The second aspect of concern is the arrest of the student. His only crime was to create works of art that were objectionable to the vandals. Where in the Constitution is creating a work of art, which is to be judged by teachers in the fine arts faculty of a university, a crime? Where in the Constitution is it acceptable to keep an artist in jail for four days just because he has submitted his work for evaluation by his teachers? Are not the real violaters of the Constitution, the vandals and the police?

The third aspect is the suspension by the university of the acting dean of the faculty for permitting, against the vice-chancellor’s instructions, a protest exhibition by students mounted in response to the arrest — an exhibition of art erotica in the Indian tradition. If peaceful protest is proscribed in a university, and an exhibition of Indian art erotica banned, then are we not moving towards a society where Khajuraho and Konark may be blown up by mortars because they are considered objectionable, where the Kama Sutra will be banned because it is too explicit? The dean was right in ignoring the VC’s order. The VC was wrong to give such an order. He has no place in a university. In fact by his order he has earned a place among the vandals.

The fourth aspect is the role of the pro-VC, who along with the university engineer, personally removed the art exhibits and sealed the department. This is deplorable. It is indeed a sad day when a pro-VC, entrusted with the duty of protecting the university and nurturing the next generation of artists, acts as a member of the vandal brigade. How far have we fallen? The enemy of freedom now seems to be within us.

... contd.