accord her the high regard just because the entire country bows down to her. It is the same for all religions. AFAIK the concept and ideals that go behind her are very pure. You simply are not allowed to disgrace that purity by nudifying her under the pretext of "Free Speech". There is no precedent in Indian Culture of nudifying deities who are positioned as Mothers. But I'am willing to listen to you if you claim that her antecedents are not as pure and holy in your opinion provided you put up the facts. And as I have said before I hold Jainism and Buddhism as superior to Hinduism.

You simply didnt understand the point I made or are deliberately diverting the topic. My argument was the shift in your stands when symbols holy to you and symbols holy to others are portrayed in a way considered unacceptable to the core constituencies. Even a critical analysis on sacred symbols cross the sensibilities of most of the populace. whether or not the critical analysis is factual is a retroactive event, the sensitivities are breached the minute such a study is undertaken and publicized. There can be no damning facts about Bharatmata because she is an abstract symbol envisioned to unite the whole country in spite of its many divisions - It is like trying to find fault with a flag or national anthem.

except that it is mainly imaginary. I have never ever heard of Christians worshiping Bharatmata.

That is the exact same thing you said to rationalize your arguments against the symbolic father of the nation - Mahatma Gandhi. Whether or not a Christian chooses to worship the Bharatmata is his prerogative and he is free to do so if he wants. btw did you get the neutral source of Hussain's comments on the Hitler painting? I searched the first 4 pages of google results without finding the original interview- I am curious to see the context of his comments.

If he so believes he is right in what he is doing he should follow due process. Something that you don't tire when you are hounding the Hindu Conservatives. Feel free to direct a bit of the same towards MFH and his types. Going back on his words and painting other gods in nude is pretty similar to what the Right wing activists did. He got what he deserved.

What due process did the Hindutva brigade follow? Raising objections after 20 years to paintings done in the 70s? Even for that MFH apologized because he didnt want to fuel the outrage - just like Rushdie did. If he painted the prophet too, there would have been a bigger furore and he would still have apologized, and I would still be here arguing for his freedom of expression while the mullah brigade would have been arguing that he got what he deserved.

[ganeshran]

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 ?

I am not fighting for Muslims or Hindus here. I am fighting for my stand of a libertarian society mature enough to tolerate discussions that go against the acceptable boundaries of a certain section of its populace. Hussain is just a case-in-point here. I have taken similar stands on Taslima Nasreen and Rusdhie and have been called a Hindutva fascist before, so the double quotes around "Hindu" doesnt bother me in the least.

[asterix]

MF Hussain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Progressive_Artists'_Group

The group wished to break with the revivalist nationalism established by the Bengal school of art and to encourage an Indian avant-garde, engaged at an international level. Their intention was to "paint with absolute freedom for content and technique, almost anarchic, save that we are governed by one or two sound elemental and eternal laws, of aesthetic order, plastic co-ordination and colour composition

Raja Ravi Varma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_school_of_art

Varma is most remembered for his paintings of beautiful sari-clad women, who were portrayed as shapely and graceful.

There lies the difference and the "intention"... And what best way to do it? Yeah, you guessed it right..Afterall Hindus have taken the overall contract of bending over and giving penetration space..

[ganeshran]

I have never ever ever heard of Christians and Muslims worship her ... feel free to produce one single instance in real world other than inside your mind. Otherwise you have no case.

I already stated that Muslims dont worship Bharatmata because their religion specifically forbids them doing so. Christians are free to do so. There is a huge difference between Hindus worshiping Bharatmata and Bharatmata belonging to Hindus alone. If you cannot produce a neutral source which states that Bharatmata doesnt belong to Hindus alone, then it is you who have no case.

No they don't "worship" life ...Tiirthankara is what they worship. Not harming life is one of their principles.

Jains consider all forms of life sacred, ergo harming life violates their religious principles. One of their core ways of following is by not eating onions, chicken and mutton which is widely practiced by Hindus. If you are going to add riders to specifically apply the argument to your case , you might as well say - "This argument can be only applied to Hindu symbols and none other". I am sorry but your attitude reeks of double speak and hypocrisy.

So where have shifted my stand when I'am saying that I am more than willing to subject BharatMata to the same exact standards of critical analysis ?

You are again diverting the topic. The shift in the stand is that you seek to set the boundaries (which includes rendering of the symbol) internally (internal being the space where the symbol is sacred) when the symbol being discussed is sacred to you, but when the symbol isnt sacred to you, these boundaries are to be allowed to set external to the core group which considers these symbols to be sacred. The hypocrisy is evident unless your mind rationalizes these inconsistencies by assuring yourself that the boundaries can be set outside in case of Islam because of its intolerance.

If you had read my responses you would have found out. The original protests were all peacefull and civilized. MFH Apologized in the 70s. Then he went on to commmit the same mistakes again by publishing the same paintings in public in the 80s and 90s. Feel free to tell me how the fake secular jihadi brigade did not breach all rules of the supposed moralities that they preach and accuse others to have violated.

Where were the pictures again published? Keep in mind that Hussain cannot control publishing of his pictures by a third party, or a news magazine.

Not in a way that hurts somebody else's sensitivities. And requiring my Gods to be clothed is a perfectly normal and reasonable requirement. But you cant simply keep pretending that there are "Others" who worship her when there is pretty much none in reality. Show me one and we can talk.

Funny you should talk about respecting people's sensitivities. If you cannot prove that Bharatmata is a Hindu symbol alone, this debate is pretty much a non starter.

Do you really expect a 10 year old article to be still around on the web ? Take it for what its worth given that you get 10+ pages. They cant all have produced that from their ass simultaneously. By the way in that painting Gandhi is decapitated. Iam sure that you wont find anything wrong with that either as there is very little that shames you in the first place. Like I said this is a conflict between two vastly different ideologies. There is no common ground here. Not when you are arguing tooth and nail that someone who considers Bharatmata as higher than a mother should shut up and put up with a nutcase painter who has a history of painting some truly and utterly despicable stuff to put it mildly. You can call me anything you want and your words will be treated as badge of honor knowing the sort of ideology that you are championing.

That's an excuse. This fact has been repeated time and again in blogs affiliated to the Hindu right but how come mysteriously not one in the top 40 results is able to attribute this to an original source. This seems like a serious case of Goebbelisian propoganda at its best - things repeated numerous times cannot be taken as fact. Even if Hussain made those comments, I am sure there would be some level of context of it, because a blanket statement like nudity=humiliation doesnt make sense coming from an artist. Even the most basic analysis of the painting shows that Hitler's humiliation is not arising from his nudity but his destructive urge shown through his face and the skull.

Is that why you got all bent out of shape when we tried to disrobe your mother and bought in all kinds of excuses to not go that route ? Seems like the boundaries are conveniently contoured to fit your agendas .

You are time and again making the same argument in the hope that it will be validated. It will not. The personal domain is different from the public domain and personal relationships cannot be substituted for religious symbols. If you want to mix them, I suggest you should start by letting muslims violating your wife and also me abusing your father because you insulted the father of the nation.

There were a lot of things that were prevalent in times before Muslims arrived shall we go back to those times and practices in toto ? You cant simply pick and chose those that suit your agenda. And lol at the protein aspect. I mean this is India you are talking about where a vast majority simply don't eat any meat at all. And you are arguing about nutritional angle ? There is a limit to arguing for the sake of it. If you are going to continue arguing this way I'am outta here as this is not a reasonable debate but just simply pathetic and utterly dishonest argument and perhaps an exercise in ego massage. While I can easily produce the scientific evidence as to how Meat eating is harmful you will then simply shift to some other excuse to simply argue for the sake of it. There is no end to this. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge even the bleedingly obvious facts such as Hindus Hold Cows as sacred and that there is nothing to be ashamed of to fight for what you consider as sacred ? Again a classic case of totally disconnected ideologies with absolutely nothing in common. How the heck can you sit there and argue with a straight face that there is nothing wrong if people want to kill cows ? Does this not bother you ? Really frustrating and irritating. I'am sorry but I cant continue discussing this with you as you are simply and utterly dishonest. Good luck with your ideologies.

Beef eating has been prevalent before Muslims arrived, it was during their period and also continues till date by Harijan Hindus. Can you explain why the references in Vedas exist if it has always been so taboo? The nutritional angle was a point on practicality which you brought up. I can continue the debate if you want to - the nutritional value of beef is usually nil for those who have other sources of nutrition because of its high fat, but for the inability of its consumers to afford other sources of better nutrition - that is why beef is consumed in economically poorer sections of Hindu society (mostly harijans). When did I deny that cows are sacred to hindus? I dont eat beef for the exact same reason. But that doesnt mean that I will impose my ideology on a person who has doesnt have the same affiliations. I find it puzzling that you are not able to grasp the ludicrousness of your suggestion that we try to alter the eating habits of the entire populace to suit the majority's religious affiliations. When observed alongside your stand on symbols of other religions, its extremely worrying that you are able to resolve such vast inconsistencies in your mind by preferentially adjusting weightages of day to day facts. You are right that we subscribe to vastly different ideologies and I am proud of mine.

[asterix]

Okay, this is from somebody's personal view (his email available on internet), so I don't have any independent source to corroborate the facts:

I am told that in a TV programme in September 2004, he explained that the reason he painted Hitler in nude is because he considered Hitler to be a shaitan (devil). When a member in the audience asked if, given the fact that he painted Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude, he considered them to be also shaitan, he gave no answer. (And let us recognise that in Sept 2004, when there was already cases against Hussain in courts in India, he was free to go about in India and even appear on the TV!)

Incidentally, an art gallery had painted Hussain in nude, and displayed it outside its shop, at the time when the controversy about Saraswati in nude came up. At this time, the other nude pictures of Hussain were not in the know. Hussain's son went to court and had the painting removed, and a case was filed against the art gallery owner. So much for artistic freedom!

http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@lists.goanet.org/msg28785.html Here's Hussain's nude painting which his son got removed (supposedly).. :phehehe: http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/aug/170809-Dr-Pravana-Prakash-artist-MF-Hussain-exhibition-message-Delhi-news.htm

[ganeshran]

Wonderfull . So now in the absence of any proof that Christians and Muslims dont really worship her feel free to tell me why Hindus who do worship her should shut up and put up with the degradation and insults ? And before you embark on your usual spiel of "Free Speech" , "Piece of Art"that runs in a one way lane read this opinion of SC Justice on this matter : "If one has been granted unlimited freedom, one is required or expected to use it for good purpose and not with malicious intention, to defame or degrade religious deities may be mythological, as these immortals are held in highest esteem and over a period become part of one's day to day religious life to such an extent that anything adverse said or printed or painted hurts the religious feelings immensely. Any objectionable, demeaning caricature or painting of religious deities or gods or goddesses of any particular religion creates disharmony and ill will amongst different communities. Even if it is presumed that such a painting is a piece of art still one cannot be oblivious of the fact that depiction of these deities or goddesses in full nudity comes within the mischief of deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings of concerned religion as these goddesses are worshiped by crores of people. .... Under the garb of freedom of expression no person can be allowed to hurt the religious feelings of any class of people. This should be known more to the petitioner who belongs to a different religion. If the petitioner wants to gauge the depth and the unflinching nature of religious feelings he may venture and try his hand at his own or any other religion and see how sensitive religious feelings and beliefs are. Such acts promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and arc prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. It is the effect that is guiding and determining criteria."

You are confusing worshiping of the symbol with its belonging. How does the fact that Hindus worship Bharatmata impact the fact that Muslims and Christians also have equal right to the Bharatmata. If Hindus dont have sole rights to the Bharatmata how do they have the sole right to decide how the Bharatmata is portrayed by everyone The same Supreme court was called pseudo secular by you when they decided that the Bharatmata painting is a work of art using almost similar language. The same argument of the justice can be used against your numerous rants against Islam - which you claim freedom of expression while criticizing. This is the inconsistency that exists in your arguments where you change your big picture view of things to gain advantages in the low level picture. Here is what a SC justice had to say about the painting

Upholding free speech and expression, Justice Kaul expressed agreement with Husain's contention that there was no deliberate intention on his part to hurt anybody's religious feeling as the figure actually represented an "anthropomorphic depiction of a nation" in the form of a distressed woman. "No doubt, the concept of nation has had a long association with the idea of motherhood but just because the artist has expressed it in nude does not make the painting obscene per se," the high court said. "If the painting is seen as a whole, the revulsion referred to by 'patriotic nationals' would not arise for the reason that except the fact that it is in nude, there is nothing which can be considered as pinching to the eye." Asserting that the painting was "neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interests", Justice Kaul said that its aesthetic quality in fact "dwarfs the so-called obscenity and renders it so insignificant that the nudity in the painting can easily be overlooked".

What sort of logic is this ? Community X worships Deity A and also holds her as a national symbol. There exists no evidence of Communities Y and Z ever having a track record of worshiping Deity A nor having totally accepted her as a national symbol and you are asking me to provide evidence for Community X ? Well I can quite easily turn this around and ask you to do the running first as you were the one that first claimed "Rights" to her. Feel free to provide evidence as to Muslims having accepted her at any level and we can talk. So far you have produced ZERO evidence. I don't even need to prove what she means to Hindu. There wouldn't be court cases filed against Husain if she meant nothing to Hindus. It is an indisputable fact and Common knowledge.

Community X Worships Deity A. Community Y is specifically forbidden to worship other than their god. There also exists no evidence of Community Z ever having rejected her. Deity A is a symbol which has envisioned to represent the whole of India - it was never intended to be specific to a certain religion - which would then defeat the whole purpose of the symbol as intending to equally belong to every citizen of India. Individual H has never renounced Deity A.

Jains dont worship Onions in the same way as Hindus worship Cows. Do you really want to dispute this ? Pls let me know and I will open a seperate thread. Otherwise for gods sake stop this nonsense.

You are trying construe the argument to fit your own narrow definition. as I said you might as well add a rider - "This argument can be applied to only Hindu symbols" to make it more specific to your cause. 1) Jains consider all forms of life sacred. Hindus consider the cow sacred. 2) To follow this religious principle - Jains dont eat Onions, Chicken or Mutton. To follow their religious principles - (Most) Hindus dont eat beef. 3) Hindus consuming onions, chicken and mutton violates the religious principles of Jainism. Muslims, Christians and Harijan Hindus consuming beef violates the religious principles of Hinduism

Bharatmata also belongs to my personal domain. I treat her just like my mother if not more. If disrobing your mother is a despicable act to you then so is your act of disrobing Bharatmata. It is "MY Sentiment". Naturally your sentiments are quite different and we all know what drives those sentiments but I will do whatever it takes to protect my interests and sentiments from being trampled and Iam well within my rights. If you even subscribed to your own principles of "Respecting Others sentiments" that you repeat ad-nauseum then you should simply stop the moment someone tells you "hey this is not right and I don't like this".More so when the concept of Bharatmata (in terms of her principles and ideals and what she stands for and ofcourse Fully clothed ) doesn't encroach on any of your rights and sensibilities and are spotless clean.

Even a basic application of logic would see a clear differentiation of personal and public domain. When you cannot, the same logic should be applied to the father of the nation - MK Gandhi - who is freely criticized even today in the country, including by you too. I am all for respecting others's sentiments but violent intimidation is simply not on. If anyone felt aggrieved by the paintings, they should follow the democratic process of peaceful protest - Vandalizing his paintings and intimidating the gallery owners not to have an exhibition of Hussain's paintings would maybe do intolerant nations proud, but have no place in a pluralistic society like India.

You wont find it puzzling the moment you come to terms with the facts surrounding the issue. No one really eats Beef in India as you are trying to portray here. It is officially banned in most states. I'am most certainly well within my rights - both constitutional and religious - to defend what is unquestionably very very sacred and indeed is considered as a God. The problem is your ego getting in the way of coming to terms with these cold facts. It is entirely your own problem and it is for this reason why people that subscribe to your ideologies are more dangerous than the actual Jihadi's. So yea Iam quite proud of where I stand on this.

Are you really serious? Beef is easily available in most parts of India - including Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad (some of the places where I have seen). Every Kerala mess serves beef and its not shunned universally by Hindus as you portray it. I even saw a beef biryani (name A-1) stall in the small town of Kanchipuram this weekend when I was visiting there. Its not my ego, but rather your blind jingoism which is preventing you from coming to terms with facts and making statements like - No one really consumes beef in India.

Or it could really be based on a fact. There exists no resistance from Husain on that. Your word against mine. I mean do you really think you are being reasonable by asking me to go find the original source which was published before google even started to archive the web ? If you do then I will most certainly dish out the same level of pig headedness.

Or maybe there is no resistance because he was never given a chance to clarify a "fact" that has never been officially stated on news channels or media houses but is a repetition of hearsay on blogs and forwarded emails. Someone had to know the original source of this interview to have reproduced it, if they did they would also have the original source. If a similar statement was made then there has to be some context to it, because an artist would look dumb saying something like nudity is humiliation.

[urbestfriend]

Can you explain why the references in Vedas exist if it has always been so taboo?

I dont want to digress, but I dont think Vedas has reference to beaf eating. I appreciate the rational debate, but lets not get carried away misrepresenting the fact.

[ganeshran]

Your word. Not acceptable. Feel free to provide evidence that community Z had indeed accepted her in true spirit thru track record that can be verified thru hard facts before claiming "rights". Once you are done with that then you can tell me where in the conception of Bhartmata does it adress this "Rights" issue and who has what rights and what not. AFAIK I only have unconditional duties towards her. But then again I come from a different world so enlighten me with facts not opinion. Else you harping about "Pan-National" symbol is just nothing but imaginary.

Will do as soon as you provide evidence that Hussain had rejected Bharatmata and that Bharatmata belongs to Hindus alone. Saying Bharatmata is not a pan-India symbol is an amazingly strange statement, considering the whole point of having a mother of the nation symbol is to unite the country inspite of all its diversity

Nope not confusing anything with anything. You are failing to come to terms with the fact that Worshiping is a higher and deeper level of acceptance.

Its no fact, but your opinion. Worshipping is one way to display acceptance and devotion to a symbol,, but this opinion is deliberately skewed against followers of monotheistic religions who are explicitly forbidden in their religion from worshipping anyone else. They are free to have as deep a level of acceptance in symbols without worshipping it

An even more simpler and basic logic would tell you that it is none of your business whom I consider as higher than a personal figure. You simply have no right. Moreover I never stopped you from questioning the antecedents of her so there is no reason for you to whine about MKG. Go ahead and feel free to question the roots of BharatMata . See if I care.

Ironic since you were the one who were striving to make the debate personal, not me.

MFH was told on more than one occasion and had several court cases filed against him for identical offenses before he embarked on Painting her nude. Stop pretending that he didn't know anything. FFS he continued to sell and display the nude paintings that he had previously apologised for. And truth be told it is this dogged refusal to acknowledge this bleedingly in your face fact is what you should start to come to terms to before lecturing others on pluralism and who stands for it and who doesn't. What is sicker is that you are arguing bindaas on behalf of someone who painted a Nude Sita,Ganga,Yamuna,Sarswati a headless Shivji, Shivji fondling Parvati, Sita sitting on Hanumans tail , Sita lying naked besides Hanuman , Durga indulging in animal sex and so on and so forth. This is not freedom of speech. This is "I will take a piss on you because I know you wont mind". No person with an iota of common sense will paint such things. This is just crass and you are standing up for everything that is wrong.

The Hussain paintings were done in the 70s and it was 20 years later that these paintings came to the attention of Hindu groups. By the time the furore was raised, all of the paintings would have been changed hands many times for Hussain to have controlled their publication or sale. The paintings would have been put on sale by the subsequent owners, not by Hussain. On two different occasions Hussain made the offer to open up his entire collection to a committee of an art critic, a lawyer and a VHP representative. He was prepared to destory any work of art that this committee found offensive. Not one of the Hindutva brigade took him up on the offer.

Just as you are now conveniently not liking this particular opinion ? And yes I was right about calling them pseudo secular because of these contradictory statements that they make.

The supreme court's opinion stands even if not liked by one side of the debate. Thats why courts are for - to settle differences of opinion. On one count they found Hussain guilty for which he apologised and on the other count they ruled his picture as a work of art. Its not contradiction when two different judges interpret two different cases to judge whether a work of art is offensive or not.

[ganeshran]

I dont want to digress' date=' but I dont think Vedas has reference to beaf eating. I appreciate the rational debate, but lets not get carried away misrepresenting the fact.[/quote'] It does contain references to beef eating. Rig Veda has verses which describe Indra's preference for beef.

[suraj]

Just because your moral standards and etiquette's are such that you cant be shamed by anything doesn't mean that others should follow in your footsteps and start nudifying their mothers and goddesses.

Great moral standards in bullying a 90 yr old :cheer: I would rather spend my morals on slowly roasting to death the Mother F u c k e r Humans (Hindus, Mulsims or whoever else) who insult, rape and humiliate the mothers & sisters than act like a dastardly coward and pretend I am ashamed by the acts of someone who is 90+ yrs old

[ganeshran]

Are you willing to concede that you were wrong if I provide facts or you will simply ignore and relocate the goalpost to something else ?

If Hussain himself put on sale the Hindu goddess paintings painted in the 70s in the 90s, then I will concede I am wrong on this fact. Keep in mind that the whole issue came to light only after the paintings were published in Vichar Mamasa in the 90s not when the paintings were originally created in the 70s. But the debate will continue on his right to paint the Bharatmata (and her status as a Indian rather than a Hindu symbol) and why Hindutva groups didnt take him on his offer to subject his entire collection to critical evaluation with their representative in the committee

[ganeshran]

That is what YOU think it is and its not surprising since you never bothered to read my posts and that of posters who you were agreeing with without bothering to read.

So I take it you were not able to find any evidence of Hussain himself publishing the paintings of Hindus deities after the uproar. The paintings were done in the 70s and never really recieved any major notice till Vichar mamasa published them with provocatively written articles. Any complaints that you mention about the Illustrated weekly of India article would be much lesser compared to the Vichar mamasa article because the Illustrated article would never have been designed to provoke people. Even that was not published by Hussain himself in the first place.

Hehehee so whether or not the despicable guy has a history of of serial offense despite being told in a civilized way is no big deal and you will continue to pretend that it is civilized ( and what more it is his right ) to keep repeating the same ? Sorry but I ain't going to bother as my understanding of reasoning , logic and sense of courtesy are completely opposite of yours and it is futile to argue with those who have them upside down.

I totally agree that our ideologies are diametrically opposite. The problem is that you have formed a very narrow definition of Hinduism in your mind which you are not able to challenge and seek to impose on others - violently if necessary. The problem with this stand is the fundamental difference between Hinduism and the Abrahmic faiths - Hinduism is a widely varying collage of ideas and philosophies that came together over time, evolved and united under a common umbrella of faith. There is not one school of ideas, or orders or dictates to be mandatorily followed. Our forefathers continuously questioned their faith and remained progressive throughout history, I see no need for this to change by forcibly moulding Hinduism into some sort of strictly fundamentalist religion being tried by groups like Bajrang Dal and VHP.

And I don't think you are capable of "Critical" analysis either ( never mind acknowledging the grave realities ) given how you were throwing one excuse after other to spread the guilt that surrounds Islam its founder and its history over 15 centuries.

Funny since I have the exact same opinion about you. You will never be able to digest and analyze facts about Hinduism and Islam which are beyond the black and white picture of the religions which you have fomed and reinforced over time. I never denied that Islam was founded during times of strife and was violently propagated during the dark and middle ages. I only argued that the exact same thing happened with Christianity too. In other parts of the world, violence was just as fierce, albeit for different reasons. My argument wasnt spreading the guilt, but rather putting the violence in perspective. The crux of my stand was - no innocent man can be held guilty solely by virtue of his religious following - there is no guilt by association or guilt by inaction.

[asterix]

Tum logon ko koi kaam dhanda nahin hain kya? :hmmm:

[suraj]

Maybe you should also slowly start to pretend that you are not ashamed by pretty much anything that old guys do to your own family members .. :cheer:

Does that even make sense to you ??? You sound like a Pakistani now or a fanatical mullah who has no response other than "you offended my farking Prophet" or "I am the farking victim" or " how can I live with the insult that kaafirs are trying to insult my mothers and sisters by asking to take their burqas off" It is ironical that sometimes fanatics on any side start sounding the same

[ganeshran]

You have arrived at this conclusion because your sense of reasoning and perception of right and wrong is totally upside down. Proven by your post that you see no big deal even if MFH has a history of committing the same crime. Don't expect me to continue debating with you when you subscribe to that sort of reasoning. It is futile.

The problem is that you have a deep rooted religious hatred of Islam, so any argument or line of reasoning that states - "All muslims arent evil" is either downright denied by you or altered to fit your interpretation of reality. To add to that- you have your own hardline interpretation of Hinduism that you seek to impose on everyone else, including those who dont follow the religion itself. So any argument which states that Hinduism was never hardline or homogenous to allow itself to have such an interpretation is automatically diverted or denied by you. I still ask you - What crime did MF hussain commit- He never published the Hindu deities paintings after he came to know that some found it offensive. He himself was never responsible of publication or reproduction of the paintings. It was the Hindu rightwing groups which continued to publicize them in order to whip up communal passions.

It is a case of spreading guilt because what Christianity or any other religion did has nothing to do with what Islam did and continues to do. Allow me to use that banal cliche that you so proudly throw around : "Two wrongs don't make a right" .

When did I say that what Christianity did justifies what Islam did. Both were equally heinous and equally wrong - so yes the cliche still holds - "Two wrongs don't make a right". So we should condemn both for the violence done in the name of religion in the middle ages. But as gunner posted, Christians evolved over time questioning their faith, while Muslims didnt. Their inability to question their faith results in a section committing violence in the name of religion -something that is deplorable and must not be spared. But that doenst take away the fact that an innocent Muslim who is more preoccupied with his day-to-day living should not be held guilty because of the action of members of his religion. An innocent man shouldnt be condemned regardless of his religious following. A logical extension of that argument would be - "A guilty man should not be spared regardless of his religious following".

[ganeshran]

If you tell me why I should love this ideology i would. But the problem as usual is that my sense of right and wrong gets in the way. For you it doesn't because you have no sense of right and wrong ' date=' no sense of history no sense of justice no sense of logic no sense of reality no concept of protecting your interests , learning from history and ofcourse an infinite capacity to self destruct. [/quote'] I never said there is a need for you to love this ideology. I said the blanket statement that all muslims are guilty is nonsense. You have a black and white picture of Islam and Hinduism and will never accept anything that challenges this position. I have a more realistic picture of the situation which says that an individual should be judged by his acts alone and not that of his coreligionists. But your hatred and bigotry prevents you from arriving at an objective conclusion from facts. Your concept of reality is a sense of fanatic paranoia that is more common across the border. Positioning yourself as a victim to justify any violent acts that are perpetrated is a perverse thing to do. Hinduism has thrived for centuries using the same tolerance and principles I believe in, and I see no reason for changing them. Talk about taking things out of context. If there are protests going on in the area, it is common sense to avoid it because there is always chance of violence. If the Ayodhya verdict went against Hindus, I would definitely have avoided any Hindu majority areas in Bangalore too. Does that mean Hinduism is intolerant? It is equally easy to repeatedly spout out hatred on Internet forums and act like a keyboard warrior and lecture hindus to protect their religion - and quite another to actually put it into practise. Because you use the violence in middle ages to position Islam as being the sole intolerant religion. If you agree that Christianity was equally intolerant during those times, we can put it to rest and move on. If you can prove that an innocent muslim is guilty just because of his religious affiliation, I will concede defeat and move on. Pakistan happened because of rabble rousing by Jinnah and the Muslim League who made people believe that their interests in united India would be harmed by Hindus, which itself was an idiotic thing to say. An equal number of Muslims stayed back and continue to be an integral part of India just as much as Hindus are. The fact that Hindus and Muslims have lived in peace for most part of the history of India negates the very premise Pakistan was formed on

[Javier]

Pakistan happened because of rabble rousing by Jinnah and the Muslim League who made people believe that their interests in united India would be harmed by Hindus, which itself was an idiotic thing to say. An equal number of Muslims stayed back and continue to be an integral part of India just as much as Hindus are. The fact that Hindus and Muslims have lived in peace for most part of the history of India[/B] negates the very premise Pakistan was formed on

[ganeshran]

There were no protests planned and announced beforehand as you seem to make it out (there better not be because OBL was killed). But something in you told you that reality might be a bit different as that post clearly tells. This is in direct contrast to your : "ohh most of them are normal wonly". Normal people don't cause alarms when the most wanted scumbag is shot down. There isnt even a Hindu equivalent to this situation so kindly hold back on your eagerness to spread the guilt.

As I said, you deliberately missed the context to suit your argument. there were protests at Saddam's death and there was a chance of similar protests by religious nutcases. No one condones such behavior including me, but if you say every muslim in Bangalore/Shivajinagar supported the protests, then you are wrong. It is common sense to not venture out when a chance of violent protests are there. Most shops closed and offices in Bangalore declared half day leave when the Ayodhya verdict came out in anticipation of protests and violence by both hindus and Muslims.

How do you think the situation

Any day to day situation. It is to be proved the religious affiliation of the innocent muslim is the sole cause behind his guilt, and if it was a Hindu in his place, he should not be held guilty.

are you trying to say that Muslims who stayed back were against Jinnah ?

No, there were certainly a few supporters who would not have been able to migrate because of the situation. are you trying to say all the Muslims were supporters of Jinnah and wanted to migrate?

Can you give me the approximated dates when this happened ?

Most of India's history has seen peaceful coexistence between Hindus and Muslims. There have been incidents of communal discord now and then but overall the record is quite good.

[ganeshran]

I wonder why the defenders of the faith - Bajrang Dal and VHP never opposed the Late Tamilnadu CM CN.Annadurai's book - "Kambarasam" which is one of the most scathing critiques of the Ramanaya. I read a few passages during my college years and it would offend the sensibilities of most Hindus.

[urbestfriend]

Pakistan happened because of rabble rousing by Jinnah and the Muslim League who made people believe that their interests in united India would be harmed by Hindus' date= which itself was an idiotic thing to say. An equal number of Muslims stayed back and continue to be an integral part of India just as much as Hindus are. The fact that Hindus and Muslims have lived in peace for most part of the history of India[/B] negates the very premise Pakistan was formed on

Thats only because Dharmic followers are tolerant in nature and form a majority in the country as of now . Its not because Mu,llahs in India belong to some special breed and are very tolerant unlike there brothers in Pakistan because once they form a majority in any part of land the persecution of Non-Muslims and Islamization of that place begins , Kashmir is the prime example with infinite examples all over the world.