VM You have not taken taken on board that it is not acceptable to portray ANYONE's God or Goddess in any form other than that already posed. In temples, dressed in saris & other clothing, including flowers & materials to cover the body. YOU and I were born naked, that is the truth, we then cloth ourselves not only to keep warm or keep wate off our bodies, we also do so to be modest. MODESTY is the word. This painting of Hunuman & Sita is not correct. When Sita was rescued from Lanka, it was not HANUMAN alone who did this. Who is Sita's consort? Her rescuer? It was only Hanuman & his fellows that helped in the rescue. I do not accept that Sita was naked and caressing Hanuman's EXTRA LONG tail with her body, sliding down it. Sita has always been fully clothed so I would like to know where MFH has gotten the idea for her naked form? Also how he could possibly display a tail twice or longer than his own body? Bah humbug ............. John Monteiro
V M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Sachin, The painting of Hanuman and Sita that you are talking about is the one reproduced at the top of this webpage: http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~nair/husain.php. 1) There is nothing sexually explicit about this image, by any definition of the words "sexually explicit." You are using inappropriate and misleading language to describe the painting. 2) There is no substance at all to any of the allegations against Husain's paintings. No court of law in India or anywhere else would uphold any of them. They are a tissue of ridiculous exagerrations like just like your claim about a "sexually explicit" Sita. 3) It's shameful and sad that total non-issues, stirred up by cynical and manipulative politicians, induce someone like you "to be a supporter of radical organizations." VM
