erge of an identity crisis. However, this is not the dead end of tolerance in a democracy. We should clearly give space to divergent opinions as long as we have the freedom to accept or reject it. The constitution clearly stipulates how much noise we can make by defining the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions. When voice of dissent relegates into irrational noises of intolerance with preachy overtones, the constitutional guarantees are jeopardized. Moreover, we have penal laws to check whether artistic freedom relegates to licentiousness. The law contemplates such transgression only when there is deliberate and malicious intention for out raging the reliIn the past few weeks, India was witnessing a new form of censorship. The works of a fine arts student of Maharaja Sayajirao University of Vadodara were vandalized by communal activists on the ground that student has negatively portrayed the deities and there by hurt the religious sentiments of the community. While the artists are making a hue and cry over the "trespass" over their creative domain, the so-called moral watch dogs are agitated about the "attack" on their personal beliefs. On which side, does the truth lie? Obviously, this standoff between creativity and intolerance is nothing new to our country. Being a pluralistic society, we have always been open to diverse interpretations of art and culture and eloquently debated the metes and bounds of artistic freedom. However, the frequency and decibels of such dissenting voices has gone up in recent times and the way the protests were carried out defies the democratic ethos and reasonable restraint expected from a secular pluralistic society. The erstwhile land of diversity, brotherhood and tolerance has suddenly become the abode of some temperamental touch-me-nots whose religious sensitivities are hurt at the drop of a hat!

The Bizarre Paradox
India, as a melting pot of cultures is home to a vivid and versatile artistic tradition, which is subjected to all sorts of experimentations. Every artistic work bears the indelible imprimatur of the artist's passions, choices, predilections and prejudices, and it is the manifestation of his/her wildest dreams and fantasies. We cannot expect them to be realistic and conforming all the time. If he/she is asked to get in to the straight jackets of contemporary morality, it is like asking a sculptor to chisel the statue to fit in to a particular mould, a shape agreed to by every one. But then is the notion of contemporary morality reflects such unanimous choice or a collective conscience of the connoisseurs of art? How can it be for such a diverse and distinct society? Artists draw flak whenever they stray away from the trodden path and try to revisit the settled notions and beliefs. We cannot insist that an art form should neatly fit in to some pigeonholes of contemporary notions of religion and individual beliefs. The society should criticize, debate and discuss an artistic work and should very well decide to accept or reject it. But it should stop there.

The Buck Stops Here

Once again, religious iconography has become a burning issue. When individual beliefs feels threatened by the divergent voices and need reassurances, it is setting a different precedent for India's age-old virtue of tolerance. It seems the pluralistic state is on the verge of an identity crisis. However, this is not the dead end of tolerance in a democracy. We should clearly give space to divergent opinions as long as we have the freedom to accept or reject it. The constitution clearly stipulates how much noise we can make by defining the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions. When voice of dissent relegates into irrational noises of intolerance with preachy overtones, the constitutional guarantees are jeopardized. Moreover, we have penal laws to check whether artistic freedom relegates to licentiousness. The law contemplates such transgression only when there is deliberate and malicious intention for out raging the reli

se interpretations of art and culture and eloquently debated the metes and bounds of artistic freedom. However, the frequency and decibels of such dissenting voices has gone up in recent times and the way the protests were carried out defies the democratic ethos and reasonable restraint expected from a secular pluralistic society. The erstwhile land of diversity, brotherhood and tolerance has suddenly become the abode of some temperamental touch-me-nots whose religious sensitivities are hurt at the drop of a hat!

The Bizarre Paradox
India, as a melting pot of cultures is home to a vivid and versatile artistic tradition, which is subjected to all sorts of experimentations. Every artistic work bears the indelible imprimatur of the artist's passions, choices, predilections and prejudices, and it is the manifestation of his/her wildest dreams and fantasies. We cannot expect them to be realistic and conforming all the time. If he/she is asked to get in to the straight jackets of contemporary morality, it is like asking a sculptor to chisel the statue to fit in to a particular mould, a shape agreed to by every one. But then is the notion of contemporary morality reflects such unanimous choice or a collective conscience of the connoisseurs of art? How can it be for such a diverse and distinct society? Artists draw flak whenever they stray away from the trodden path and try to revisit the settled notions and beliefs. We cannot insist that an art form should neatly fit in to some pigeonholes of contemporary notions of religion and individual beliefs. The society should criticize, debate and discuss an artistic work and should very well decide to accept or reject it. But it should stop there.

The Buck Stops Here

Once again, religious iconography has become a burning issue. When individual beliefs feels threatened by the divergent voices and need reassurances, it is setting a different precedent for India's age-old virtue of tolerance. It seems the pluralistic state is on the verge of an identity crisis. However, this is not the dead end of tolerance in a democracy. We should clearly give space to divergent opinions as long as we have the freedom to accept or reject it. The constitution clearly stipulates how much noise we can make by defining the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions. When voice of dissent relegates into irrational noises of intolerance with preachy overtones, the constitutional guarantees are jeopardized. Moreover, we have penal laws to check whether artistic freedom relegates to licentiousness. The law contemplates such transgression only when there is deliberate and malicious intention for out raging the reli

experimentations. Every artistic work bears the indelible imprimatur of the artist's passions, choices, predilections and prejudices, and it is the manifestation of his/her wildest dreams and fantasies. We cannot expect them to be realistic and conforming all the time. If he/she is asked to get in to the straight jackets of contemporary morality, it is like asking a sculptor to chisel the statue to fit in to a particular mould, a shape agreed to by every one. But then is the notion of contemporary morality reflects such unanimous choice or a collective conscience of the connoisseurs of art? How can it be for such a diverse and distinct society? Artists draw flak whenever they stray away from the trodden path and try to revisit the settled notions and beliefs. We cannot insist that an art form should neatly fit in to some pigeonholes of contemporary notions of religion and individual beliefs. The society should criticize, debate and discuss an artistic work and should very well decide to accept or reject it. But it should stop there.

The Buck Stops Here

Once again, religious iconography has become a burning issue. When individual beliefs feels threatened by the divergent voices and need reassurances, it is setting a different precedent for India's age-old virtue of tolerance. It seems the pluralistic state is on the verge of an identity crisis. However, this is not the dead end of tolerance in a democracy. We should clearly give space to divergent opinions as long as we have the freedom to accept or reject it. The constitution clearly stipulates how much noise we can make by defining the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions. When voice of dissent relegates into irrational noises of intolerance with preachy overtones, the constitutional guarantees are jeopardized. Moreover, we have penal laws to check whether artistic freedom relegates to licentiousness. The law contemplates such transgression only when there is deliberate and malicious intention for out raging the reli

they stray away from the trodden path and try to revisit the settled notions and beliefs. We cannot insist that an art form should neatly fit in to some pigeonholes of contemporary notions of religion and individual beliefs. The society should criticize, debate and discuss an artistic work and should very well decide to accept or reject it. But it should stop there.

The Buck Stops Here

Once again, religious iconography has become a burning issue. When individual beliefs feels threatened by the divergent voices and need reassurances, it is setting a different precedent for India's age-old virtue of tolerance. It seems the pluralistic state is on the verge of an identity crisis. However, this is not the dead end of tolerance in a democracy. We should clearly give space to divergent opinions as long as we have the freedom to accept or reject it. The constitution clearly stipulates how much noise we can make by defining the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions. When voice of dissent relegates into irrational noises of intolerance with preachy overtones, the constitutional guarantees are jeopardized. Moreover, we have penal laws to check whether artistic freedom relegates to licentiousness. The law contemplates such transgression only when there is deliberate and malicious intention for out raging the reli

erge of an identity crisis. However, this is not the dead end of tolerance in a democracy. We should clearly give space to divergent opinions as long as we have the freedom to accept or reject it. The constitution clearly stipulates how much noise we can make by defining the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions. When voice of dissent relegates into irrational noises of intolerance with preachy overtones, the constitutional guarantees are jeopardized. Moreover, we have penal laws to check whether artistic freedom relegates to licentiousness. The law contemplates such transgression only when there is deliberate and malicious intention for out raging the religious feelings. In Vadodara, the exhibition was not meant for the public and it was more a part of internal assessment, conducted with in the precincts of the University. The activists have no locus standi to question the internal matters of a University.

And finally, we should do a reality check as to how much these moral brigade were able to achieve. Remember the hullabaloo over the dress code imposed by Anna University, smoking in films has all failed to achieve the desired results. Even films which break away from stereo types are not spared. For instance, the film Nishabd which tells the story of a 60 year old man falls for his daughter's friend was accused of sending the wrong signals. Is the average Indian waiting to be strayed into prohibited territories at the drop of a hat? What do we achieve by making there irrational noises? Of course, freedom of expression is an easy escape route to the artist. But it is a true test of tolerance to the society. Nevertheless, if we insist that artists should exercise restraint ignoring the compulsions of creativity, what would be the end product like? Living in a democratic secular society, the compulsions we face are quite different as the demarcations are too close and any mix up will trigger a controversy. For the same reason, what happened in Vadodara cannot be written off as one odd incident. Political forces are brewing a deadly concoction by mixing religion and politics in poisonous proportions.

To determine what is objectionable and what is not by defining contemporary mortality is too dangerous a task to be left to the discretion of communal forces that holds a jaundiced view of religion. Culture offers a shared platform where every one has their due. Obviously, this is the most prized feature of a democracy, that every one has an opinion. And it has the flip side too- that every one has got a veto power. True democracy lies in the reconciliation of these conflicting notions. And unfortunately, we have forgotten the best means of squaring off the differences. Universities are laboratories of experimentation and academic discussions and debates as part of the curriculum should be left alone. Now the scenario is cluttered by too many voices, and it needs time for the heat and dust to set in. After all, why do we need to join some opinionated bandwagons to determine the metes and bounds of artistic creativity? Much ado about nothing. Art transcends religion, culture and other human barriers. If one's belief is genuine and convictions are strong, it cannot be shaken by a different portrayal by an artist.