*** Excerpts from “Sex & Yoga (Again!): A Broad, Distorted View of Yoga History by Ramesh Bjonneson ***

…It is a fact that Tantra, and thus yoga, has historically and accurately been linked to sexual rites and practices. But it is not correct, as science writer for The New York Times William J. Broad recently claimed in an article, that yoga “began as a sex cult.”

..So, what’s the distorted science behind Mr. Broad’s sweepingly broad distortion of truth and thus of yogic history? His logic goes something like this: we know that Tantra has something to do with sex. We also know that all Tantric yogis have vaginas and penises. Therefore, all Tantric yoga was originally about sex and all yoga started out as a sex cult. That’s not science, Mr. Broad. Rather that’s avery broad distortion of science.

…And here’s the part of the article which uses the wildly distorted logic to spread his half-truths:

Hatha yoga—the parent of the styles now practiced around the globe—began as a branch of Tantra. In medieval India, Tantra devoteessought to fuse the male and female aspects of the cosmos into a blissful state of consciousness. The rites of Tantric cults, while oftensteeped in symbolism, could also include group and individual sex. One text advised devotees to revere the female sex organ and enjoy vigorous intercourse. Candidates for worship included actresses and prostitutes, as well as the sisters of practitioners.

In other words, the logic goes something like this: because-guns-kill-people-therefore-all-gun-owners-are-killers or  because-tantric-yogis-have-sex-therefore-yoga-started-as-a-sex-cult! Is that science, Mr. Pulitzer Prize winner? Nope. That is junk science. And in logic and rhetoric, we call this a fallacy. A myth. A misleading notion. An erroneous belief. Everything but science.

But since these historical falsehoods are written in The New York Times by an esteemed science writer and also the author of the new book “Science of Yoga”, these “facts” will be believed by millions and thus distorted forever more by its liberal and rational readers who, like most humans, are prone to distortions and sensationalism. Especially when “the facts” are in print. Indeed, that’s the power of “news that’s fit to print”, as the New York Times motto states.

William J. Broad proclaimed on Fresh Air with Terry Gross that he had spent five years researching yoga for his popular book. Perhaps heread all the wrong books? Perhaps he got so fascinated with that small percentage of Tantra that’s truly about sex that he got all bent out of intellectual shape? Then again, perhaps not. Perhaps he simply had an agenda, and he simply used his research to fit that agenda?

…I think Mr. Broad also has been a shallow student of everything yogic and Tantric. Because, if he had indeed taken thetime to do his research properly, and, even better, interviewed people who actually practice Tantra, then he would have learned something entirely different. He would, for example, have learned—as in Buddhism, where yogis also (surprise) sometimes have sex—that Tantra is as vast a subject and a tradition as Buddhism, with an even longer history. Indeed, scholars and practitioners often speak of Hindu and Buddhist Tantra todescribe two vast historical and cultural strands of Tantra as two giant trees covering a vast array of branches and schools.

Most importantly, Mr. Broad would have learned that neither of these traditions in Buddhism and Hinduism are considered cults of sex, neither by scholars nor by the broad majority of its practitioners. He would also have learned that Tantra is actually older than both Buddhism and Hinduism. Yes, the Pulitzer Prize winning science writer obviously missed this widely acknowledged part of yoga history.

In other words, just because it is widely accepted that the Buddhist guru Chogyam Trungpa had sex with some of his female followers,Buddhism is hardly a sex cult, is it Mr. Broad? And even more relevantly, just because there are known Tantric rites involving sex, the vast majority of Tantric practices, just like life itself, are not related to sexual practice.  Esteemed yoga scholar Georg Feuerstein, whom Mr. Broad should have studied better, estimates that only about 5 percent of Tantra involved sexual practices. Moreover, Hatha Yoga, which Mr. Broad rightly claim was developed by Tantric yogis was not, however, primarily a sexual practice “involving poses, deep breathing and stimulating acts” as indicated in his New York Times article.

…As mentioned in George Feuerstein’s book, Tantra: The Path of Ecstasy, it is widely acknowledged among pundits and yogis in India that there are two streams of Indian wisdom traditions, namely the Vedic and the Tantric. It is hotly debated which of these is oldest and if both are indigenous to India, but there is vast agreement that Tantra has contributed the most to what we today know as the practices ofyoga. In other words, all practices related to meditation, yoga postures, breathing exercises, kundalini awakening, chakras, mantras, etc., are all considered Tantric.

In addition, Tantra is generally divided into three distinct branches, of which only one engaged in ritualized sexual practices. Why? Simply because sex is considered a natural part of life in Tantra (no big sensationalist surprise there!), and thus it did not require special techniques, but rather what was required was awareness—sacred awareness, which is what Tantra really is all about, the transformation of consciousness, the cultivation of spiritual awareness in everything we do, without suppressing or neglecting the body’s gifts and needs. That’s why some aptly call Tantra “the yoga of everything.”

.. Tantra is a rather vast universe of traditions, practices and schools of thought. But William J. Broad obviously missed or, perhaps,rather got lost in this vast universe we call Tantra or Yoga. I am not surprised. Too much sex on your mind can certainly lead people ofinfluence, especially men, astray.

…In the rest of the article, Mr. Broad rehashes some of the sordid allegations of illicit sex by famous yoga teachers and self-proclaimed gurus..Even though Mr. Broad seem to think there is an important connection here, the problem with sex in yoga has actually very little to dowith sex in Tantra. Illicit sex is a human problem. Illicit sex by people in power—be they politicians, teachers, corporate leaders, priests, or self-proclaimed gurus—is largely an emotionally-starved-male-in-power problem. That, and not Tantra, is broadly the real issue, Mr.Science.

*** End of Excerpts ***

Do read the article in full..and don’t miss the comments section. Next, some excerpts from an informal rebuttal exposing the factual errors (in blue font, italics)in Broad’s piece (again, emphasis added)…

*** Christopher Wallis on “Factual Errors” in NY Times Article – Excerpts ***

1.) “Yoga teachers and how-to books seldom mention that the discipline began as a sex cult…” Hardly. Mr. Broad is simply displaying his ignorance here. In fact, yoga as we know it began as an internalized ritual practice of activating sacred powers in the body through mantra, mudrā, and visualization, as has been shown by Christopher Tompkins and others. There was no sexual component (though that later development in some streams of the tradition, it was never central to the practice)

2.) “Hatha yoga — the parent of the styles now practiced around the globe — began as a branch of Tantra.” Not quite. Hatha-yoga never was a branch of Tantra; it was a discipline that drew on inspiration from the Tantrik scriptures. It is true that there were some sexual practices in mainstream Hatha-yoga (e.g. vajrolī mudrā) which were NOT found in any tantras.

‎3.) “In medieval India, Tantra devotees sought to fuse the male and female aspects of the cosmos into a blissful state of consciousness.” No, devotees sought to realization that those aspects (Shiva and Shakti, i.e. spaciousness and energy) were always already fused, in fact expressions of each other. Insight into this truth does give rise to ānanda (bliss) as a by-product, but ānanda was/is not the goal — insight or true seeing is the goal.

‎4.) “The rites of Tantric cults, while often steeped in symbolism, could also include group and individual sex.” This statement is highly misleading because it implies that sexual practice was part of the Tantrik mainstream. It was not. Sexual practice (couple and group) was an infrequently performed rite of relatively fringe Tantrik groups, and in those rites, sexual pleasure was NEVER described as the goal. Intensified awareness was the goal, and the rite is said to be forbidden to those performing it out of physical lust.

5.) “One text advised devotees to revere the female sex organ and enjoy vigorous intercourse.” I can think of two texts which might be construed in this way, but unless Mr. Broad can read Sanskrit, I doubt he consulted them. Because he did not consult the original source (he cites NO sources in this piece), he is obviously unaware that in the Brahma-yāmala, the practice in question is aimed not at “enjoying” intercourse, but rather indefinitely postponing orgasm in order to gain supernatural powers. In the other text (Tantrāloka 29), the purpose of the practice is the cultivation of meditative awareness, not physical pleasure. (I’m just telling you how the tradition represents itself.)

6.) “[Hatha yoga] used poses, deep breathing and stimulating acts — including intercourse — to hasten rapturous bliss.” Bliss was not the goal of hatha-yoga either. Freedom and release from suffering (moksha) was explicitly stated as the goal. Intercourse, when performed as a hatha-yoga practice, did NOT involve orgasm, which is obviously pleasurable, so…

7.) “In time, Tantra and Hatha developed bad reputations. The main charge was that practitioners indulged in sexual debauchery under the pretext of spirituality.” Incorrect! My god, doesn’t anyone do RESEARCH anymore? They did develop bad reputations for two different reasons: Tantra become associated with rites of black magic in the popular imagination, and Hatha-yoga was given a bad name by India’s British rulers because of the prevalence of Hatha-yogis who were warriors who resisted the British (see Mark Singleton’s work for this). Of course, there were occasionally charges in premodern India that some people used the Tantrik teachings as an excuse to get drunk and fornicate, because of course that did happen, cause that kind of thing will always happen (I discuss this in my book, Tantra Illuminated). But the fact that the teachings were sometimes misused in that way doesn’t change the fact that that was not the original intent of the teachings! Does the misuse of Jesus’ teaching to justify things he didn’t condone make him a fraud? Hardly.

8.) “Early in the 20th century, the founders of modern yoga worked hard to remove the Tantric stain. They devised a sanitized discipline that played down the old eroticism for a new emphasis on health and fitness.” Well, this part is true.

9.) The Goraksha-śataka, a source text on hatha-yoga, says that one is only successful in practice if he is moderate and restrained in eating and sexual behavior, and totally dedicated to his yoga. (verse 54) This is a SOURCE text. Doesn’t sound like a “sex cult” to me.

*** End of Excerpts ***

The third excerpt – from an article by Jason Birch, goes deeper into the history of Tantra (once again, emphasis has been added)..Read on..

*** Excerpts: “Getting the History Right – Yoga in the New York Times” by Jason Birch ***

Williams Broad’s recent article…contains historical inaccuracies which undermine his argument and integrity.  He claims that Haṭhayoga “began as a sex cult”.  This bizarre statement is based on his mistaken belief that the sexual practices of Tantra were adopted by Haṭhayoga, and these practices included the postures and breathing exercises which have become central to modern yoga.

…Much of the terminology in the early Haṭha texts derived from Tantra, but two great innovations had occurred.  Firstly, Haṭhayoga had discarded the complex metaphysics, doctrine and ritual system of Tantra.  This included any transgressive practices of consuming meat, alcohol and ritualized sex.  And secondly, the focus of Haṭhayoga was almost entirely on the practice of yoga rather than other methods of liberation…

…Broad’s comments imply that sex was central to Tantra’s ritual practice.  This is not true.  Ritualized sex was not practiced by all Tantric sects and, when it was practiced, it was but one component in a complex ritual system, which was built on the use of mantras, visualisation, mandalas, mudrās, contemplation, worshiping a deity, making offerings into a fire, etc.  The rich diversity of this religion is lost in Broad’s comments and I would encourage anyone who is curious about Tantra to read Alexis Sanderson’s articles, which include the textual, epigraphical and archaeological evidence behind his statements.   

The only sexual practice described in some of the above-mentioned Haṭha texts is Vajrolīmudrā, in which the male Yogin absorbs, via his urethra, a mixture of his semen and a female yoga practitioner’s sexual fluids.  The aim of this practice was not “rapturous bliss” but the retention of sexual fluids, which was believed to bring about greater strength, a longer life, a pleasant smell to the body and freedom from disease.  These benefits could also be achieved through chastity and other mudrās, so Vajrolīmudrā was not central to Haṭhayoga and half of the aforementioned texts omit it.

Far from describing the practices of a sex cult, Haṭhayoga texts generally advise male yogins not to associate with women. After all, Haṭhayoga was usually practiced alone in an isolated place… Contrary to Broad’s claim, I know of not one instance in a Haṭha text where a posture or breathing exercise is said to bring about sexual arousal.

…The underlying flaw in Broad’s argument is that he presents no evidence, scientific or historical, that Haṭhayoga practices cause sexual arousal.…ne must wonder why Broad has attempted to link yoga techniques with sex scandals in the way that he has.  Some journalists do think that controversy benefits all and to this end are willing to ignore or cherry-pick the evidence and throw out the truth.

*** End of Excerpts ***

To round off, two final (brief) extracts…The first one is from Does Yoga Really Drive People Wild with Desire? by Maia Szalavitz:

…the fact that yoga gurus from Woodstock’s Swami Satchidananda onward are frequently caught with their pants down probably says less about the practice than it does about men, women and power. While yoga might improve your libido, fortunately it’s not likely to make you uncontrollably driven to cheat. And when considering connections between behaviors like sexual impropriety and yoga — or associations between drugs and certain side effects or other reported outcomes — it’s important to remember that correlation isn’t necessarily cause.

The second one from Sandip Roy, “Yoga’s dirty secret: It’s all about Tantric sex, baby“:

When it comes to yoga, as the Hindu American Foundation, tirelessly repeats the crux of the problem is the way the West has reduced yoga, the spiritual practice, into yoga, the sequence of physical asanas. Mark Morford, a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle and a yoga teacher reminds us, “Yoga is a physical, spiritual, energetic, wildly interconnected practice that can transform every aspect of your world… Oh, and by the way? It also makes your genitals tingle nicely, too. Bonus, really.”

Anyway just as yoga is about more than your bhujangasana, Tantra is about more than your perfect orgasm. All those Tantric sex workshops are based in as much wishful thinking as all the hair growth clinics and penis enlargement ads. Morford writes: “I’ve been studying Shaiva Tantra myself for years now, most recently with one of the finest scholars in the business and we have yet to have a single wild orgy or virgin sacrifice. I know! Total rip-off!”

Hopefully this helps set the record straight…Please do share widely…and do add any other links that you may have come across..Comments and thoughts welcome, as always…

Related Post: Take Back Yoga. Also read: Super Brain Yoga – I want to trademark this! and High-Tech Pranayama

Somewhat Related: On Puritanism, Sex Addicts and Temples

MF Husain:

“…Later, in Hyderabad, in 1968, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia suggested I paint the Ramayana. I was completely broke, but I painted 150 canvases over eight years…When I was doing this, some conservative Muslims told me, why don�t you paint on Islamic themes? I said, does Islam have the same tolerance? If you get even the calligraphy wrong, they can tear down a screen.

…

In colleges, you learn about Shakespeare and Keats, Kalidas does not find mention. This is why there is no pehchan in India, no recognition of what is Indian. Things are so farcical that years ago when the Benaras Hindu University honoured Subbulakshmi, JRD Tata, Mother Teresa and me, we were given red caps and cloaks! (laughs) This was the seat of Hindu learning! The custodian of Bharatiya sanskriti! “

.

followed by Daniel Pipes’ sharp analysis on how Britain is inching closer to Islamic Law�that has a mention of how, after a year-long review, …the British government has concluded “…that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was “the best possible” option” (even though) bigamy is punishable in Britain by up to seven years in prison. As an aside, also read “Britain’s love affair with the Saudi kingdom“, By Jemima Khan, written in�Nov ’07.

.

then move on to “Are Youth Bulges the�Root Cause�of Terrorism?“�in which Dilip has done a painstaking and fascinating job of analysing�a�recent study by Gunner Heinsohn to understand its implications for India.

The premise of Heinsohn’s research is that demographics, in particular, large numbers of disaffected youth are one of the key factors behind terrorism. Here is what Dilip thinks about the challenges we face in various states:

Jammu and Kashmir: The J&K population growth rate probably peaked in the early-to-mid �70s, so the impact of the youth bulge would be expected to be most intensely felt in the late �80s to early �90s which is exactly around the period when violence was at its height; its subsequent decline could also be attributed to the fall in growth rate.

It has however not ended despite a considerable decline in the growth rate, a fact that may be attributed to the high absolute rate (despite the decline) as well as other factors such as external infiltration.

Punjab: A similar profile is seen here. The growth rate probably peaked by 1971 and the effects of the bulge would be expected by the mid-�80s which again matches the timing of the violent aftermath of Operation Blue Star (in light of this, is Blue Star which is routinely blamed for the escalation the paramount cause of it after all?). The falling growth rate may have been instrumental in its demise by the early �90s.

Nagaland: The stubborn persistence of this conflict through the decades could also be attributed to incessant series of youth bulges through the decades. The trend, if this theory is true, indicates that no resolution must be expected in the near future which may lend support to the Center�s continuing ceasefire with the dominant I.Muviah faction.

Assam: In case of Assam however, the growth rate was in inexorable decline through the �70s which ought to have translated into a peaceful �90s which was not the case � there was considerable violence through the early �90s and ULFA, though no longer as potent, continued to retain enough potential for mayhem even through the first decade of the 21st century.

…

In summary, it appears that youth bulge is an important factor in sustaining violent conflicts and preventing the restoration of political stability. However, such problems are multidimensional and it is only one (albeit an important one) amongst several factors. Heinsohn�s idea of it as the nidus upon which all else coalesces to create the storm may therefore not be quite accurate…

Incidentally, Mr Heinsohn’s prediction for the future of Pakistan and Afghanistan is dire and warns of impending instability�in our neighbourhood.

“Pakistan’s bloodletting will not be ending soon. A burgeoning population of young men shares the Taliban’s dream of a nuclear-armed Islam, with a united Afghanistan and Pakistan as its core territory and led by a new Caliphate. Although the fertility rate among Pakistani women has declined from close to six in 2000 to an average of four children each in 2007, their sisters in Afghanistan are still having close to seven.

That is why in the Hindu Kush every 1,000 pensioners are followed by 5,570 men of best military age and 11,130 boys aged 0 to 4. This means the troubles in Pakistan and Afghanistan will be with us for at least 20 more years. “

Not comforting.

.

Finally, for a bit of “light reading”fun, read, “Winds of War: More Pinhead�Thinking on Terrorism“� which talks about�a�British study that draws links between “engineers and terrorism, saying such people are high achievers and often get sucked into radicalism out of frustration with their corrupt bureaucracies…and thus receptive to radical messages“.

Priceless.

I was struck by the contrast with the Danish cartoon controversy. For more on this, see “The Danish cartoon controversy: A contrast in protests“, Michelle Malikin’s “Support Denmark: Why the forbidden cartoon matter” and Tavleen Singh’s article, “The right to laugh at gods”

…and before someone asks, here is my position on the Danish cartoon controversy:

The point is not whether the cartoons are offensive, outrageous or insulting – that they may well be – the point is are we going to defend the right of people to create and publish them?

This is about freedom of expression, freedom to offend, freedom to “laugh at gods”.

And that is exactly why, on one hand, I condemn M F Husain but on the other, am equally against strong-arm tactics to force him to withdraw his paintings that are seen as insulting towards Hindu deities.

*****  Below is a more detailed comment that I made on another blog on this topic

To make it absolutely clear: Although I do feel offended by certain paintings of Husain 1] this is a free country and Shri Husain is free to paint what he wishes to 2] I absolutely and unequivocally condemn the death threats and threats of violence in this situation (just as I would condemn the fatwa against Salman Rushdie) and 3] if certain people are upset about it, they have recourse to judicial means.

Now to the main argument (and this is not really about just the one painting that you have on your blog).

What I cannot understand is the inconsistency in the stand of the government (the cartoon controversy comes to mind), in the mind of the artist (did Shri Husain defend the Danish newspaper editor?   not as far as I know although I am willing to be corrected on this) and in the minds of various defenders of  “freedom of expression”.

I think it is really very simple: Either you are FOR “freedom of expression” – in which case you would also show the Mohammed cartoons on your site along with the Husain painting (- or desist from showing both out of deference to popular sensibilities) OR you are FOR “limited/restrained freedom” in which case you will probably agree that Husain’s paintings are sometimes over the top.

I am not a right-wing Hindutva-wadi (in the sense that you imply) and I cannot support their threats of personal violence against Shri Husain (or the moral policing by certain groups that you refer to – the Richard Gere-Shilpa Shetty controversy comes to mind).

In fact, the essence of Hindu traditions (as I have written before on your blog) is to hold all alternative viewpoints in equal respect and not consider them as blasphemous or sacrilegious. So a true Hindu may be offended by Shri Husain’s paintings but will not call for his death just because of that.

Further, a true “Hindu fundamentalist” will (i) have belief in the one-ness of all life and (ii) hold that in spite of diversity and external dissimilarity, all beings are one, all life is sacred and all creatures are part of one eternal truth and (iii) be tolerant and respectful of others. The “Hindutva-vadis” you mention are far removed from this.

As regards dieties being painted in the nude, let me try and explain:

Hindu temples are not just places of meditation and solemn rituals. Temples have historically (and even today) been one of the important centres of social and cultural activity in any village, town or city. This is important so that one can understand the context and appreciate that not every sculpture or icon in a temple belongs to a diety.

The Khajuraho sculptures that people routinely refer to are not those of Gods and Goddesses but of courtiers, courtesans, royals and ordinary mortals. Please go and visit if you have not done so far (or if you do not believe me).

Bear in mind also that the Khajuraho temples were built by Chandela kings who were heavily influenced by (and were followers of) the Tantric cult. This is not the best place to get into the complexities of that belief system (and it is widely mis-understood) but that partially explains the sexual postures on the outside of temples.

Yet, to be clear, the temples do not contain sexual themes inside the Temple premises or near the deity(-ies).

The erotic carvings themselves are a small proportion of the overall art (they obviously get disproportionate attention) and the idols of Shiva, Durga and Vishnu avatar are clothed.

Image courtesy: Wikimedia.org

Jo,

First a clarification (which I think is very important):

I am all for freedom of expression and as I have maintained several times in the past, I label myself as a liberal who is prepared to fight for the ideals of freedom, tolerance and respect for others

To make it absolutely clear: Although I do feel offended by certain paintings of Husain 1] this is a free country and Shri Husain is free to paint what he wishes to 2] I absolutely and unequivocally condemn the death threats and threats of violence in this situation (just as I would condemn the fatwa against Salman Rushdie) and 3] if certain people are upset about it, they have recourse to judicial means.

Now to the main argument (and this is not really about just the one painting that you have on your blog).

What I cannot understand is the inconsistency in the stand of the government (the cartoon controversy comes to mind), in the mind of the artist (did Shri Husain defend the Danish newspaper editor?  not as far as I know although I am willing to be corrected on this) and in the minds of various defenders of  “freedom of expression”.

I think it is really very simple: Either you are FOR “freedom of expression” – in which case you would also show the Mohammed cartoons on your site along with the Husain painting (- or desist from showing both out of deference to popular sensibilities) OR you are FOR “limited/restrained freedom” in which case you will probably agree that Husain’s paintings are sometimes over the top.

I am not a right-wing Hindutva-wadi (in the sense that you imply) and I cannot support their threats of personal violence against Shri Husain (or the moral policing by certain groups that you refer to – the Richard Gere-Shilpa Shetty controversy comes to mind).

In fact, the essence of Hindu traditions (as I have written before on your blog) is to hold all alternative viewpoints in equal respect and not consider them as blasphemous or sacrilegious. So a true Hindu may be offended by Shri Husain’s paintings but will not call for his death just because of that. Further, a true “Hindu fundamentalist” will (i) have belief in the one-ness of all life and (ii) hold that in spite of diversity and external dissimilarity, all beings are one, all life is sacred and all creatures are part of one eternal truth and (iii) be tolerant and respectful of others. The “Hindutva-vadis” you mention are far removed from this.

As regards dieties being painted in the nude, let me try and explain:

Hindu temples are not just places of meditation and solemn rituals. Temples have historically (and even today) been one of the important centres of social and cultural activity in any village, town or city. This is important so that one can understand the context and appreciate that not every sculpture or icon in a temple belongs to a diety.

The Khajuraho sculptures that people routinely refer to, are not those of Gods and Goddesses but of courtiers, courtesans, royals and ordinary mortals. Please go and visit if you have not done so far (or if you do not  believe me).

Bear in mind also that the Khajuraho tyemples were built by Chandela kings who were heavily influenced by (and were followers of) the Tantric cult. This is not the best place to get into the complexities of that belief system (and it is widely mis-understood) but that partially explains the sexual postures on the outside of temples.

Yet, to be clear, the temples do not contain sexual themes inside the Temple premises or near the deity(-ies).

The erotic carvings themselves are a small proportion of the overall art (they obviously get disproportionate attention) and the idols of Shiva, Durga and Vishnu avatar are clothed.

Hope this clarifies things somewhat.

Related Posts:

M F Husain in the news…again

M F Husain, “Artistic Freedom” and a sense of deja-vu

MF Husain apologises…?

Although I do not personally understand Husain’s art, I can imagine that he has some admirers. But to call this artist – who has over the years (for more than 2 decades) systematically attempted to denigrate a multitude of Hindu deities, symbols and images as the “greatest modern Indian artist”  is a little over the top.

This is the same painter against whom a notice has been issued by the High Court in Mumbai, against whom a case is pending in Indore and whose paintings are the subject of a Law Ministry advisory which is so detailed that state governments can (if they so wish) treat it as a complaint and take action against Husain[ii].

But then why blame the High Commissioner when our entire intelligentsia considers Husain’s work as high-quality art and something to be proud of?

When I raised the issue of Husain’s apparent contempt for the feelings and sensitivities of Hindus in the practise of his “art”[iii] with some “liberal” friends, the comments I got were similar and usually along the lines of:

“Hindus have become very intolerant in the recent past”
“Nude gods and goddesses have been routinely depicted in Indian art and architecture e.g. Khajuraho and
Hindu reaction is partly because of the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons
We have to defend an artist’s freedom to depict the world (and express it) the way he/she sees it

Let us analyze these points one-by-one.

The first argument, viz. “Hindus have become very intolerant in the recent past” is in the best traditions of the pseudo-liberal intelligentsia that dominate our national media. To these commentators, no insult is provocation enough and since the essence of Hinduism is “tolerance”, we should forgive (and forget) such insults because hasn’t Hinduism survived many such onslaughts in the past?
Oddly, none of these commentators talk about the rising “intolerance” around us (witness the Danish cartoon controversy) and none of them have any alternative sugg”estions for how else to deal with such gratuitous acts of contempt. For them, the solution is simple – tolerate and forget.

The second line of defense appears slightly more sophisticated but is equally specious. Hindu Gods and Goddesses have not routinely been painted in the nude in the past. The Khajuraho sculptures that these sophists refer to are not those of Gods and Goddesses but of courtiers, courtesans, royals and ordinary mortals.

The third point is really not a counter-point at all but is a weak attempt at explaining away the reaction to Husain’s art as an “aberration” on the part of the “tolerant” Hindu who has been led astray because of the rising tide of intolerance around him/her.

Note the subtle connection between points 1 and 3 – both make a virtue of “tolerance” and both elevate it to the “essence” of Hinduism. Whether Hindus have become “more” intolerant than before or not is open to debate but one must bear in mind that we do not live in a vacuum and what we see around us, does affect us.

Of course, Shri Husain is not unaware of these developments and earlier this year, he apologised for painting “Bharatmata” in the nude and also promised the painting from a charity auction (but stopped short of saying that he will destroy it)[iv]

As regards the fourth point regarding “artistic freedom”, I would simply reproduce an excerpt from “Encirclement From Within” by N S Rajaram in Mar ’03[v]

“Here is another example. When some Hindu groups objected to M.F. Husain for painting Hindu goddesses in the nude, the secular intellectuals including the media defended his “artistic freedom” do as he wished. But in 2002, a newspaper office in Bangalore was vandalized by a Muslim mob for publishing a perfectly innocent cartoon of Prophet Muhammad in its children’s section. And the newspaper apologized to the attackers. Imagine the victim apologizing to the assailants! Other papers in Bangalore – and at other places – have also apologized on similar occasions. So “artistic freedom” means freedom to offend Hindu sensibilities only!”

The most amazing thing is that Husain has been doing the “I am sorry, I was wrong” act for more than ten years – while continuing to add to his repertoire of nude images and paintings.
In Jan’97 (yes, that is more than 9 years ago), Husain was interrogated by the police in connection with the controversy over his nude painting of Goddess Saraswati. Earlier in ’96, the Mumbai city branch of CID had actually registered cases against Shri Husain under Section 295 A and 153 A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was that Shri Husain had outraged religious feelings and hurt public sensitivities.

And what did Husain do? He issued a written statement denying any “intention” to hurt religious feelings (of course) and apologised if he had hurt anyone’s sentiments  – Oops, I am sorry, I was wrong.

Fast forward to Feb 2006 – and the BBC online story, “Indian painter sorry for nude art” – Deja vu, anyone?

Now, as “tolerant” and “forgiving” Hindus, we will of course forget this apology too and move on  – until the next affront hits us in the face – and there will another round of apologies, protests and withdrawals.

Until then, please read a brilliant and biting piece on Shri Husain by RBL Nigam, “MF Husain: The Hindu Hater[vi]” (May 13 ’06) and to really make a difference, join the protest online at http://www.sanatan.org/hussaincampaign/

B Shantanu

P.S. As I write this, breaking news from London: The Husain exhibition is being cancelled by the organisers for “security reasons”.

References
[i] See http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/may/10husain.htm
[ii] See “Red Alert on MF Husain”, Hindustan Times, Aloke Tikku, May 5, ’06 (excerpts below) “The Home Ministry’s advisory follows concerns – backed by intelligence reports -  that Husain’s Bharatmata and other controversial paintings of Hindu goddesses can spark communal trouble. A case against him is already pending in an Indore court.The state police can treat the Home Ministry’s report as a complaint  – the accompanying documents are said to be quite detailed – and proceed against Husain. But it is a call the state governments will have to take.
[iii] See my blog entry at http://hindu_dharma.blogspot.com/2006/02/mf-husain-apologises.html
[iv] http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4694272.stm
[v] Original article at http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/03/3544.shtml and also at http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2005_06.php
[vi] Online at http://nigamrajendra.blogspot.com/2006/05/mfhusain-hindu-hater.html

Here is a YouTube video showing some of the controversial paintings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25zh8i9_VAM