The Vadodara incident, in which an art exhibition at the MS University was disturbed by a group of protesters, escalated into a political controversy. The protesters strongly maintained that some of the art objects on display were intended to hurt the religious sentiments of a particular religious denomination. A group of artists, supported actively by political organisations and eulogised by a section of the media, strongly maintained that the protest against the two paintings amounted to moral policing and that it was a suppression of artistic freedom. The debate continued for a few days until the young artist who had sketched the paintings was released on bail.

My normal instincts are against censorship and disruption of art exhibitions. Anxious to study and analyse the real issues in this controversy, I made a conscious effort to investigate as to what the two impugned paintings were. My curiosity was further strengthened by the fact that media organisations that championed freedom of artistic expression, projected the issue in the abstract, without informing viewers and readers what the exact expression of artistic freedom in this case was. My conscious effort led me to discover that the protest was with regard to two paintings whose contents were being censored by the responsible section of the media. I am unsure whether this was deliberate or whether it was an act of responsible journalism to prevent people from viewing an obnoxious piece of art.

My curiosity led me to discover that the first painting was that of a ‘cross’ on which Jesus Christ stood crucified. Below the said ‘cross’ was an English-style WC. The painting displayed the sexual organs on the art piece, with the liquid drip from them going into the WC. The second painting was a portrait, ostensibly of the Hindu goddess ‘Durga’, in the nude with a full grown human male emerging out of her sexual organs. The young artist had obviously used the artistic freedom to paint religious figures in a sexually explicit manner. I have not the least doubt that the intention was not an expression of artistic freedom. Such perversity can hardly emerge out of a fair use of artistic expression. It was conceivably the easiest mode of success available to the young artist making him nationally known overnight.

... contd.