Indian Art

On our way home from our last day of school, Melissa and I noticed some beautiful Indian art on a wall in Footscray. I don't remember much about it now, just that it was very inspiring. If your ever back in Footscray, I encourage you all to take a look. It's on the corner of Gordon St. and Barkley St.

Ketchup in your curry

I know the viewing was sometime ago, but I just wanted to say that the documentary that Effy screened "Ketchup in your curry" really aggrivated me at times. That patriotic Indian man who was furious over the introduction of KFC in India annoyed me so much. I understand that it wasn't so much the KFC, but the Western ideas that it represented that irritated him. What's wrong with a little Western spice in Indian culture. We in Australia (most of us anyway) embrace the Eastern cultures and love getting involved. Just have a look at Chinatown. I think that the Indians need to lighten up a little bit.

What do you think?

Indian Film Festival

The Indian Film Festival is currently underway at the Nova Cinema. It runs for a few more days. Interested? To see the program, try http://www.cinemanova.com.au/

The Conference.

I attended only the second session, which was enough for me.

Robin Jeffries was excellent, very informative and interesting - made me want to visit commie Kerala immediately!
Maxine(?) was pretty ordinary - too waffley.
Mugdha's would have been good, if she could have mastered the technology and shown us the video of Indian news shows.
Hari was like some midnight to dawn DJ - a real smoothy - all style and no content.

Lunch was good - managed to drop a chickpea on my trousers - jeez that curry stains!

The Making of Mahatma

I thought the film, as a film, was a bit of a stinker. I found the content interesting, insofar as it dealt in great detail with Gandhi's early life in Africa. The insight I gained into Gandhi, the person, during the interval break, however, was much more interesting. I was talking to a class-mate who is of African descent, who was far from complimentary about the Indian presence in Africa. According to him, Indians migrated to Africa for the sole purpose of making money, from white colonists and black Africans alike, and showed little or no compassion for the native people, who were far more oppressed and miss-treated than Indians. The film depicts unfair treatment of the Indian community by the government through discriminatory laws pertaining to commerce. Protest against these laws was met with rough justice. Contrast this with the treatment of native Africans, hardly depicted in the film at all, who were treated like animals, without access even to rough justice.
I think this can be understood through caste. Gandhi was Vaisya (merchant) caste and when he first went to India he went to practice company law, as an advocate for the Vaisya community in South Africa. He became a champion and a leader of this community, which is not within Vaisya dharma. I speculate that it may have been seen as "OK" by him and the community, because of the special circumstance of it being a Vaisya-only community, outside of mother India. I further speculate that on his return to India, broader society there would not, and did not, accept Gandhi as a leader.

On the box

On Sunday night (Sept. 30) at 10.00pm. ABC, Compass is airing an interview with writer and novelist William Dalrymple. His latest book is The Last Mughal:The fall of a Dynasty, Delhi, 1857.

Here are some stills from Dziga Vertov's Man With a Movie Camera...

I think the movie could be on 'you tube'. Check it out..

Gonzalo

Man with a Movie Camera

Hi all, I need some help...

In my notes I have Effy discussing some films at the beginning of the semester, directed by Fritz Lang and Dziga Vertov.
I just recently purchased Man With a Movie Camera by Dziga Vertov, but I am finding it difficult to understand much about it, its not an easy one to grasp.
We spoke about this movie at the beginning of the semester with Effy, but i think I must of missed something.

Has anyone else seen it??

Here are some stills from the movie.

Melbourne Uni Conference

I thought the Melbourne Uni conference was quite informative and helpful, and the environment was great.
Let’s keep an eye out for any other interesting ones going on. I’ll let you guys know if I hear about a good one myself.
One thing though, I found it difficult to engage with some topics, and leave all ideologies behind.
What I mean is that throughout the second part of the conference that I attended, many issues were being approached from a Neo-Liberal perspective, where capitalism and globalization were unchallenged.
But then again, this was an anthropological conference, so perhaps this point is invalid.
Did anybody else feel this way??

BRAHMIN.

Having previously stated on this blog what I think BRAHMAN, BRAHMA (and also VISHNU and SHIVA) are, I would like to now explain what a BRAHMIN is, or better, what BRAHMIN are.

In the RAMAYANA, the main character is LORD RAMA, and his wife SITA, but there is also RAMA'S loyal servant HANUMAN, who looks like a man-sized ape. This story is set at least 40,000 years ago but through HANUMAN, looks back much further into evolutionary time, to our Primate ancestors.
At the exact point in evolution when a Primate became a Human, the first Humans gained, almost overnight, the ability to see themselves and the world around them subjectively. Like Adam and Eve, they had become self-aware. This was an evolutionary and physiological change in the Primates' brain that resulted in consciousness and the Intellect. It is via the Intellect that a Human can understand his/her Primal origins.
The late Primates then, were group mammals, with social inter-dependencies and functionality based primarily on gender. Taken as a unit, a male/female pair would fulfill 2 each of 4 necessary functions for evolutionary success of the species, success criteria being population numbers. Security-Reproduction(M-F) and Nurture-Strategy(F-M).
A single Primate (M or F) can fulfil this functionality, graphically demonstrated by dividing the body into 4 parts. UpperTorso - heart lungs arms - self-preservation, Pelvis - reproductive organs - reproduction, LowerTorso - stomach - nutrition, Head - PrimalMind - cunning e.g. trial and error for hunting, protection, fighting.
The early Humans then, retained Primate functional priorities, but added planning and pro-active action to the Head department via the newly formed Intellect. Exponential population growth ensued. As groups grew bigger, into 100's and 1000's, specialisation of social functions occurred and so Varna came to be. In priority, high to low; Ksatriya - warriors, Shudra - breeder/workers, Vaisya - farmers, Brahmin - planners/teachers.

The Brahmin developed abstract thought and language and were instrumental in developing Indian civilisation, perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen.
The Brahmin believe that every individual Human is Brahmin, in that every Human has an intellect, through which they may understand the source of their own consciousness, which is none other than BRAHMAN, the supreme being, and that this is the purpose of Human life.

Ghandi

Hi guys, just watched the Ghandi movie with Ben Kingsley in it. Very inspiring and thought provoking film. Covered themes of colonialism, passive resistance, religion, partition and human nature. Yvonne Darburn

The University of Melbourne Conference

Please read comments for the full conference program.

BRAHMAN, BRAHMA, VISHNU, SHIVA

BRAHMAN is the impersonal, all-pervading essence of the Universe. Having no mass, it can be measured by volume.

BRAHMA is a divine personification of BRAHMAN as the instant of initiation of the next BRAHMA'S DAY.
VISHNU is a divine personification of the time-span of one BRAHMA'S DAY.
SHIVA is a divine personification of the time-span of one BRAHMA'S NIGHT.

VISHNU and SHIVA are two equal time-spans which taken together, represent one iteration of the Universe. This cycle repeats eternally i.e. without beginning or end.
BRAHMAN itself is not affected in any way, qualitatively or quantitatively, by the progress of this cycle. As all of space and all of the matter in the Universe is within the volume of BRAHMAN and as BRAHMAN is eternal and continuous i.e. not subject to any greater cycle, BRAHMAN is the supreme being. Some Brahmin (varna) consider BRAHMAN itself to be self-aware and to give assent at the start of each incarnation of VISHNU, the BRAHMA point, after which SHIVA must follow.
One cycle is then
BRAHMA 0 time
VISHNU 9 billion years
SHIVA 9 billion years.

During VISHNU, the law of KARMA operates and the Universe becomes more and more energetic, having most kinetic energy, and all matter in one piece, at the very end. This is consolidation.
During SHIVA, there is only one cause and effect progression, that of the single mass being converted, by the application of its kinetic energy, to a large number of the smallest possible particles. This is disintegration.
At the end of SHIVA, all matter in the Universe has been converted to a single spinning disk-like mass of protium (Hydrogen) atoms, stationary and at the centre of BRAHMAN'S volume.

In India, there are many temples to VISHNU and also to SHIVA, I have been told that there is only one BRAHMA temple.

This week's reading

Please read the following for Tuesday's class.

Crisis of the colonial order, 1919-1939

If I'm reading Effy's notes correctly this is the last reading until after the term break. Enjoy!

Misinterpretations maybe!!!

Hello The Brahmin

By the sounds of your comment you have rightfully earned your place in understanding Hinduism. However, your comment "Western interpretations of Indian theosophy and philosophy, Hinduism have been well of the mark" is in my opinion 'way off the mark'.
Isn't the whole point of Effy's subject based on alerting us to the very fact that Western society mistakenly thinks it understands Hinduism and reweaves it to suit its own political and hegemonous aims? Respectfully yours, Yvonne Darburn

Time zone fixed

People may have noticed that the times posted on the blog were way out of sync with when the actual posting was made.
I have fixed this so postings should now reflect Eastern Standard Time.
So there will be no more 2.00 am postings from me.

I have enjoyed Effy's class so far, although it has been with mixed emotions.
Western perceptions of India and Indians, both through the readings and from classmates has been informative and interesting. However, the Western interpretations of Indian theosophy and philosophy, Hinduism, have been well wide of the mark, in my view. There is only one way to understand Hinduism, and that is by accepting a teacher or Guru, who is a bonafide spiritual master. My guru, Swami Prakashanda Saraswati of Shri Gurudev Ashram, Saptishring, Maharashtra, initiated me into his order in about 1978. All of my understanding of spiritual and philosophical matters comes through him; Sadgurunath Maharaj ki jay!

Before taking Mahasamadhi in 1988, Babaji was a Brahmin, now he is BRAHMAN.
Babaji is my adopted father, and, I am twice-born; therefore I claim Brahmin varna.

Offender of the faiths

The Baroda University article was very thought provoking. My initial response was a flashback to the Pissed Christ controversy in the 1990s that left me wondering at the lack of respect the artist had for the world's Christian community. The same feelings came upon me once again as I read Atre Yee Gupta's article. As a liberal thinker but also mindful and respectful of the religious beliefs of others this article has raised some interesting questions in my mind.

The following article in Saturday's The Age A2 Supplement confronts this issue head on and I would be interested in my fellow students thoughts on the following:

Where does a society draw the line between free speech and a healthy respect for the religious beliefs of others?

Does free speech include the right to offend?

What do you think of the statement in Button's article "If one thing worries him, it is that the West's secular, liberal tradition is under threat". This makes me consider the following - Are we looking with a Westerner's gaze upon the events at Baroda University, if so, should we not be mindful of the cultural and religious differences of a society far different from our own and leave well enough alone or is it our 'duty' to intervene on behalf of the rights of the individual?

The following is the article in question -

Date: September 1 2007James Button
AFTER A DANISH newspaper published 12 cartoons of the prophet Mohammed last year, leading to riots and up to 100 deaths across the Muslim world, European media divided about whether to republish the images. Much of the French press reprinted them or ran new cartoons defending free speech, whereas - vive la difference! - no British newspaper did so. Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, called the Europeans' decision "disrespectful" and said freedom of speech did not mean "open season" on religious taboos.
But a few thinkers dissented from the standard British, and Australian, view. One was the British philosopher, Anthony - usually known as A.C. - Grayling. He believes the press should have published the cartoons. First, given the tumult the images caused, the public had a right to see them and make up its own mind, he says. But there was a bigger reason to publish. Free speech is not a secondary issue but "the fundamental right, from which all other rights flow. Without it, you cannot elect a free parliament or defend yourself in a court of law."
Does it include the freedom to offend? Emphatically yes, he says. If political views cannot be protected from a cartoonist's pen, why should religious views? "It's the rent that has to be paid in a free society. This is a lesson Muslims have got to learn."
The lesson, he says, is that mocking a belief is quite different from mocking an individual. "Many Muslims take it personally. But it's not about them personally." Unlike skin colour or gender, which are part of an individual's essence, religion or ideology are beliefs, freely chosen and therefore fair game for criticism.
What's more, "Our effort to accommodate Muslim sensitivities has to be met by an equal effort (from Muslims) to accommodate ours. A lot of Westerners are deeply offended by the sight of a woman in a burqa."
In the Anglo-Saxon world these are unusual positions for someone who places himself on the left. What's more, Grayling is a member of the World Economic Forum's Council for Western-Muslim Understanding.
But if one idea runs through his 27 books, many articles - notably in The Guardian - television appearances and a life as a prominent public intellectual, it is the importance of liberty and free speech.
If one thing worries him, it is that the West's secular, liberal tradition is under threat. Grayling believes the main danger comes from within: from governments exploiting the war on terrorism to suppress vital legal and political rights. But he sees religion as another enemy, from the Catholic Church's efforts to crush the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century to those who say they would kill cartoonists today.
The subject rouses this normally moderate writer to some unqualified, even scornful, positions. Religion, he contends, is the "lunatic fringe of human thought." Islam "is the contemporary example of how religion - in its unthought form - infantilises people, making them childish and violent and unthinking. Look at the mobs calling for the death of Salman Rushdie. It is not peculiar to Islam."
Rather, the culprit is belief itself. "To believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect," he writes in Against All Gods, published this year.
Such views put him in elevated company these days. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and American philosopher Daniel Dennett have all recently written polemics against religion. Why? Is the secular, enlightenment tradition really at risk? How does one square Grayling, militant offender of the faith, with the amiable man who greets me in his south London home?
With his mane of grey hair and round-rimmed glasses, the 58-year old looks a little like a 19th century composer or a benevolent lion in a children's book. He has been seen in a cravat. Married to the writer Katie Hickman, he has an eight-year-old daughter and two adult children from a previous marriage.
He is a good talker, who in one breath can convey the excitement of Socrates' dialogue with Charmides - which he says he read at the age of 12 and decided then that he wanted to be a philosopher - and in the next explain why Pride and Prejudice is a work of philosophy: why Elizabeth and Darcy's struggle to see each other truly shows hard intellectual labour. His students at the University of London's Birkbeck College, where he is professor of philosophy, are no doubt fortunate.
His writing is also clear: his book, Among The Dead Cities, is a measured and largely persuasive account - which fairly considers the opposing arguments - of why the blanket bombing of German cities in World War II was a war crime. Grayling even asks whether Allied airmen should have refused such missions and concludes that in a "hypothetical ideal world," they should have.
He was already an established academic when, 20 years ago, he conceived a wish to escape the humanities' "tendency toward introverted discussions in exclusive jargon" and to write for a wider public.
"It sounds frightfully earnest but it's a passion for me to challenge people to think more, although sometimes it's like getting rid of mountains by dripping water on them. Without thinking, people take off the shelf a package, such as Islam or conservatism, based more on prejudice and tradition."
In his words, Grayling wants to get philosophy into the papers. He provided legal advice on the right to die of Diane Pretty, a motor neurone disease sufferer who lost a high-profile case to allow her husband to help her commit suicide. He publicly supports the new Council of ex-Muslims of Britain, a body that promotes freedom of thought. "They're tremendously brave," he says. "In countries ruled by Islamic law one can be killed for apostasy."
His hostility to religion began in a childhood among the white elite of the then British colony of Rhodesia, where his father was a banker. At secondary college he read a bunch of religious books given to him by the chaplain, then demanded: "Do you really believe this stuff?"
He maintains that religions' demand for a special place in public life must be resisted and that they should be accorded no more respect or rights than any other interest group, proportional to the (low) size of their membership.
Yet given the world's problems, I ask him, is this a top-order issue in countries such as Britain and Australia? Surely a larger concern is the pervasive feeling that the consumer society is empty, devoid of values? "Ah, now you are on 99 per cent of the issue, this is something very dear to me," Grayling says.
In November he will publish The Choice of Hercules, which will show how humanism long predates Christianity, stretching back to the ancient Greeks, Buddhism and Confucianism. But before book 29 (Grayling is a publishing machine) comes Into the Light: the story of the struggles for liberty and rights that made the modern West, published this month. This is his other passion: how a group of brave thinkers over more than 400 years won the rights that make "every ordinary Western citizen the equal of a 16th-century aristocrat" - and how in the war against terrorism we risk losing them, through lack of vigilance.
Grayling says he does not minimise the terrorist risk but he compares it to threats in the past. "In 1940, Britain had several hundred thousand enemy troops massing near its borders. What is the worst-case scenario today? A dirty nuclear bomb in Oxford Street, killing several tens of thousands of people, God forbid - if there were a God. It would change our way of life. But it is not going to defeat the UK. The best way to respond to terrorism is to keep on living normally."
James Button is the Herald's European correspondent.A.C. Grayling appears this weekend at the Melbourne Writers' Festival.

Hello Effy

Hi Effy, Greg has helped me get on The Blog. It took a little bit of work but I am here.

Indian Deities in Popular Culture.

Sure, everyone has seen the Simpson's take on Hinduism in the form of Apu Nahasupemapyutya-whatever his name is and sure you've seen various swipes at religion as a whole in Family Guy but what about stuff that doesn't suck total balls?

Whilst I am willing to share some of my findings but in order to get the ball rolling, I am going to impose upon this group to look around and share some of your own findings on Indian Culture, Religion and all that lark in popular culture.
Anything from the Simpsons OR Family Guy will see you castrated with a ball-point pen, so be careful.

P.S, think my user name is blasphemous enough?

India

Hi everyone

I have undertaken further research concerning this weeks discussion based on the Indian Gods. If anyone is interested in knowing who they are I have listed them below.

In total there are 9 Indian Gods:

1. gods for vegetation.
2. gods for weather.
3. gods for nature.
4. gods for geographical
areas.
5. gods for villages.
6. gods for the house.
7. gods in the temples.
8. gods in running water
9. gods in deepest forest and in icy mountain heights

A table of the Gods and Goddesses in India is listed below.

~ Gods ~
Ashwini Kumara
Ayyapan
Brahma
Dattatreya
Garuda
Hanuman
Kaccha and Devyani
Kuber
Shiva
Skanda
Surya
Varuna
Yama

~ Lord Ganesha ~
Eight Inner Avatars of Ganapati
Ganesha
The Avatars of Ganesha

~ Vishnu and his Avatars ~
Vishnu
Matsya Avatar
Coorma Avatar
Varaha Avatar
Narasimha Avatar
Vamana Avatar
Parashurama Avatar
Shri Rama Avatar
Krishna Avatar
Buddha Avatar
Kalki Avatar
Mohini Avatar

~ Goddesses ~
Durga
Ganga
Kali
Saraswati
Sati
Sri Laxmi
The Mahadevi

I hope the above information helps.

Welcome Tradition and Modernity students.
The aim of the blog is simply to promote and facilitate on line discussion between students, and the posting of other items of interest that contribute to our exploration of South Asian traditions and modernities.
The first posting is a continuation of our discussion about recent events at Baroda University, Gujarat. Events in which members of the Hindu Parishad (a wing of the BJP) armed with axes stormed the Fine Arts Faculty to slash a work by a graduating student artist, which they deemed to be anti Hindu and obscene.
Read the article below and click Travelogue for additional photos.

TRAVELOGUE

'For every one of them, there are ten of us'

A Baroda Diary

– Atreyee Gupta, Researcher for India

9 - 14 May 2007

I still remember, vividly, spending many evenings, and even nights, sitting around, sipping black coffee, and discussing the social relevance of contemporary art at the Faculty of Fine Arts campus, Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda. While our days were spent in classrooms discussing art and its history, the conversation would carry on through our spare time. Perhaps, somewhat idealistically, our concerns, as students, were not merely restricted to art and its history - we believed in the possibility of using art as a means to move beyond the limited art world that we inhabited. The faculty and students consciously celebrated, with equal gusto, the multivalent cultural festivals of India - ranging from Punjab’s lodi (spring festival) to Gujarat’s garba (a quasi-religious dance form). While the rest of Gujarat gyrated to the latest film songs, the festivals at the Faculty, reputed for retaining ‘traditional’ forms of celebration, attracted the local populace in quest of an ‘authentic’ cultural experience. The Faculty also held art fairs where artists and students produced low-cost works for local consumption. I remember queuing up, alongside the middle-class of Baroda, to buy works by well known-artists - Ghulam Sheikh, Bhupen Khakhar, K. G. Subramanyan - to give just a few examples. While, on one hand, the fair was a fundraising campaign for the faculty, on the other hand, spreading awareness about contemporary art and its practices was an implicit agenda. Through these various events, the faculty continually sought to engage the local population of Baroda in a productive dialogue. In the same spirit, the art community, mobilized by the Faculty, would raise funds through auctions each time Gujarat was hit by a natural calamity, for example the earthquake of 2002.

Of all these events, the Annual Display was the only time the faculty did not seek out the local population. It was an internal examination, to be seen and judged by a committee consisting of the faculty and an external jury of invited artists and art historians. At the same time, the alumni, friends, relatives, and sometimes a stray gallery owner or collector looking for ‘fresh talent’ would visit the campus. Like many alumni, I too revisited my alma mater this year during the Display. In a way, it was a homecoming after a gap of five years. Almost naively, I had assumed that ‘home’ was still as I had left it in 2002. In my mind, the recent cultural censorship of the Gujarat government - the banning of films or the attack on M. F. Husain’s installations in Ahmedabad were stray incidents that had happened ‘elsewhere’ - not at ‘home’. My Baroda was a cosmopolitan cultural heaven - a feeling that I shared with many in the art community. After all, almost everyone in India’s art world had directly, or at least indirectly, been touched, challenged, and motivated by the dynamic that was, and is, integral to the Faculty of Fine Arts, Baroda.

It took Niraj Jain (a Baroda-based Viswa Hindu Parishad leader), and an afternoon’s work of hooliganism, to remind us that our ‘home’ was preciously fragile - we would have to lock horns with the cultural fascism and intolerance that has today become so integral to Gujarat’s majoritarian politics in order to retain the democratic space that we had once carved out. The violence of Godhra and its aftermath should have been enough to alert us: we were up against a leviathan - the complicity of the police, administration, and the bureaucracy - that was systematically attempting to destroy any democratic counter space in Gujarat.

As the incident continues to unfold, I am left with a sense of outrage. How does one even begin to objectively understand this affront to one’s ‘home’? And, in a broader context, where does one locate intellectual liberty and the autonomy of an academic institution when democracy itself is at siege? How are we to map the anti-institutionalism of contemporary art within this/these contested terrain/s? Or, how does, or does one, negotiate artistic/intellectual compulsions within a larger social responsibility? I will not even pretend to be in a position to answer these questions - I leave this task to the reader. Taking on the role of the reporter, here I restrict myself to narrating the incidents as I saw them occur.

9 May 2007:

At the Annual Display, Faculty of Fine Arts, MSU Baroda.

Business as usual. I arrived at Fine Arts to see the whole campus transformed with open-air displays, and classrooms and studios filled with examination works. The Museology Department had come alive with video projections, while the lecture hall had interactive artworks that covered its dreary walls. The juries in the various departments were huddled over exam papers while the students lounged around, drinking tea, heatedly discussing the display. I ran into many I knew - artists, critics, historians - the excitement was palpable. Little did we imagine that it would all change within a matter of a few hours.

Around 3:30 in the afternoon, a man accompanied by a horde of media reporters and the police stormed into the campus. They headed directly to the Graphics Department and specifically to the studio where Chandramohan (a recipient of the Gujarat Lalit Kala Akademi Award, 2005–06) had displayed his M.V.A. works. There was a vague rumor across the campus - the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (a right-wing political organization) had arrived. All of us rushed to the Graphics studios only to be stopped by the intruders. Before one could even protest, Chandramohan was dragged out and whisked away - to the police station, we assumed. By then, the Graphics Department had become a stage for Niraj Jain (accused for the 2002 Gujarat carnage by the Concerned Citizens Tribunal - Gujarat) to demonstrate the sheer perversity of the art produced at the Faculty of Fine Arts. Students who dared to protest were physically dragged out of the Department while Jain and his accomplices repeatedly guided the media and the police through the examination halls, each time elucidating ‘expert’ opinions on the display. Once this performance was over, Jain, accompanied by the police, combed the faculty in search of other such ‘offensive’ objects.

By then, faculty staff, who had been busy with the examination procedures and were unaware of this intrusion, had arrived on the scene. Professor Shivaji Panikkar, Head of the Department of Art History and Aesthetics and the current Acting Dean, demanded an explanation, only to be abused by Jain, while the police looked on. Ironically, although Jain’s point of contention was that the student had offended public morality by painting Hindu deities nude, his masculinist vitriolic language, liberally peppered with words like behan chod (sister-fucker) and ma chod (mother-fucker), to mention only the less-offensive abuses, made most of us cringe. The police still looked on - stopping Jain only when he tried to lunge at Professor Panikkar. Evoking M. F. Husain, Jain continued a diatribe on the need to teach the artist community a moral lesson. Over and over again, he held up Chandramohan’s fate as an example - this would happen to any student who dared Jain, the self-appointed voice of Baroda’s moral police. Did I see the police officers nod in consent?

By evening, on Jain’s insistence, Chandramohan’s works were removed, and the Graphics Department sealed by the police. Jain had also managed to convince Reverend Kant, the priest of a local Methodist Church, to lodge a complaint with the police stating that Chandramohan’s representation of Christ was extremely offensive to the Christian community of Baroda. Using Kant’s complaint as a ruse, Jain managed to give his protest a multi-religious dimension. It was not just about an offense to the Hindu community, but an affront to all religious sentiments.

The University authorities refused to protect the Faculty of Fine Arts and the Vice-Chancellor could not be reached. In desperation, the students drafted a complaint and, accompanied by the alumni, marched to the police station. Although the police accepted the complaint after much persuasion, to date it is yet to be officially registered. Chandramohan, on the other hand, was charged under sections 153A, 114, and 295 of the Indian Penal Code for ‘promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc., committing acts prejudicial to the harmony of the public.’ His examination works were apparently ‘offensive’ to public religious sentiments and were aimed at instigating communal riots.

10 May 2007:

The empty wall space where Chandramohan's print had hung the day before.

In the morning, Chandramohan was produced in court and a plea for bail was made. But due to the disruption of the proceedings by a large Vishwa Hindu Parishad mob, the hearing was postponed and the student removed to the Baroda Central Jail where he remained until 14 May. We were distraught to hear that charges under sections 293A and 293B had been added to the list of Chandramohan’s offences. Yet, the Vice-Chancellor was still resolute in his stance and ordered the students and staff of the faculty to apologize to Jain and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad for offending public morality. The Vice-Chancellor’s order was unanimously disobeyed.

Meanwhile, the news had spread and artists had begun to gather at the faculty to express solidarity and support. By then, the national media had also heard about the incident and, at 10 pm, Vivan Sundaram appeared live on CNN IBN protesting against the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s latest act of fascism. We huddled around the television in Shivaji’s apartment, cheering Vivan, and eating stale food that had been prepared for a farewell dinner for the graduating students - of course, that dinner never took place. Heartened by the fact that we were not alone, we resolutely struggled to devise strategies for the next day. At that point, we still had no idea that this was only the beginning of what would become a national furor.

11 May 2007:
After much discussion, and drawing from the academic curriculum of the University, the students decided to put up an exhibition in the campus, using images from the Regional Documentation Center, Department of Art History, to delineate the history of erotic imagery in both Indian and Western art. The pedagogic intention behind this exhibition was obvious, at least to all of us. Along with images of pre-modern Indian art, the students juxtaposed modern and contemporary works - both from the West and India. These images were accompanied by curatorial texts explaining the context of the production and consumption of these images. The students had imagined that this was sufficient to make their point and contextualize Chandramohan’s work within the pre-existing paradigms of Indian art. Simultaneously, the faculty, in consultation with the many artists who had come to show solidarity, prepared a press release clearly stating their position.

The local vernacular press did see the exhibition but soon turned hostile when they realized that neither the students nor the faculty were willing to provide any catchy, controversial, or volatile quotes. Claiming that the faculty was more cooperative with the national media apparently reputed for their anti-Gujarat bias, vernacular press reporters soon started hurling abuse at the students and staff. Interestingly, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad subsequently adapted a similar rhetoric – the national media, they claim, with its ‘pseudo-secular’ leanings, has misrepresented the event.

Hindu Parishad members, who were also present at that time, added fuel to the fire. Further instigating the vernacular press, the Parishad members loudly proclaimed that pre-modern nude goddesses were a familiar sight - that today they had gathered to see nude pictures of women faculty and students . This too would become a familiar rhetoric, to be used over and over again, every time a woman - faculty, student, artist, activist, alumni - became too vocal or too visible in her protest against the Hindu right wing. This very gendered discourse of intimidation, where a vociferous and mostly-male mob would direct an attack on women protesters on the other side of the fence, co-existed, seemingly comfortably, with their ire at Chandramohan’s representation of a nude Durga (the Brahmanical goddess).

The situation grew worse by the minute and eventually the faculty was forced to lock themselves in the Department of Art History. Instead of supporting the students’ creative mode of non-violent protest, the Pro Vice Chancellor and some members of the University Syndicate arrived at the venue and demanded the closure of the exhibition. Professor Panikkar refused - lauding the students’ initiative and expressing discontent at the university’s lack of commitment to academic autonomy. On the university’s order, the exhibition was forcibly shut down and the Department of Art History sealed. By 10:00 pm that night, Professor Panikkar was suspended.

I returned to Delhi that night to join and work towards the national mobilization that had now become imperative. Over the next few days, academicians, critics, activists, artists, and art lovers launched a nationwide protest against the Gujarat government’s latest act of fascism. The battle was, and still is, being fought on many levels - emails, blogs, protest meetings, legal proceedings, petitions, press releases, and signature campaigns. The international academy took up the incident, starting a global campaign. In India, protest meetings ensued across the country and demonstrations were held in New Delhi, Thiruvannamalai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, and Kochi, among other cities. Each meeting was attended by as many as two hundred supporters from all walks of life, determinedly demanding the unconditional release of Chandramohan and the re-instatement of Professor Panikkar. Simultaneously, effigies of Professor Panikkar were being burnt in Ahmedabad, and Panikkar had to go into hiding because of threats to his life.

14 May 2007:

Students are joined by artists and activists.

The alumni organized a national protest at the faculty inviting the art world to come to Baroda. While protestors from Mumbai drove
down to Baroda in a bus, we flew in from Delhi. Commercial galleries - Chemould in Mumbai, and Bodhi and Vadehra in Delhi, to name only a few - stepped in, expressing solidarity and supporting the protests. On the same day, Chandramohan was released on bail. Professor Panikkar’s suspension, however, was not revoked.

Not allowed access to their Alma Mater; artists form a human chain on the street.

‘For every one of them, there are ten of us,’ said Mumbai-based artist Tushar Joag. By the afternoon, over three hundred protestors had reached Baroda. But the gates of the faculty were locked - the police allowed only those carrying university identity cards entry . It was a strategic move to isolate the Fine Arts Faculty from the protestors who had travelled all the way from Delhi and Mumbai. While the police had not raised a finger when right-wing goons had audaciously disrupted the examination display, the same officers were now zealously protecting the faculty from ‘outsiders’. We were forced to stand outside the gates of the institution that we have always claimed as our own. Inside, the students had organized another peaceful demonstration - skits, songs, posters, and sit-ins. Outside, with no access to the faculty, we formed a human chain.

He Ram - Gandhi's last words written in ink on the entrance to the Graphics Department.

By mid-afternoon, Vishwa Hindu Parishad leaders began to arrive - and some were even allowed to enter the Faculty –– of course without university identity cards. Gradually, the Parishad consolidated its lines. The art community and the Parishad faced each other –– one with the demand to free art, to free the academic institution from the shackles of right-wing censorship –– the other shouting ‘aaj Fine Arts ko nanga karenge’ (we will strip Fine Arts naked today). When eventually, students and the faculty decided to join us outside, we proceeded to march towards the Vice-Chancellor’s office. The police, very promptly, arrested ten students and the protestors were dispersed.

I do not know what we accomplished that day –– but our sheer numbers were certainly indicative of a commitment to what would inevitably become a long struggle. And it was heartening when we were joined by passing local people who were not in any way connected to the art world. Even threats and manhandling by the Hindu Parishad failed to dissuade them. Perhaps the idealism of our undergraduate years was not so naive after all. However, to date, Shivaji remains suspended and the case against Chandramohan still holds …