According to them it presents a wrong image of the country in other countries. It should be remembered that freedom ends where sacrilege begins. The depiction of nudity should be condemned by one and all. The socialite stalwarts ought to realize that the Indian society is not comprised of few rich, famous and so called broad minded people. People here still respect their religious sentiments and one cannot give the name of backwardness to respect for the religion and traditions. And if it is backwardness at all, than one need not feel ashamed for that matter.

Artists, writers, actors and people who indulge in other kind of intellectual work have a license to do certain things which others cannot because they have the audacity to try certain things but at the same time they should practice some self restraint and should gracefully keep Gods and Goddesses from the canvas. There is a very thin line between one's own freedom of expression and encroaching others'. Even the freedom of expression has its limits. Art lovers have a feeling that some hard-core fundamentalists have hijacked art but there is a different side as well where an ordinary Hindu's sentiments are hurt. Democracy has a simple rule - You have the freedom to move your hand around but only so much so that it does not come and slap my face. Most people including the artists have a wild imagination but everything is not to be put on pen and paper or paint and brush. At the most it should be put beautifully and not ruthlessly and shamelessly.

One is not advocating here for the fundamentalists or any kind of obnoxious ethical code for the artists. Instead self-regulation, that is the only way out. But there are some questions. Why is it that all the creativity is about nudity and sexuality? Why is it that Hindu gods and goddesses are the main theme for the modern art? Does creativity aim at garnering cheap attention and publicity?

When an artist is vulgar, he or she is not an artist. Artistic sentiments should be subtle and soft and leave room for imagination for the viewers. Such crude and blatant display of art leaves no room for imagination.

But most disturbing is the stand opted by various so-called secular parties. There is a kind of uni- polarization of all these parties because they can ill afford to deliver a diatribe towards ruling BJP government.

A similar case was thrusting the world into a conflagration when a Danish cartoonist depicted the painting of Prophet Mohammed in a derogatory manner-the Muslims of the world were on a rampage and there were flagrant announcements of beheading and murdering the cartoonist. Large-scale demonstrations and congregations were common in all the cities around the world at that time and a plethora of fatwas were issued. But no one had any reservations at that time or no one raised their voice against the Muslim fundamentalists - neither the congress, nor the left parties, nor any other so called secular party and nor these socialites. But when the question comes of issuing clemency to Mohammed Afzal, the prime suspect in 2001 parliament attack case, these parties and socialites are tentative and even go to the extant of saying that the execution of the sentence would weaken the secular framework of our country. Could anyone on this planet explain to me that how could the sentence of a foreign terrorist weaken the secular framework of our country? Apart from being a Hindu or a Muslim, we should consider ourselves as an Indian first. So one is bound to feel offended when Hussain paints the Bharat Maa in a derogatory manner. Now this should hurt every Indian equally and if these socialites are not hurt then I have a reason to doubt their integrity. And if one thinks that it's only few communal parties who attack art work needs a reminder--not so much in the distant past, Salman Rushdie had written a book named Satanic Verses. It is a book - so it is a piece of art. Which party was running the government at the centre then and why did it ban the book in India?

Meanwhile Punjab is facing similar situations about the controversy between Dera Saccha Sauda and the Akal Takhat. The fact of the matter is that sentiments are bound to get hurt when one's faith is put under an attack but one need to understand this sudden outburst of anger in a proper spirit. Without any predilections, I am sorry to say that this is where a certain section of media has failed -to represent the ire of people in a proper manner.

Some ask, whether nudity in art is part of Indian culture and civilization. We have thousands of nude pure art in our temple and caves. Should we abandon them altogether and not recognize them as part of our culture? We take a lot of pride in showcasing the ancient art and sculptures at the caves of Ajanta and Ellora but at the same time we cannot digest the young students' creativity and try to muzzle his speech and abrogate the freedom and rights guaranteed by the constitution. But there are some points that need to be clarified. Kamasutra is educational if read carefully. Besides, the so termed nudity in Ajanta, Khajuraho is synonym of purity. However, when you see Hussain and his disciples you can see they are deliberate and intentional.

There is good art and bad art. But who will decide which one is good and which one is bad.

Hurt is a very subjective sentiment.

Some can say painting Gods and Goddesses in the nude is vulgar, and hence offensive. Others can say that painting them vulgar (where vulgar is undefined) is hurting. Yet, others can say that painting them nude is pure and hence gives them a spiritual feel. So the real question is "Who decides what is vulgar??" Is it only one group of people who can do that- people who have no knowledge of art criticism? And how can the police decide what is vulgar?

No. It needs an array of people to do that. And, the law should oversee the proceedings- the art critics will have their argument; the religious representatives would have theirs. But under no circumstances should anybody take law in their own hands.

The self is only one perspective- for the further enlistment of the self- a counter perspective is very important and I opine that the respect for religion is not out fashioned but it's very much in.