Why should I defend M F Husain? By doing so I am defending my own
identity as an Indian and Hindu. The controversies raised by his
detractors over his paintings being “obscene” are laughable.

To make such a claim on the basis of Hindu sentiments is deeply
offensive, not only to Hindus of this generation but also to our
ancestors.

I draw attention to Konark and Khajuraho, albeit with some
trepidation. What if some misguided representatives of the sangh
parivar or their ilk would set out to destroy these priceless
heritage sites much in the same manner as the Taliban destroyed the
Bamiyan Buddhas?

The depiction of sensuality in modern works of art pales in
comparison to the sculptural splendour of male and female poses
depicted in both Konark and Khajuraho, the former being the temple of
the Sun God and the latter built around the temples of Shiva,
Lakshmana and other gods and goddesses.

One of the universal symbols of Hindus is the Shivling positioned on
Parvati’s yoni, which has been the object of worship for centuries.

There is perhaps no more explicit propitiation of a phallic symbol in
any culture. If we go to the temple of Kamakhya, we would witness
Hindus worshipping Parvati’s genitals.

Not only that, the red liquid that pours from the deity is applied on
the foreheads of worshippers. We have the venerable Kamasutra which
has for ages been regarded as a handbook of erotic pleasure.

Husain has drawn criticism for his portrayal of Bharat Mata in the
nude, never mind that the Goddess Kali is always shown without
clothes.

I would say that in this case obscenity lies in the eye of the
beholder. I see her breasts as symbolic of nurturing the infants of
the land and her fertility, that of populating Bharat with sons and
daughters.

Husain has celebrated Bharat Mata no differently than i would worship
the Shivling as representing procreation.

If we were to explore this theme further, we would come across
explicit poetic descriptions of the love-making of Radha and Krishna
in Jayadeva’s Geet Govind, not to mention the long passages on
foreplay.

Likewise, one could quote endless romantic passages about Shiva and
Parvati from Kalidasa’s Kumara Sambhavam, as well as shlokas
describing Goddess Saraswati’s breasts.

Our culture is ancient and arguably not without its blemishes such as
the caste system and the once prevalent practice of sati.

At another level, however, it has prided itself on its inclusiveness
and plurality. Vedantic and Puranic beliefs, for example, do not
converge; yet they coexist.

There is no single revealed truth in the Vedas. In fact, they talk
about a perpetual search for the truth.

The Puranas, on the other hand, give us innumerable gods and
goddesses to worship while they seldom connect with the Vedas.

Together, they range from the worldly to the other-worldly without
imposing any single body of beliefs. Our ancient tracts, in fact,
also include treatises on atheism.

Furthermore, as Amartya Sen says, India has had a long tradition of
critical reasoning and public deliberation not only in science,
mathematics and philosophy but also in various forms of artistic
expression.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, different religions flourished here and
different art forms have found freedom of expression.

It is sad, indeed, that 60 years after political independence we seem
to be heading towards cultural bondage.

We see Hindu culture being hijacked by a set of unlettered youth
whose patron saints are some frustrated old men with their own
political agendas.

In the name of hurting Hindu sentiment, for example, somebody kicked
up a row about Shilpa Shetty being kissed by Richard Gere.

A highly regarded young artist at the fine arts faculty of M S
University was imprisoned for having painted some objectionable
pictures, which also led to the suspension of the head of the
department.

If we go back a little in time, Deepa Mehta’s shooting of the film
Water in Varanasi was abandoned because some hooligans, no doubt with
state support, claimed that Hindu culture was being shown in a poor
light.

There were objections to a kissing scene in Dhoom-II, starring
Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan, forgetting that in far more prudish
times in the 1930s kissing in films was not found to be objectionable.

The latest uproar over Vasundhara Raje Scindia, chief minister of
Rajasthan, being portrayed as Goddess Annapurna in a poster which has
ostensibly hurt Hindu sentiment.

What about the thousands of Ramleelas every year in which ordinary
people dress up as Lord Ram, Hanuman and Sita? The list of atrocities
committed on society in the name of moral policing is a long one.

It is ironical that it is all in the name of protecting Hindu
culture. The truth is that we have acquiesced in the rape of our
culture, allowing motivated forces to talk down to us about
protecting Hindu values.

How dare any group try to miniaturise a gloriously inclusive
civilisation to fit its constrained mindset and then impose it on us
with the use of muscle power?

Let confrontation take the form of informed debate, as has been our
tradition since the first millennium BCE. Is the Hindu Taliban too
cowardly to choose that path?