a) European modern artists protested against the Church <b>control </b>over art.
b) MFH is attacking/protesting against Hindu <b>dominance </b>of Indian culture.
Dominance is natural and evolutionary, control is deliberate. there has never been any Hindu 'control' over art. Is there even a parallel between (a) and (b)? Against what is he protesting/attacking?
He has all the freedom to create marxist/islamist/christian inspired art to overcome the dominance of Hindu culture in India. What he is doing is entirely different. Anti-hindu art can be the name. Did European artists create anti-christian art? To your point, no.
So, I see no parallel in above, and drawing a parallel between the two phenomenon, imo, is only glorifying his cheap vulgarity.
b) MFH is attacking/protesting against Hindu <b>dominance </b>of Indian culture.
Dominance is natural and evolutionary, control is deliberate. there has never been any Hindu 'control' over art. Is there even a parallel between (a) and (b)? Against what is he protesting/attacking?
He has all the freedom to create marxist/islamist/christian inspired art to overcome the dominance of Hindu culture in India. What he is doing is entirely different. Anti-hindu art can be the name. Did European artists create anti-christian art? To your point, no.
So, I see no parallel in above, and drawing a parallel between the two phenomenon, imo, is only glorifying his cheap vulgarity.