Sachin Phadte wrote: I stand corrected that there are no temples in Goa with nude carvings. There are, however, two issues. One is the rule and the exception.
The second, and more important, is whether the nude/erotic paintings/carvings in Hindu temples are those of the Hindu gods and goddesses. M F Husain has painted the Hindu deities in this manner, and that is what is objectionable. Comment: 1. These paintings were done over 40-50 years ago and displayed in numerous art galleries. Why the protest now if not with some ulterior motive. 2. The exhibition of Hussain's paintings are being held by those who purchased his paintings a long time ago. Why no protests against these organisers? Is it because they are Hindus and Hussain a muslim? 3.Only an artist can understand and appreciate true art as with music. To a layman, even a nude statue or picture can be offensive. The context is important. 4. If you know even a little bit of Hussain or his themes, you find find all his paintings and themes are based on Indian conditions and environment and culture. Unlike other artists like F N Souza who made a name overseas, Hussain has been India centric. 5. A famous Goan painter Angelo Da Fonseca (who was my neighbour) used to paint Christ, Mother Mary and other Christian themes in an Indian context. I remember at that time, there were many christians who found it objectionable. Art like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. 6. Even for arguments sake, if one finds Hussain's paintings of Hindu deities offensive, there are civil ways of protesting. Hounding him with threats of violence, filing sundry criminal cases all over the country, inciting hatred are no way of protesting in a civil society. 7.Doesn't the sangh parivar find Valentine's Day offensive? Why blame Hussain for the fundamentalist mindset? Marshall Mendonza
