When the non-resident Indians speak of `their' version of Hinduism, to the so-called `ignorant' and `pitiable' Hindus who live `here' in India, one becomes a little uneasy. A majority of these people, from the early years of their education, start nurturing the dream of migrating to what they consider the land of bounty (the U.S. in most cases) for better material prospects.
They leave their motherland with sole objective of fulfilling their material ambition, which itself is the antithesis of the true practice of Hinduism. They do not want to be int the `ugly' land of snakes, cowdung and stinking villages. They do not want to identify themselves with the unclean and foul-smelling common folk of this poor country. They want to be hygienic, clean, and economically high-placed.
To wash off their `guilt complex' and feel emotionally secure amidst their riches -- which, at times, alienates them from their cultural roots -- they would like to have, as a cosmetic touch, a little of religion, the Indian classical dance, music, ethnic food, festivals and other culltural items. They build ostentatious places of worship to visit either during the week-ends or at the time of distress. They liberally donate to temples in India ro themselves construct temples over there.
Hinduism is protected and preserved by the common folk of this country. Poor people, rural women, live and breathe Hinduism in their everyday life. They nurture it, fight with it, and develop an ambient relationship with it. Common people use religion instinctively and intuitively, when they confront new forms of attack on theiir life-styles, values and life support systems. The latest challenge to them today is globaliszation and liberalisation, the impact of which is devastating on Hindu culture and traditions.
These global economic concepts, which often are culturally-loaded, are being exported to us in the garb of free market and progress from the West, particularly from the U.S. where most of the NRIs live.
Hinduism can take thousands of Husains, digest them and assimilate them into its system. Hinduism has provided spce for nihilists, nonbelievers and even atheists like Charvakas, Mimamskaras, Pathanjalis, and Samkhyas. The great saints of the Bhakthi movement of the 15th and 16th centuries composed `Keerthanas' and `Bhajans' in all bhavas -- loving, praising, teasing, amorously censuring and even abusing gods and goddesses.
These are various forms of intimate dialogue between the `Bhakta' and the `Bhagavan' which are allowed in Hinduism, but, cannot be easily understood by an `outsider'. In `Atharva Veda' we find a lot of verses called `Ashleela - Suktas' which are obscene and amoral according to the narrow version of morality of the formal society. Hinduism has grown stronger and remained creative through the ages because of the freedom that it allowed.
Husain is one of the most talented artists, this country has ever produced. A good many of his canvases reflect deep respectt for the Indian womanhood. His taking liberty to depict goddess Saraswathi in the nude suggests to me, as a Hindu, his childlike intimacy with the Goddess. Before condemning Husain, we, should therefore try to understand the `bhava' Husain has brought forth in this painting.
First, we have to become the rightful insiders to understand the subtleties
involved in religion. Only then can we acquire the right to criticise the
rich and multifarious expressions of the religion -- be it painting, sculpture,
literature or rituals prescribed in the Tantra,
and Vamachara forms of worship. Any wrong perception of religion as
a single solid monolithic block, at times, hides its rich pluralistic dimensions.
If we start denigrating the inconvenient things of Indian culture, which do not tune well with our way of interpretation, we may ultimately reach a stage where we may be compelled to eliminate even some of the most creative portions of Bhakti literature by saints such as Kabir, Chaitanya, Nanak, Kanaka and Pranadara, which, at places, describe Krishna as an amorous lover of Gopis.
Insult to Husain is an insult to our Vedantic traditions, spirit and values. The beauty of Vedanta is that it is not in the form of Anushasanas (commandments) but in the form of dialogues based on the spirit of enquiry.
Vedanta invites criticisms and challenges in the form of poorvapaksha and provides space within it for continuous dialogur and new readings of the scriptural texts. Only through such creative resistance and reinterpretations, can religion be kept vibrant and meaningful.