06-02-2007, 01:43 AM
One more from same paper.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<b>Facts are no longer sacred</b>
Kanchan Gupta
My aim is to show the purity, truth and reality in human beings using the images of god and goddesses. I did not mean to hurt anybody's senntiments," Chandramohan Srilamanthula, who has been at the centre of a raging storm over his blasphemous depiction of Jesus Christ and Durga, recently told The Hindu in an interview. Unrepentant about his gross misdeed which is punishable under the law of the land, he goes on to add, "I want to know what is wrong with my paintings as my concept is altogether different." He is either too dumb to understand what is wrong with wilfully hurting religious sensibilities and mocking at faith or too criminally callous to be concerned about society at large, leave alone the law of the land.
There is a third possibility. Chandramohan feels emboldened by the support he has received from Page 3 libertines masquerading as Left-liberals and couldn't give a damn about the hurt he has caused to believing Christians and Hindus. Therefore, it is not surprising that he plans to settle down in either Mumbai or Delhi - a wish he has expressed to the CPI(M)'s unofficial organ - where he will no doubt be welcomed into a dark world where perversity defies imagination.
<b>It is galling that Chandramohan, a student at the Faculty of Fine Arts of Maharaja Sayajirao University in Baroda, should talk of "purity" and "my concept". There is nothing "pure" about denigrating sacred icons, nor were the sacrilegeous depictions his "concept". He stole the idea of defiling Christ from 'artists' with sick minds like Thierry der Cordier and Andres Serrano. He is not only guilty of blasphemy, but also of plagiarism. He is a charlatan and deserves neither sympathy nor comfort, let alone support.</b>
Upstarts like him, however, should not really upset us; it would be wrong to expect responsible behaviour from those who believe irresponsibility is their birthright, never mind the evil consequences. <b>What is truly upsetting is the role of the media in the entire episode. Ever since the controversy broke on May 9, newspapers and 24x7 news channels that have been passionately espousing Chandramohan's cause under the garb of upholding freedom of expression, have made it a point not to provide details of his 'art' that have so exercised the faithful. Instead, a concerted effort is on to prevent the shocking crudity of Chandramohan's work from becoming public, so that the protest appears as unfounded and uncalled for. The Hindu, which has published Chandramohan's interview, is yet to publish details of his depiction of Christ on the Cross</b>, his penis dripping semen into a commode, and fish feeding on the semen. Neither has it bothered to mention that Chandramohan's 'Durga Mata' is a grotesque caricature of a naked woman giving birth to a child.
<b>Worse, charges are being hurled at the protesters without offering any evidence to back them up.</b> For instance, it is being claimed that there was "vandalism" at the Faculty of Fine Arts - described by its now suspended dean, SK Panniker, as his "personal bedroom" where he can do anything he wishes - and that Chandramohan was "roughed up". During a recent television debate on the issue, in which I was invited to participate, I requested the pretentious oaf who hurled these allegations for specific details. He huffed and he puffed and then he screamed, "We must raise our voice against the vandalism." What vandalism, I asked him again. "Vandalism! Vandalism!" he shouted back, sounding frighteningly similar to a demented man. The anchor contributed his mite by insisting that a "mob" had stormed the Faculty of Fine Arts. Since the protesters included Church elders, I suppose he was referring to them. It doesn't matter that there was no mob on May 9.
During the debate, one of the participants, who heads an NGO, slyly suggested if Chandramohan has hurt religious sensibilities, then we should let the law take its own course as there are provisions in the Indian Penal Code - Sections 153A and 295 - to deal with such issues. Later, he turned around and insisted that the police had no business to arrest the offender while the pretentious oaf, by now frothing at the mouth, chanted, "You can't arrest a student! You can't arrest a student!" So, how does the law deal with such infringements of the law? Or is Chandramohan above the law?
<b>Obviously taking its cue from the Indian media's outrageous suppression of the truth about Chandramohan's intentional act of blasphemy and the sinister manner in which jholawallah libertines have been allowed to hijack the issue without their allegations being contested, The New York Times has run a story on how art is being censored in India.</b> Headlined 'At a University in India, New Attacks on an Old Style: Erotic Art', the report begins with a dramatic flourish: "It's a heady time for Indian contemporary art. Never before has it fetched such extravagant prices and acclaim abroad. Never before have Indians at home been so prosperous as to support a proliferation of galleries, exhibitions and even investment funds devoted to art. But art and its inevitable transgressions continue to provoke fury in Hindu nationalist quarters, leading stalwarts to shut down an exhibition, drive an artist out of the country or, in the latest case, send a young art student to jail for a final-exam project deemed offensive..."
So, to use a worn out cliche, the cat is out of the bag. <b>This entire campaign of calumny, this Goebbelsian propaganda, is not about protecting freedom of expression but denigrating 'Hindu nationalists'. Here's yet another opportunity to indulge in Hindu-bashing by taking recourse to the usual subterfuges, lies and half-truths, by quoting individuals out of context, by telling only that part of the story which seamlessly fits into the agenda of denouncing that India which refuses to concede ground to those inspired by White urban trash culture who believe indulging in unbridled hedonism is demonstration of fidelity to liberalism.</b> Those who do not pander to their perverse worldview or accept their right to decide what is socially acceptable and unacceptable, or, for that matter, what is high art and creativity, are to be labelled 'Hindu nationalists'. <b>The New York Times, of course, fails to mention that 'Hindu nationalists' are enraged as much by Chandramohan's denigration of Durga as his blasphemous rendition of Jesus Christ. Such omission, you see, fits into the larger pattern.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<b>Facts are no longer sacred</b>
Kanchan Gupta
My aim is to show the purity, truth and reality in human beings using the images of god and goddesses. I did not mean to hurt anybody's senntiments," Chandramohan Srilamanthula, who has been at the centre of a raging storm over his blasphemous depiction of Jesus Christ and Durga, recently told The Hindu in an interview. Unrepentant about his gross misdeed which is punishable under the law of the land, he goes on to add, "I want to know what is wrong with my paintings as my concept is altogether different." He is either too dumb to understand what is wrong with wilfully hurting religious sensibilities and mocking at faith or too criminally callous to be concerned about society at large, leave alone the law of the land.
There is a third possibility. Chandramohan feels emboldened by the support he has received from Page 3 libertines masquerading as Left-liberals and couldn't give a damn about the hurt he has caused to believing Christians and Hindus. Therefore, it is not surprising that he plans to settle down in either Mumbai or Delhi - a wish he has expressed to the CPI(M)'s unofficial organ - where he will no doubt be welcomed into a dark world where perversity defies imagination.
<b>It is galling that Chandramohan, a student at the Faculty of Fine Arts of Maharaja Sayajirao University in Baroda, should talk of "purity" and "my concept". There is nothing "pure" about denigrating sacred icons, nor were the sacrilegeous depictions his "concept". He stole the idea of defiling Christ from 'artists' with sick minds like Thierry der Cordier and Andres Serrano. He is not only guilty of blasphemy, but also of plagiarism. He is a charlatan and deserves neither sympathy nor comfort, let alone support.</b>
Upstarts like him, however, should not really upset us; it would be wrong to expect responsible behaviour from those who believe irresponsibility is their birthright, never mind the evil consequences. <b>What is truly upsetting is the role of the media in the entire episode. Ever since the controversy broke on May 9, newspapers and 24x7 news channels that have been passionately espousing Chandramohan's cause under the garb of upholding freedom of expression, have made it a point not to provide details of his 'art' that have so exercised the faithful. Instead, a concerted effort is on to prevent the shocking crudity of Chandramohan's work from becoming public, so that the protest appears as unfounded and uncalled for. The Hindu, which has published Chandramohan's interview, is yet to publish details of his depiction of Christ on the Cross</b>, his penis dripping semen into a commode, and fish feeding on the semen. Neither has it bothered to mention that Chandramohan's 'Durga Mata' is a grotesque caricature of a naked woman giving birth to a child.
<b>Worse, charges are being hurled at the protesters without offering any evidence to back them up.</b> For instance, it is being claimed that there was "vandalism" at the Faculty of Fine Arts - described by its now suspended dean, SK Panniker, as his "personal bedroom" where he can do anything he wishes - and that Chandramohan was "roughed up". During a recent television debate on the issue, in which I was invited to participate, I requested the pretentious oaf who hurled these allegations for specific details. He huffed and he puffed and then he screamed, "We must raise our voice against the vandalism." What vandalism, I asked him again. "Vandalism! Vandalism!" he shouted back, sounding frighteningly similar to a demented man. The anchor contributed his mite by insisting that a "mob" had stormed the Faculty of Fine Arts. Since the protesters included Church elders, I suppose he was referring to them. It doesn't matter that there was no mob on May 9.
During the debate, one of the participants, who heads an NGO, slyly suggested if Chandramohan has hurt religious sensibilities, then we should let the law take its own course as there are provisions in the Indian Penal Code - Sections 153A and 295 - to deal with such issues. Later, he turned around and insisted that the police had no business to arrest the offender while the pretentious oaf, by now frothing at the mouth, chanted, "You can't arrest a student! You can't arrest a student!" So, how does the law deal with such infringements of the law? Or is Chandramohan above the law?
<b>Obviously taking its cue from the Indian media's outrageous suppression of the truth about Chandramohan's intentional act of blasphemy and the sinister manner in which jholawallah libertines have been allowed to hijack the issue without their allegations being contested, The New York Times has run a story on how art is being censored in India.</b> Headlined 'At a University in India, New Attacks on an Old Style: Erotic Art', the report begins with a dramatic flourish: "It's a heady time for Indian contemporary art. Never before has it fetched such extravagant prices and acclaim abroad. Never before have Indians at home been so prosperous as to support a proliferation of galleries, exhibitions and even investment funds devoted to art. But art and its inevitable transgressions continue to provoke fury in Hindu nationalist quarters, leading stalwarts to shut down an exhibition, drive an artist out of the country or, in the latest case, send a young art student to jail for a final-exam project deemed offensive..."
So, to use a worn out cliche, the cat is out of the bag. <b>This entire campaign of calumny, this Goebbelsian propaganda, is not about protecting freedom of expression but denigrating 'Hindu nationalists'. Here's yet another opportunity to indulge in Hindu-bashing by taking recourse to the usual subterfuges, lies and half-truths, by quoting individuals out of context, by telling only that part of the story which seamlessly fits into the agenda of denouncing that India which refuses to concede ground to those inspired by White urban trash culture who believe indulging in unbridled hedonism is demonstration of fidelity to liberalism.</b> Those who do not pander to their perverse worldview or accept their right to decide what is socially acceptable and unacceptable, or, for that matter, what is high art and creativity, are to be labelled 'Hindu nationalists'. <b>The New York Times, of course, fails to mention that 'Hindu nationalists' are enraged as much by Chandramohan's denigration of Durga as his blasphemous rendition of Jesus Christ. Such omission, you see, fits into the larger pattern.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->