Re: [Reader-list] Husain Exhibition Attacked in Delhi
Via: "Angshukanta Chakraborty"
Dear Rana and all others reading this post,
I would suggest everyone reading this particular yet unpublished novel by
Prashant Parikh serialised in a blog:
http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/a-gash-in-the-world/
Though, not amongst the 'best' of contemporary fictions, it definitely rings
a resounding bell, and I'm sending the link as a partial answer to some of
the questions and issues raised in this argument over the 'meaning of
Hinduism' which is supposedly under attack by a work of art composed by an
artist from/of a different, and more specifically, the Muslim religion.
The keywords/phrases that have been repeatedly discussed in this chain of
arguments are probably these: Hinduism, Hindus, Art, Painting, Hussain,
Muslim, Islam, India, Motherland, Metaphor, Sex, Sexuality, Body, Nudity,
and lastly Om/Aum.
I'm not going to add anything to what Akshay Khanna beautifully put forward
in his earlier post, and which basically explicates most of these key
topics. I'd rather write what came to my mind upon reading Rana Dasgupta's
evocation of Om/Aum, one of the most 'fundamental' sounds/words in the Hindu
scriptures, especially dealt with in the Mandukya Upanishad.
No I haven't read the scriptures, none of them, but I intend to, and I will
sometime. But, I do understand, that they, the scriptures, whether ascribed
to the Hindu, Islamic or Christian religions, are still TEXTS in the very
basic sense. They are books, transcribed meditations, historical records,
testimonies of cultures, databases, and a compilation of contextual ideas.
So, first of all, we need to strip them of the grandiloquent aura that
surrounds them, and see them as critical source books, full of then relevant
intellectual concepts, which need a historicisation and reinterpretation
whenever they are brought up.
Of course we all know what I just stated. However, I needed to reiterate it
before going on to say anything, not just about, but perhaps what I
*now* *think
about* Om/Aum, upon reading Rana's post. Needless to say, whatever I say
here is completely open to refutation.
I quote Rana,
*In the Mandukya Upanishad, which discusses the word "Om", we read that
in addition to the three sounds of this word, which correspond to three
different states of a person, there is also its silence - and this
corresponds to the transcendental state of the individual - to a person*
*"who is neither inwardly nor outwardly aware, nor both inward and
outward, nor with consciousness infolded on itself - who is unseen and
ineffable, ungraspable, featureless, unthinkable and unnameable."
Other Upanishads name this transcendental state of Om. It is Brahman.
It is infinity.
*
Aum, more tham anything, is a compound sound, with which three plus one (a
trifle arbitary) "states" have been associated:
a for waking, u for dreaming, and m for dreamless sleeping.
This sound could have been anything else, involving a different set of
vowels or consonants, and could have still meant the three so-called states
of human existence, and the unsaid but meant fourth one, without altering
the gravity of their meanings. So, in a way, Aum is a sound, albeit a
sanctified one, a textually and historically validated sound that
incidentally got passed on through centuries and generations, attaining its
cumulative hugeness through acceptance and validation. If we didn't have an
Ium, or Uam, or even Oep as something that denotes our fundamental states of
being, the universe and what not, well then why did we not? Is it because
they are not suitably guttural? ( I just realised that uttering Aum actually
exercises some of the abdominal muscles, then was it for the medical
purposes after all?)
Hence, I think that ascription of the universe or infinity to the sound
Om/Aum, and vice-versa, is hence one of the biggest coincidences of Vedic
scriptural culture. Of course, we need to understand that so is every word,
a compound sound, and it's only by mutual agreement can we begin to make
meaning out of them, which is precisely why, when sparks of disagreement
fly, meanings *change*.
*The word "infinity" is used frequently today. But the Upanishads take
this word at its face value. Infinity is *truly* infinite. It has no
end, and there is nothing it does not include. Om is *literally*
everything. There is nothing that is not Om. Even the things we think
are not Om, are Om. Even a parody of Om is Om. Even an insult to Om is
Om*.
This phraseology matches exactly with the way the advocates of
"Hinduism-is-not-a-religion-it-is-A-Way-of-Life" present their arguments.
First on Om:
Om *is* a sound, literally. Om *has come to signify* in the Vedic texts the
Infinity. Therefore, Om ~ Infinity, but Om =/= Infinity, that is to say, Om
has been made to correspond with Infinity, but Om is not equivalent to
Infinity. For Infinity to be truly Infinite, it has be beyond any
equivalence. It can only be indicated, but never arrived at. If the Vedic
scripturers, excuse the neologism, wanted to obtain a spiritual theorem, or
a philosophical axiom, they had to put something on the left to be weighed
along with something else on the right.
typically it is X = Y, or X = f(Y), that is, f being a function of Y. If we
take X to be Om, and Y to be Infinity, and f, the function to be existence,
(in its profoundest or profanest sense, your call), then we arrive at two
different versions. These being:
Om = Infinity, and Om= (existence of) Infinity.
Could these two expressions mean/be the same? Which of the two were the
script-writers of the Upanishads endorsing when they spoke of it? Is the
writing of Om different from Om the sound in terms of its gravity? Is Om
written in English letters different from the Om in Devanagari? As we see,
the fundamental sound, already seems to be extremely fissured and
contestable to be so fundamental and inviolable after all.
Now on Om-is-Infinity's similarities with Hinduism-is-a-Way-of-Life:
Om is an incidental Infinity, if I can say so, and if you accept my saying
so. However, people who take Om on facevalue, have a penchant for taking
most of the things just so, literally, on facevalue, and not dig into the
oceans of metaphor and history submerged beneath. In the same vein, if
Hinduism happens to be a sum total of the religious activities (including
reading, writing, re-writing, ritualising, performing as dictated in the
texts in their innumerable versions) and the other activities that are more
common and shared by people belonging to other religions (activities like
eating, drinking, sleeping, mating, discussing, gossiping, net-surfing,
etc), then what is so special about Hinduism? Christianity or Islam or even
Sikhism and Buddhism too can boast of exactly the same things, i.e., the
religious and other general activities. So, it is basically the *textual
differences* in the scriptures, whether the Upanishads, the Quran, the Bible
or the Guru Granth Sahib, that chart out the finer patterns of the execution
of the religious ritual, that mark one religion from the other. It is what
exactly one says (and in what order) while exchanging the wedding vows that
differentiates one religious marriage from the other. If Hinduism is a way
of life, then so are Christianity, Islam, Buddism or Sikhism. But if these
are merely religions, then so is Hinduism.
Probably what is at stake here is the gravity of implication connoted by the
difference in phraseology. If Hinduism has Om, and Om is Infinity, and
Infinity has everything, including its contradiction and/or things
extraneous to it (which is nothing), then logically, Hinduism has Infinity,
and nothing exists outside of Infinity, hence nothing exists outside of
Hinduism, which in a way, brings to nought every other religion. This is
precisely the premise of the "Hinduism is a Way of Life" argument. It
accommodates (may I say eats up? engulfs? cannibalises on?) everything else,
hence it is not merely a religion, because it can adapt and re-invent itself
by 'sheltering the rest'. Are we confusing the multifarious cross-fertilised
cultures (whether linguistic, gastronomic, sartorial, educational, even
religious) of this variegated land, called India since 1947, with simply
Hinduism? Does that mean that whatever has been happening since the Vedic
ages is autochthonous and 'organic' to this 'originally' Hindu India, and
everything else that's extraneous or came from outside is non-Hindu, hence
un-originary, hence non-Ways-of-Life? What we constantly underplay is the
now distant presence of textuality in Hinduism, and play it off against the
proximity, indeed the overt centrality of the core text in other religions.
Since a Bible is present in the Christian wedding ceremony, along with the
priest of course, it is a text-centric religious Religion, while because
usually the Hindu Brahmin priests do away with the hassles of texts relying
more on their impeccably reproducing memories, ours is a Way-of-Life
Religion.
I might go on endlessly charting out further the absurdities of this
insistence. It has a value, if not critical validity, in terms of its
applicability in the pre-Independence era, but to say it without scrutiny in
the present times is bound to create oppositional voices.
*If this is Hinduism then Hinduism is fantastically, impossibly grand.
Why then would we mix it up with things that are not grand at all, as if
they existed on the same level?*
**
**
Although, if I get it right, Rana said this ironically, I think there's a
lurking danger in such sarcasms that inflate the Hinduism balloon with the
definitive intention of bursting it. To say 'why would we mix it up with
things that are not grand at all' is tantamount to stopping the process of
argument altogether because it is too big or pointless for a meaningful
dialogue. No matter how flawed the other side appears, a dialogue is always
needed. Hence, even Infinity needs grades and shades of various finitudes to
be it. Such all-encompassing concepts, are at best exactly that, concepts,
which are in turn human creations. So that makes the concept of Infinity a
human creation, if not Infinity itself. And Infinity never forbids infinite
dialogue.
Rana, I never for second thought that you could be an advocate of the
Hinduism is a Way Life school, or any such school that dictates. *Tokyo
Cancelled* had the limitless expanse of our infinite finitudes, and most
poetically and evocatively rendered. What I wrote was simply what came to my
mind upon reading what you wrote. Perhaps this would elicit a dialogue, at
best, but I hope nothing bitter even at worst.
Best regards,
Angshukanta
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> ONE
>
> No one knows what Hinduism is. But perhaps we can agree that the
> Upanishads are "Hindu".
>
> In the Mandukya Upanishad, which discusses the word "Om", we read that
> in addition to the three sounds of this word, which correspond to three
> different states of a person, there is also its silence - and this
> corresponds to the transcendental state of the individual - to a person:
>
> "who is neither inwardly nor outwardly aware, nor both inward and
> outward, nor with consciousness infolded on itself - who is unseen and
> ineffable, ungraspable, featureless, unthinkable and unnameable."
>
> Other Upanishads name this transcendental state of Om. It is Brahman.
> It is infinity.
>
> The word "infinity" is used frequently today. But the Upanishads take
> this word at its face value. Infinity is *truly* infinite. It has no
> end, and there is nothing it does not include. Om is *literally*
> everything. There is nothing that is not Om. Even the things we think
> are not Om, are Om. Even a parody of Om is Om. Even an insult to Om is
> Om.
>
> Meditation on the word "Om" reveals that the self is part of this
> infinity. I am Om. My egotistical impulses are ridiculous. I cannot
> take from the universe because I am the universe. If I feel that my
> body or my street or my family or my town or my country are spiritually
> unique or special then I have not begun to understand the infinity I am
> part of. I cannot break anything off from this infinity and worship it.
> Infinity is infinity, and I can spend my entire life contemplating it
> but every thought I have of infinity is limited, and it is not infinity
> itself.
>
> If this is Hinduism then Hinduism is fantastically, impossibly grand.
> Why then would we mix it up with things that are not grand at all, as if
> they existed on the same level?
>
> "India" for instance. "India" is a 60 year-old political pragmatism.
> "India" is an accidental territory. It is a collection of peoples of
> different races, histories, languages, religions, incomes and
> sexualities. It is a seat in the UN. It is a bureaucratic machine. It
> is a hastily contrived set of symbols. Its beginning was recent, and
> one day it will cease to be. It is not particularly grand. In the
> context of infinity, of Om, India is of no importance at all.
>
> It seems impossible that Hindus, people with such an enormous vision of
> the universe, would get upset about pictures that a painter made. The
> painter is Om, and so are his pictures. Sex is Om, the naked body is
> Om. It seems impossible that Hindus would be interested in nationalism
> or anti-nationalism because such parochialism would be far below them.
> They would only be interested in "India" in the same way they were
> interested in "Congo" or "Azerbaijan" or "Paraguay" - for these things
> are of interest, but none more than any other.
>
> Hindus are too grand to be concerned by India or painters or people who
> worship differently to them. Such things melt into the enormity of
> infinity, and disappear.
>
> TWO
>
> Why would one speak of "the Motherland"? What is one trying to say with
> this word? How can "the Motherland" be identical to a nation?
>
> If one is trying to say that the land is nurturing like a mother this is
> true, but so is all land, not just the land of a certain nation.
>
> Perhaps one could say that the Indian government organised schools and
> ration cards and elections and television broadcasts - and therefore
> India is my Motherland. But this would be a strange and unromantic idea
> of a mother.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> chanchal malviya wrote:
> > Dear Khanna,
> >
> > 1. There are people in this world who are not ready to take the
> positive side of their own identity. There are people who would love to
> rape their own mother and motherland. And there are some people who even
> protect their intention as personal attitude. Great. Not to say anything
> to them.
> > 2. You telling that motherland is a metaphor and nothing else
> explains in itself what you feel about India. I am sure such person also
> feel the same for their own mother and sister. And I have written
> earlier that such person would not come to protect their mother also,
> what to say about the broader concept of motherland.
> > 3. As far as Hinduism is concerned, it has to be recognized through
> the text only. It cannot be recognized at least now by actions of
> people. Because India is more Islamic and Christianized than a Hindu
> country. Of course, people like you are a part of it. Hinduism is a mere
> subject of attack in India. What I told about Hinduism is exactly what
> is HInduism. And why Hinduism, this word came into existence only when
> other Religions forced it upon the people of Sanatan Dharma.
> >
> > I know you will not be able to understand the difference between
> Dharma and Religion. For you and Gandhiji both are same. But Dharma
> means Righteous duty and Religion is what you all are talking about.
> Hinduism is science and teaches righteous duty in scientific manner.
> World outside India is recognizing this, but our Indians will understand
> it only when a 'Gora' will come and say and that also when he is ruling
> us. Sorry.
> >
> > Sex is a power of nature that is to be won by human through various
> methodologies described in Hindu text. And that is an important step
> towards Self-Realization. Attempt is that only. Women taking bath nude
> didn't cover their body when Sukdeva (son of Veda Vyas) crossed them,
> because they knew that he is a child in his nature on this matter. But
> they immediately took cover when Veda Vyas crossed.
> > There are many stories where Saints are being enticed by Apsaras for
> sex. And the theme of all story is same - sex is a very powerful natural
> factor. And winning over it is the biggest win in life.
> > If sex would have been so prominent in Hindus, we would have found
> Hindu society also marrying multitude of women.
> > Please do not try to put Hinduism under charge, for this.
> > I have already told you the meaning of Deities, and yet you do not
> understand and ask me stupid questions.
> >
> > Unlike Islam, where one is allowed to marry as many as they like as
> per their capacity and in addition keep as many women as their right
> hand posses (Hindu women) for sex. It is unlike Christian where sex and
> love are the same thing.
> >
> > M.F.Hussain is a gift of Islam. So, he will see even his motherland
> only with his Madhuri attitude. No, he is seeing India nude with his
> Islamic attitude. He has seen Madhuri also with his Islamic attitude,
> though film stars have a different life style and we may not be
> protective of them in this matter.
> >
> > It is so simple, if M.F.Hussain is so clean, let him paint his
> mother. Or if you or the protector of M.F.Hussain has so large heart,
> please send a photograph of your mother to him and ask him to paint her
> nude. Let me see, how many of you are not of double standard.
> > Either you all are in favor of Darul-Islam, or you are abusing your
> own motherland by supporting bloody Hussain.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: A Khanna
> > To: Prabhakar Singh
> > Cc: chanchal malviya ; inder salim
> ; reader-list@sarai.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:36:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Husain Exhibition Attacked in Delhi
> >
> > chanchal, prabhakar, Everyone Else,
> >
> > there are three issues i'd like to reflect on in light of your rather
> > rabid postings on the issues of the attack on M.F. Husain's
> > exhibition. Apologies for the rather long posting, i do hope some of
> > you will find it interesting.
> >
> > First, a rather obvious contestation relating to Chanchal's gratuitous
> > offer to speak the 'truth' of 'Hinudism', and more broadly, the
> > aggressive claim of Hindutva forces of a monopoly of what the terms
> > 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' may mean. More particularly, this is a
> > contestation of the place of sexualness and eroticism in them. What
> > makes it possible for the claim to be made that 'sex is not erotic in
> > hinduism' on the one hand, and the demeaning of artists who brought
> > out erotics in sex as 'failed' Hindus? What exactly is the fear of the
> > erotic? Why are these strange people trying to cleave eroticism away
> > from the lives of 'Hindus'??
> >
> > Surely you are aware that there is a diversity of practices,
> > festivals, mythologies, political economies, cosmologies if you like,
> > in different parts of the country and in different communities in the
> > same regions, that may lay claim to the name 'Hindu'. This is even in
> > the face of colonial, and more recent hindu fundamentalist, attempts
> > to reduce this diversity into a rather boring, often textual,
> > normative frame. Chanchal offers, in other words, one peculiar vision
> > of some 'pure' or 'original' 'Hinduism' as though it exists in texts
> > (particular ones that by perhaps little more than historical
> > serendipity, and sex anxious coloniality, came to be seen as
> > containing the 'truth' of 'Hindu culture'), rather than in the
> > embodiment and practices of people. chanchal's vision, of a "faith
> > (not religion) that talks about winning over the senses (particularly
> > sex)" is one that, for the large part, stands miles away from various
> > realities, practices and beliefs of those who consider themselves
> > 'Hindu'.
> >
> > In my travels around India researching sexualness and eroticism I
> > encountered a confounding multiplicity of festivals, rituals,
> > identities and idioms in which eroticism, desire and sexualness are
> > central. Way too many of these take place in temples, way too many of
> > these are central to local religious practices, and the logics and
> > experiences of faith, way too many of these lay claim to being
> > 'Hindu', for me to accept chanchal's description of Hinduism as an
> > achievement over sex. Or of the Lingam as light. (is it just me or
> > does this sounds closer to a Victorian Christianity? – a reading of
> > colonial anxieties around sex race and gender into the truth of the
> > self?) So chanchal, unfortunately yours is one peculiar vision of
> > 'hindu', and a pathetically unimaginative one at that. It sounds to me
> > like the collective voice of a masculinist upper caste that is yet to
> > come to terms with (or even recognise) the damage done to it through
> > the colonial experience and one which clings to rather fragile stories
> > of the self. And it is unfortunate that the political economy of
> > Hindutva allows such a vision so much importance today. (Let me
> > clarify that i am not particularly invested or interested in
> > reclaiming Hindu from the bare teeth of the aggressive masculinist
> > claimants. But i do want to point to the right of others to do so.)
> >
> > The second interesting point in the postings is the tension around
> > nudity. Nakedness. Such a beautiful experience. Do you not love the
> > human body? Do you not love your own selves? Is it a fear or disgust
> > with the self or some other trauma that brings about such anxiety
> > around nakedness? But ofcourse this is not just the representation of
> > the naked human body that seems to have caused this anxiety – it seems
> > to be, more precisely, that you necessarily see sexualness and
> > eroticism in the naked human body. But hold on, it is not just
> > sexualness and eroticism of the naked human body that has caused this
> > anxiety, it is a very particular nakedness – the nakedness of
> > 'Motherland India'. Because, the problem with 'perverted Husain' is
> > that to him "Mother Indian and Madhuri are the same" – therefore,
> > actually its alright for him to paint Madhuri, in fact you probably
> > sat at the edge of your seat, enthralled as many of us were, as
> > Madhuri oh so sensuously thrust her beautiful breasts forward,
> > inviting you to a world of phantasmic pleasure, nevermind the
> > performance of outrage at the LYRICS of Choli Ke Peechhe (and i'm not
> > talking merely of pleasure for the male gaze of Masculine Men. I for
> > one, wanted to be Madhuri). Its the nakedness of Mother India, or
> > Motherland India that caused anxiety. So lets face this ponderous
> > image of a naked, sexualised Mother India head on. There are two
> > things that i find fascinating here.
> >
> > First, the Motherland is a metaphor. A very powerful metaphor
> > admittedly. But a metaphor nonetheless. India is experienced as many
> > things, and through many metaphors – a place, sometimes a 'people', a
> > postcolonial nation state, a geographical entity with multiple and
> > complex cartographic existences, a cricket team, a zone of intense
> > gastronomic density, a colonising force, an a series of competing and
> > collaborating political economies...But India is not simply a woman.
> > And Kashmir is not the head of this woman (as we were unfortunately
> > taught in school in the 80s). The power of this metaphor is truly
> > fascinating.
> >
> > But how does one strip a metaphor?? This must be one hell of a
> > brilliant painting! (on which note, are there any weblinks to images
> > of this painting? If someone knows a link i implore you, please share
> > it on this list). If it is true that this painting has managed to
> > actually bring this metaphor into an embodiment, and then brought out
> > an eroticism in it (rather than what it seems like, the attackers not
> > having even really seen and experienced the the painting) then what it
> > has done is expose Mother India as a metaphor, and weakened the power
> > that 'she' wields. Brilliant. The second thing is of course that once
> > we see Mother India as a metaphor into which we are constantly
> > investing a sense of reality, the metaphor becomes a contested space.
> > And perhaps this is what is creating anxiety for the likes of
> > prabhakar and chanchal?
> >
> > So lets look at what it is about the stripping of this metaphor that
> > has gotten them, and the attackers of the exhibition so aggressive?
> > What is the power of this metaphor? One of prabhakar's email hits the
> > nail on the head. "If some artist in the name of art paints your
> > mother nude and displays it in art galleries and exhibitions to public
> > how would you feel and how would you react?", s/he asks. A similar
> > point is made by chanchal when s/he says "I am sure, a person who
> > paints his motherland nude, must have done much more nonesense (sic)
> > to his mother and sister". This leads me to understand that the
> > anxiety over the depiction of Mother India in such a way that she may
> > be seen to be sexualised, as erotic, is actually an anxiety around the
> > possibility that heris mother is sexual, or has an erotic side to her.
> > Is it scary, prabhakar, chanchal, for you to imagine that your mother
> > may be a sexual being with erotic desires, and with a body that is her
> > own, and which can be naked? Is it a fear of this possibility that
> > evokes in you, such strong emotions when you see (or perhaps hear of)
> > what some artist has done on a piece of canvas with paint? Is it this
> > fear that you will allow to dominate your very imagination of the
> > Nation of India? Freudian psychobabble, in other words, offers itself
> > up tantalisingly here. Is their Hindu nation structured around an
> > Oedipal anxiety over desire for the mother? (ugh!)
> >
> > The troubling effect of this is of course the denial in nationalist
> > discourse of sexualness or rather the right to sexualness of women, as
> > after all, the big obligation on the good woman is to become the
> > mother of (male) children. This justifies mechanisms of regulation
> > over women's sexualness, and the meting out of punishment and
> > exclusion to those who fail to live within these boundaries, or
> > transgress them at will. The protests against the film Fire being a
> > case in point. But how does a woman become a mother (over and over
> > again, atleast until she begets a Son), when she is bereft of
> > sexualness? Is this an imagination of immaculate conception, or, a
> > belief that the only form of legitimate sex is heterosexual rape? The
> > point here is that if the metaphor of the Motherland and the lives of
> > women must feed into each other, the demand for the recognition of
> > sexualness and women's right to sexuality must also address the
> > sexualness of the metaphor of Mother India.
> >
> > This brings me to my last point. I was brought up with a sense of
> > patriotism, stories of the freedom struggle, stories of the success of
> > Big Nehruvian development and images of Mother India. In fact i
> > sometimes still experience a sense of nostalgia for that heady emotion
> > of being part of that particular 'something bigger'. (yes, i cried
> > when i watched Rang De Basanti). I have, in other words, experienced
> > the power of Mother India, and surely all that investment by the state
> > into making sure that this experience marks my psyche forever entails
> > me to owning the metaphor. I claim the right, in other words to invest
> > this metaphor with things. If i bring my travels around India to bear
> > on this, i'd say 'Mother India', to me, is one hell of beautiful,
> > sensual, sexual, erotic figure, a polymorphous queer body, who laughs,
> > flirts, makes love, has soul-baring intense sex. Oh, and, sigh, S/he
> > also makes steel.
> >
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > akshay
> >
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request@sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
Dear Rana and all others reading this post,
I would suggest everyone reading this particular yet unpublished novel by
Prashant Parikh serialised in a blog:
http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/a-gash-in-the-world/
Though, not amongst the 'best' of contemporary fictions, it definitely rings
a resounding bell, and I'm sending the link as a partial answer to some of
the questions and issues raised in this argument over the 'meaning of
Hinduism' which is supposedly under attack by a work of art composed by an
artist from/of a different, and more specifically, the Muslim religion.
The keywords/phrases that have been repeatedly discussed in this chain of
arguments are probably these: Hinduism, Hindus, Art, Painting, Hussain,
Muslim, Islam, India, Motherland, Metaphor, Sex, Sexuality, Body, Nudity,
and lastly Om/Aum.
I'm not going to add anything to what Akshay Khanna beautifully put forward
in his earlier post, and which basically explicates most of these key
topics. I'd rather write what came to my mind upon reading Rana Dasgupta's
evocation of Om/Aum, one of the most 'fundamental' sounds/words in the Hindu
scriptures, especially dealt with in the Mandukya Upanishad.
No I haven't read the scriptures, none of them, but I intend to, and I will
sometime. But, I do understand, that they, the scriptures, whether ascribed
to the Hindu, Islamic or Christian religions, are still TEXTS in the very
basic sense. They are books, transcribed meditations, historical records,
testimonies of cultures, databases, and a compilation of contextual ideas.
So, first of all, we need to strip them of the grandiloquent aura that
surrounds them, and see them as critical source books, full of then relevant
intellectual concepts, which need a historicisation and reinterpretation
whenever they are brought up.
Of course we all know what I just stated. However, I needed to reiterate it
before going on to say anything, not just about, but perhaps what I
*now* *think
about* Om/Aum, upon reading Rana's post. Needless to say, whatever I say
here is completely open to refutation.
I quote Rana,
*In the Mandukya Upanishad, which discusses the word "Om", we read that
in addition to the three sounds of this word, which correspond to three
different states of a person, there is also its silence - and this
corresponds to the transcendental state of the individual - to a person*
*"who is neither inwardly nor outwardly aware, nor both inward and
outward, nor with consciousness infolded on itself - who is unseen and
ineffable, ungraspable, featureless, unthinkable and unnameable."
Other Upanishads name this transcendental state of Om. It is Brahman.
It is infinity.
*
Aum, more tham anything, is a compound sound, with which three plus one (a
trifle arbitary) "states" have been associated:
a for waking, u for dreaming, and m for dreamless sleeping.
This sound could have been anything else, involving a different set of
vowels or consonants, and could have still meant the three so-called states
of human existence, and the unsaid but meant fourth one, without altering
the gravity of their meanings. So, in a way, Aum is a sound, albeit a
sanctified one, a textually and historically validated sound that
incidentally got passed on through centuries and generations, attaining its
cumulative hugeness through acceptance and validation. If we didn't have an
Ium, or Uam, or even Oep as something that denotes our fundamental states of
being, the universe and what not, well then why did we not? Is it because
they are not suitably guttural? ( I just realised that uttering Aum actually
exercises some of the abdominal muscles, then was it for the medical
purposes after all?)
Hence, I think that ascription of the universe or infinity to the sound
Om/Aum, and vice-versa, is hence one of the biggest coincidences of Vedic
scriptural culture. Of course, we need to understand that so is every word,
a compound sound, and it's only by mutual agreement can we begin to make
meaning out of them, which is precisely why, when sparks of disagreement
fly, meanings *change*.
*The word "infinity" is used frequently today. But the Upanishads take
this word at its face value. Infinity is *truly* infinite. It has no
end, and there is nothing it does not include. Om is *literally*
everything. There is nothing that is not Om. Even the things we think
are not Om, are Om. Even a parody of Om is Om. Even an insult to Om is
Om*.
This phraseology matches exactly with the way the advocates of
"Hinduism-is-not-a-religion-it-is-A-Way-of-Life" present their arguments.
First on Om:
Om *is* a sound, literally. Om *has come to signify* in the Vedic texts the
Infinity. Therefore, Om ~ Infinity, but Om =/= Infinity, that is to say, Om
has been made to correspond with Infinity, but Om is not equivalent to
Infinity. For Infinity to be truly Infinite, it has be beyond any
equivalence. It can only be indicated, but never arrived at. If the Vedic
scripturers, excuse the neologism, wanted to obtain a spiritual theorem, or
a philosophical axiom, they had to put something on the left to be weighed
along with something else on the right.
typically it is X = Y, or X = f(Y), that is, f being a function of Y. If we
take X to be Om, and Y to be Infinity, and f, the function to be existence,
(in its profoundest or profanest sense, your call), then we arrive at two
different versions. These being:
Om = Infinity, and Om= (existence of) Infinity.
Could these two expressions mean/be the same? Which of the two were the
script-writers of the Upanishads endorsing when they spoke of it? Is the
writing of Om different from Om the sound in terms of its gravity? Is Om
written in English letters different from the Om in Devanagari? As we see,
the fundamental sound, already seems to be extremely fissured and
contestable to be so fundamental and inviolable after all.
Now on Om-is-Infinity's similarities with Hinduism-is-a-Way-of-Life:
Om is an incidental Infinity, if I can say so, and if you accept my saying
so. However, people who take Om on facevalue, have a penchant for taking
most of the things just so, literally, on facevalue, and not dig into the
oceans of metaphor and history submerged beneath. In the same vein, if
Hinduism happens to be a sum total of the religious activities (including
reading, writing, re-writing, ritualising, performing as dictated in the
texts in their innumerable versions) and the other activities that are more
common and shared by people belonging to other religions (activities like
eating, drinking, sleeping, mating, discussing, gossiping, net-surfing,
etc), then what is so special about Hinduism? Christianity or Islam or even
Sikhism and Buddhism too can boast of exactly the same things, i.e., the
religious and other general activities. So, it is basically the *textual
differences* in the scriptures, whether the Upanishads, the Quran, the Bible
or the Guru Granth Sahib, that chart out the finer patterns of the execution
of the religious ritual, that mark one religion from the other. It is what
exactly one says (and in what order) while exchanging the wedding vows that
differentiates one religious marriage from the other. If Hinduism is a way
of life, then so are Christianity, Islam, Buddism or Sikhism. But if these
are merely religions, then so is Hinduism.
Probably what is at stake here is the gravity of implication connoted by the
difference in phraseology. If Hinduism has Om, and Om is Infinity, and
Infinity has everything, including its contradiction and/or things
extraneous to it (which is nothing), then logically, Hinduism has Infinity,
and nothing exists outside of Infinity, hence nothing exists outside of
Hinduism, which in a way, brings to nought every other religion. This is
precisely the premise of the "Hinduism is a Way of Life" argument. It
accommodates (may I say eats up? engulfs? cannibalises on?) everything else,
hence it is not merely a religion, because it can adapt and re-invent itself
by 'sheltering the rest'. Are we confusing the multifarious cross-fertilised
cultures (whether linguistic, gastronomic, sartorial, educational, even
religious) of this variegated land, called India since 1947, with simply
Hinduism? Does that mean that whatever has been happening since the Vedic
ages is autochthonous and 'organic' to this 'originally' Hindu India, and
everything else that's extraneous or came from outside is non-Hindu, hence
un-originary, hence non-Ways-of-Life? What we constantly underplay is the
now distant presence of textuality in Hinduism, and play it off against the
proximity, indeed the overt centrality of the core text in other religions.
Since a Bible is present in the Christian wedding ceremony, along with the
priest of course, it is a text-centric religious Religion, while because
usually the Hindu Brahmin priests do away with the hassles of texts relying
more on their impeccably reproducing memories, ours is a Way-of-Life
Religion.
I might go on endlessly charting out further the absurdities of this
insistence. It has a value, if not critical validity, in terms of its
applicability in the pre-Independence era, but to say it without scrutiny in
the present times is bound to create oppositional voices.
*If this is Hinduism then Hinduism is fantastically, impossibly grand.
Why then would we mix it up with things that are not grand at all, as if
they existed on the same level?*
**
**
Although, if I get it right, Rana said this ironically, I think there's a
lurking danger in such sarcasms that inflate the Hinduism balloon with the
definitive intention of bursting it. To say 'why would we mix it up with
things that are not grand at all' is tantamount to stopping the process of
argument altogether because it is too big or pointless for a meaningful
dialogue. No matter how flawed the other side appears, a dialogue is always
needed. Hence, even Infinity needs grades and shades of various finitudes to
be it. Such all-encompassing concepts, are at best exactly that, concepts,
which are in turn human creations. So that makes the concept of Infinity a
human creation, if not Infinity itself. And Infinity never forbids infinite
dialogue.
Rana, I never for second thought that you could be an advocate of the
Hinduism is a Way Life school, or any such school that dictates. *Tokyo
Cancelled* had the limitless expanse of our infinite finitudes, and most
poetically and evocatively rendered. What I wrote was simply what came to my
mind upon reading what you wrote. Perhaps this would elicit a dialogue, at
best, but I hope nothing bitter even at worst.
Best regards,
Angshukanta
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> ONE
>
> No one knows what Hinduism is. But perhaps we can agree that the
> Upanishads are "Hindu".
>
> In the Mandukya Upanishad, which discusses the word "Om", we read that
> in addition to the three sounds of this word, which correspond to three
> different states of a person, there is also its silence - and this
> corresponds to the transcendental state of the individual - to a person:
>
> "who is neither inwardly nor outwardly aware, nor both inward and
> outward, nor with consciousness infolded on itself - who is unseen and
> ineffable, ungraspable, featureless, unthinkable and unnameable."
>
> Other Upanishads name this transcendental state of Om. It is Brahman.
> It is infinity.
>
> The word "infinity" is used frequently today. But the Upanishads take
> this word at its face value. Infinity is *truly* infinite. It has no
> end, and there is nothing it does not include. Om is *literally*
> everything. There is nothing that is not Om. Even the things we think
> are not Om, are Om. Even a parody of Om is Om. Even an insult to Om is
> Om.
>
> Meditation on the word "Om" reveals that the self is part of this
> infinity. I am Om. My egotistical impulses are ridiculous. I cannot
> take from the universe because I am the universe. If I feel that my
> body or my street or my family or my town or my country are spiritually
> unique or special then I have not begun to understand the infinity I am
> part of. I cannot break anything off from this infinity and worship it.
> Infinity is infinity, and I can spend my entire life contemplating it
> but every thought I have of infinity is limited, and it is not infinity
> itself.
>
> If this is Hinduism then Hinduism is fantastically, impossibly grand.
> Why then would we mix it up with things that are not grand at all, as if
> they existed on the same level?
>
> "India" for instance. "India" is a 60 year-old political pragmatism.
> "India" is an accidental territory. It is a collection of peoples of
> different races, histories, languages, religions, incomes and
> sexualities. It is a seat in the UN. It is a bureaucratic machine. It
> is a hastily contrived set of symbols. Its beginning was recent, and
> one day it will cease to be. It is not particularly grand. In the
> context of infinity, of Om, India is of no importance at all.
>
> It seems impossible that Hindus, people with such an enormous vision of
> the universe, would get upset about pictures that a painter made. The
> painter is Om, and so are his pictures. Sex is Om, the naked body is
> Om. It seems impossible that Hindus would be interested in nationalism
> or anti-nationalism because such parochialism would be far below them.
> They would only be interested in "India" in the same way they were
> interested in "Congo" or "Azerbaijan" or "Paraguay" - for these things
> are of interest, but none more than any other.
>
> Hindus are too grand to be concerned by India or painters or people who
> worship differently to them. Such things melt into the enormity of
> infinity, and disappear.
>
> TWO
>
> Why would one speak of "the Motherland"? What is one trying to say with
> this word? How can "the Motherland" be identical to a nation?
>
> If one is trying to say that the land is nurturing like a mother this is
> true, but so is all land, not just the land of a certain nation.
>
> Perhaps one could say that the Indian government organised schools and
> ration cards and elections and television broadcasts - and therefore
> India is my Motherland. But this would be a strange and unromantic idea
> of a mother.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> chanchal malviya wrote:
> > Dear Khanna,
> >
> > 1. There are people in this world who are not ready to take the
> positive side of their own identity. There are people who would love to
> rape their own mother and motherland. And there are some people who even
> protect their intention as personal attitude. Great. Not to say anything
> to them.
> > 2. You telling that motherland is a metaphor and nothing else
> explains in itself what you feel about India. I am sure such person also
> feel the same for their own mother and sister. And I have written
> earlier that such person would not come to protect their mother also,
> what to say about the broader concept of motherland.
> > 3. As far as Hinduism is concerned, it has to be recognized through
> the text only. It cannot be recognized at least now by actions of
> people. Because India is more Islamic and Christianized than a Hindu
> country. Of course, people like you are a part of it. Hinduism is a mere
> subject of attack in India. What I told about Hinduism is exactly what
> is HInduism. And why Hinduism, this word came into existence only when
> other Religions forced it upon the people of Sanatan Dharma.
> >
> > I know you will not be able to understand the difference between
> Dharma and Religion. For you and Gandhiji both are same. But Dharma
> means Righteous duty and Religion is what you all are talking about.
> Hinduism is science and teaches righteous duty in scientific manner.
> World outside India is recognizing this, but our Indians will understand
> it only when a 'Gora' will come and say and that also when he is ruling
> us. Sorry.
> >
> > Sex is a power of nature that is to be won by human through various
> methodologies described in Hindu text. And that is an important step
> towards Self-Realization. Attempt is that only. Women taking bath nude
> didn't cover their body when Sukdeva (son of Veda Vyas) crossed them,
> because they knew that he is a child in his nature on this matter. But
> they immediately took cover when Veda Vyas crossed.
> > There are many stories where Saints are being enticed by Apsaras for
> sex. And the theme of all story is same - sex is a very powerful natural
> factor. And winning over it is the biggest win in life.
> > If sex would have been so prominent in Hindus, we would have found
> Hindu society also marrying multitude of women.
> > Please do not try to put Hinduism under charge, for this.
> > I have already told you the meaning of Deities, and yet you do not
> understand and ask me stupid questions.
> >
> > Unlike Islam, where one is allowed to marry as many as they like as
> per their capacity and in addition keep as many women as their right
> hand posses (Hindu women) for sex. It is unlike Christian where sex and
> love are the same thing.
> >
> > M.F.Hussain is a gift of Islam. So, he will see even his motherland
> only with his Madhuri attitude. No, he is seeing India nude with his
> Islamic attitude. He has seen Madhuri also with his Islamic attitude,
> though film stars have a different life style and we may not be
> protective of them in this matter.
> >
> > It is so simple, if M.F.Hussain is so clean, let him paint his
> mother. Or if you or the protector of M.F.Hussain has so large heart,
> please send a photograph of your mother to him and ask him to paint her
> nude. Let me see, how many of you are not of double standard.
> > Either you all are in favor of Darul-Islam, or you are abusing your
> own motherland by supporting bloody Hussain.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: A Khanna
> > To: Prabhakar Singh
> > Cc: chanchal malviya ; inder salim
> ; reader-list@sarai.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:36:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Husain Exhibition Attacked in Delhi
> >
> > chanchal, prabhakar, Everyone Else,
> >
> > there are three issues i'd like to reflect on in light of your rather
> > rabid postings on the issues of the attack on M.F. Husain's
> > exhibition. Apologies for the rather long posting, i do hope some of
> > you will find it interesting.
> >
> > First, a rather obvious contestation relating to Chanchal's gratuitous
> > offer to speak the 'truth' of 'Hinudism', and more broadly, the
> > aggressive claim of Hindutva forces of a monopoly of what the terms
> > 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' may mean. More particularly, this is a
> > contestation of the place of sexualness and eroticism in them. What
> > makes it possible for the claim to be made that 'sex is not erotic in
> > hinduism' on the one hand, and the demeaning of artists who brought
> > out erotics in sex as 'failed' Hindus? What exactly is the fear of the
> > erotic? Why are these strange people trying to cleave eroticism away
> > from the lives of 'Hindus'??
> >
> > Surely you are aware that there is a diversity of practices,
> > festivals, mythologies, political economies, cosmologies if you like,
> > in different parts of the country and in different communities in the
> > same regions, that may lay claim to the name 'Hindu'. This is even in
> > the face of colonial, and more recent hindu fundamentalist, attempts
> > to reduce this diversity into a rather boring, often textual,
> > normative frame. Chanchal offers, in other words, one peculiar vision
> > of some 'pure' or 'original' 'Hinduism' as though it exists in texts
> > (particular ones that by perhaps little more than historical
> > serendipity, and sex anxious coloniality, came to be seen as
> > containing the 'truth' of 'Hindu culture'), rather than in the
> > embodiment and practices of people. chanchal's vision, of a "faith
> > (not religion) that talks about winning over the senses (particularly
> > sex)" is one that, for the large part, stands miles away from various
> > realities, practices and beliefs of those who consider themselves
> > 'Hindu'.
> >
> > In my travels around India researching sexualness and eroticism I
> > encountered a confounding multiplicity of festivals, rituals,
> > identities and idioms in which eroticism, desire and sexualness are
> > central. Way too many of these take place in temples, way too many of
> > these are central to local religious practices, and the logics and
> > experiences of faith, way too many of these lay claim to being
> > 'Hindu', for me to accept chanchal's description of Hinduism as an
> > achievement over sex. Or of the Lingam as light. (is it just me or
> > does this sounds closer to a Victorian Christianity? – a reading of
> > colonial anxieties around sex race and gender into the truth of the
> > self?) So chanchal, unfortunately yours is one peculiar vision of
> > 'hindu', and a pathetically unimaginative one at that. It sounds to me
> > like the collective voice of a masculinist upper caste that is yet to
> > come to terms with (or even recognise) the damage done to it through
> > the colonial experience and one which clings to rather fragile stories
> > of the self. And it is unfortunate that the political economy of
> > Hindutva allows such a vision so much importance today. (Let me
> > clarify that i am not particularly invested or interested in
> > reclaiming Hindu from the bare teeth of the aggressive masculinist
> > claimants. But i do want to point to the right of others to do so.)
> >
> > The second interesting point in the postings is the tension around
> > nudity. Nakedness. Such a beautiful experience. Do you not love the
> > human body? Do you not love your own selves? Is it a fear or disgust
> > with the self or some other trauma that brings about such anxiety
> > around nakedness? But ofcourse this is not just the representation of
> > the naked human body that seems to have caused this anxiety – it seems
> > to be, more precisely, that you necessarily see sexualness and
> > eroticism in the naked human body. But hold on, it is not just
> > sexualness and eroticism of the naked human body that has caused this
> > anxiety, it is a very particular nakedness – the nakedness of
> > 'Motherland India'. Because, the problem with 'perverted Husain' is
> > that to him "Mother Indian and Madhuri are the same" – therefore,
> > actually its alright for him to paint Madhuri, in fact you probably
> > sat at the edge of your seat, enthralled as many of us were, as
> > Madhuri oh so sensuously thrust her beautiful breasts forward,
> > inviting you to a world of phantasmic pleasure, nevermind the
> > performance of outrage at the LYRICS of Choli Ke Peechhe (and i'm not
> > talking merely of pleasure for the male gaze of Masculine Men. I for
> > one, wanted to be Madhuri). Its the nakedness of Mother India, or
> > Motherland India that caused anxiety. So lets face this ponderous
> > image of a naked, sexualised Mother India head on. There are two
> > things that i find fascinating here.
> >
> > First, the Motherland is a metaphor. A very powerful metaphor
> > admittedly. But a metaphor nonetheless. India is experienced as many
> > things, and through many metaphors – a place, sometimes a 'people', a
> > postcolonial nation state, a geographical entity with multiple and
> > complex cartographic existences, a cricket team, a zone of intense
> > gastronomic density, a colonising force, an a series of competing and
> > collaborating political economies...But India is not simply a woman.
> > And Kashmir is not the head of this woman (as we were unfortunately
> > taught in school in the 80s). The power of this metaphor is truly
> > fascinating.
> >
> > But how does one strip a metaphor?? This must be one hell of a
> > brilliant painting! (on which note, are there any weblinks to images
> > of this painting? If someone knows a link i implore you, please share
> > it on this list). If it is true that this painting has managed to
> > actually bring this metaphor into an embodiment, and then brought out
> > an eroticism in it (rather than what it seems like, the attackers not
> > having even really seen and experienced the the painting) then what it
> > has done is expose Mother India as a metaphor, and weakened the power
> > that 'she' wields. Brilliant. The second thing is of course that once
> > we see Mother India as a metaphor into which we are constantly
> > investing a sense of reality, the metaphor becomes a contested space.
> > And perhaps this is what is creating anxiety for the likes of
> > prabhakar and chanchal?
> >
> > So lets look at what it is about the stripping of this metaphor that
> > has gotten them, and the attackers of the exhibition so aggressive?
> > What is the power of this metaphor? One of prabhakar's email hits the
> > nail on the head. "If some artist in the name of art paints your
> > mother nude and displays it in art galleries and exhibitions to public
> > how would you feel and how would you react?", s/he asks. A similar
> > point is made by chanchal when s/he says "I am sure, a person who
> > paints his motherland nude, must have done much more nonesense (sic)
> > to his mother and sister". This leads me to understand that the
> > anxiety over the depiction of Mother India in such a way that she may
> > be seen to be sexualised, as erotic, is actually an anxiety around the
> > possibility that heris mother is sexual, or has an erotic side to her.
> > Is it scary, prabhakar, chanchal, for you to imagine that your mother
> > may be a sexual being with erotic desires, and with a body that is her
> > own, and which can be naked? Is it a fear of this possibility that
> > evokes in you, such strong emotions when you see (or perhaps hear of)
> > what some artist has done on a piece of canvas with paint? Is it this
> > fear that you will allow to dominate your very imagination of the
> > Nation of India? Freudian psychobabble, in other words, offers itself
> > up tantalisingly here. Is their Hindu nation structured around an
> > Oedipal anxiety over desire for the mother? (ugh!)
> >
> > The troubling effect of this is of course the denial in nationalist
> > discourse of sexualness or rather the right to sexualness of women, as
> > after all, the big obligation on the good woman is to become the
> > mother of (male) children. This justifies mechanisms of regulation
> > over women's sexualness, and the meting out of punishment and
> > exclusion to those who fail to live within these boundaries, or
> > transgress them at will. The protests against the film Fire being a
> > case in point. But how does a woman become a mother (over and over
> > again, atleast until she begets a Son), when she is bereft of
> > sexualness? Is this an imagination of immaculate conception, or, a
> > belief that the only form of legitimate sex is heterosexual rape? The
> > point here is that if the metaphor of the Motherland and the lives of
> > women must feed into each other, the demand for the recognition of
> > sexualness and women's right to sexuality must also address the
> > sexualness of the metaphor of Mother India.
> >
> > This brings me to my last point. I was brought up with a sense of
> > patriotism, stories of the freedom struggle, stories of the success of
> > Big Nehruvian development and images of Mother India. In fact i
> > sometimes still experience a sense of nostalgia for that heady emotion
> > of being part of that particular 'something bigger'. (yes, i cried
> > when i watched Rang De Basanti). I have, in other words, experienced
> > the power of Mother India, and surely all that investment by the state
> > into making sure that this experience marks my psyche forever entails
> > me to owning the metaphor. I claim the right, in other words to invest
> > this metaphor with things. If i bring my travels around India to bear
> > on this, i'd say 'Mother India', to me, is one hell of beautiful,
> > sensual, sexual, erotic figure, a polymorphous queer body, who laughs,
> > flirts, makes love, has soul-baring intense sex. Oh, and, sigh, S/he
> > also makes steel.
> >
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > akshay
> >
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request@sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>