Sunday's edition of Hindu had contradictory news juxtaposed in its pages. On one side, it had a discussion board of eminent personalities voicing their views on M F Hussain's paintings which were criticized for its content while at the bottom, it had an article on the beauty of Khajuraho paintings. Though there content were similar, the differences between the them was apparent. Hussain's paintaings had Hindu gods and Mother India painted nude and Hussain himself once said that his way of abuse and making it disgraceful was to paint it nude. Hence this would amount only to sacrilege. On the other hand, everybody admires the sculptures of Khajurao. In fact, many places in India has sculptures carved in a compromising position or carved nude. Why isn't then there an uprising from the so-called guardians of the society. The reason could be because the intention behind these sculptures being structured that way could be noble at that time (Not that it isn't now). One reason that I learnt on seeing a sculpture of a King carved sans clothes was that the King felt that the dress code would gradually evolve and would be different in the coming generations. Not wanting to confine his image, he had asked to carve it that way. How foreboding?
Thus its only the intent that needs to be questioned and not the painter himself. After all in this democratic world of ours, its his right to paint want he desires and its our right to question that if it hurts our sentiments.
