The greater good is in this particular case is to defend Hinduism from being taken over by extremists who have no problem committing violence on Hinduisms behalf and also defend our nations constitution.

2) I revere and respect the feelings of the common man and feel no need to disturb him just coz I have ‘freedom of expression’. How that translates as fear is beyond me.

3) When I said “make YOU an equal stakeholder”, I meant the general YOU. Please reread my comment. I was actually referring to MFH, the Danish cartoonist and their ilk.

4) The whole “you shd have a backbone” is just marketing talk. I say live and let live. You need to have a backbone only if there is some greater good that can be achieved by displaying your backbone. Please feel free to explain to me what greater good MFH’s paintings achieved?

I am confused. Are you defending the principles of Hinduism and the constitution of India or are you afraid of the “guy on the streets”? What exactly is your point?

Where did you get the idea that I am “a stakeholder in the spread of hate among the masses”? I am advocating peace and compassion. Difference of opinion is not hate.

You should have backbone my friend and be willing to stand by your principles. Your statements indicate that you have once set of beliefs but you are willing to give in to please the fundamentalists. The world will not be safer when you live a life of fear and accept the rules of the “guy on the street”. It is a false sense of security.

You are sailing on the unreachable clouds of high idealism. The problem, though, is how are you going to explain your principles to a billion plus people? In a multicultural society, it becomes every man’s responsibility that he takes utmost care not to offend another. Its like treading on glass.

I would never want this to be a Hindu Muslim thing. But I also realize that there are people waiting out there that would love to make it into one at the slightest opportunity. Is it right on our part to play right into their hands in the name of freedom of expression and tolerance? Wouldn’t that make you an equal stakeholder in the spread of hate among the masses?

To me this is not about religion at all. It is the sensitivities of the guy on the street that is the issue.

The sooner people start getting off their high horses and alight into the world of ground realities, the happier, safer and more prosperous this world is going to be.

This is only a Hindu-Muslim issue if we want to make it to be.

This in my opinion is about Hinduism only. How tolerant are we as a religion? How confident are we about our beliefs? Does a religion that can trace its history to human antiquity needs defending from a painter?

If we as Hindus get so upset over a few paintings that we go to the extent of filing numerous cases against a fellow Indian and physically attack him and the galleries that exhibit his paintings and then run him out of the country, then the religion we are supposedly defending is not Hinduism. It is something else.

One of the many objectives of art and literature is to provoke thoughts and feelings. Most of the paintings in question was painted by MFH in 1970. Hindus of that generation had no problems with it. But organizations like VHP and Bajrang Dal have exploited this issue after an article was published in a Hindi magazine in 1996 titled “M.F. Husain: A Painter or Butcher”. We Hindus fell into the trap and let fundamentalist Hindu organizations speak on behalf of us.

Check out Husains painting called “Mother India” and decide for yourself whether you find it offensive (remember Husain denied that the lady in the painting is a Hindu goddess). Most people who are against MFH have never seen this painting (reminds me of Rajiv Gandhi who banned the book Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie and later said that he never read the book).

If you want to find something that is really offensive then all you have to do is turn on the television and watch it for a few minutes.

Obviously in an ideally secular world who the painter is shouldn’t be as much an issue as what the painting is about. But in today’s day when religious tensions are definitely on edge and the masses make the rules, ideal secularism has no place.

That being said, I find it very difficult to believe that MFH was naive enough to be unaware of what the repercussions of his ‘artwork’ was going to be. That they can cause communal tension (which fortunately was nothing serious at all) in an already poisoned society and lead to more hatred and even riots is something even a child could foresee.

Therefore, if MFH went on with the paintings inspite of understanding the ramifications then his intent is all too clear.

Thank you for sharing. In general I do not believe in paying for this type of information. The real “teachers” never charge money. They will be happy to share it with you. These so called gurus do not have any more information or insight about the art of living than you and me. But for whatever reason people all over the world enjoy listening to good speeches and also paying for it.

I was forced to attend 2 courses designed by him “Basic Course” and DSN “Divya Samaj Ka Nirmaan” and what they taught there is totally opposite to his behavior.

The first thing that came to my mind after hearing his name was “Whats the two Sri for?”

I recently searched him on Wikipedia and found that his name was “Pundit Ravi Shankar” and he changed his name to “Sri Sri Ravi Shankar” after some sitarist objected that he was using the name he had made famous.

Does that go with his principles? This was one of the reasons I didn’t feel like following him.

And above all I hated the session at the DSN where the teacher “Not Ravi Shankar” was asking for donations for about an hour. Everyone present at the course, except 2 – 3 (including me, i didn’t feel like donating for that cause), donated some amount or pledged to donate when he can for building Temples where such courses can be conducted. People donated money in Lakhs. Someone from Leh even donated land along with Rs 50 lakhs.

Believe me the way the teacher(Anand) was giving his speech, while people were donating their hard earned money, anyone who had a “no” in his mind would feel guilty. Moreover I don’t believe that donating money to such Big NGO’s really helps the needy. I prefer going and helping at Old age homes or Orphanages over donating it to such organizations.

Even before day 1 at the “basic course” I goggled him up to see any negative articles about him but found none and this article is the first one.

THUMBS UP!!

I respect your right to disagree with me. I do not think any less of you as a human being or a Hindu because you disagree with me. I do not want you to leave the country because you disagree with me. Got it?

I wished the so called international spiritual guru Ravi Shanker understood a persons right to disagree and dissent and showed the same respect and compassion to a fellow human being that a mere mortal like me could.

India is a country of over a billion people. For any Indian who is intolerant there are many more like me who choose the path of reason and compassion. I am a Hindu but most importunately I am an Indian and a Human Being first.

The Hinduism I know teaches us to respect elders and not to run 92 year old people who are at the twilight of their lives out of the country away from their loved ones for a painting that was done 35 years ago.

These are Sri Sri’s own words, in defence of unrepentant Modi.
where is your all inclusive compassion while speaking on MF Hussain.
isn’t this double standard?

To some extent the reason for that is the fact that Hinduism is not a religion in the traditional sense. It is a collection of many different “religions” and no single person or group has the authority to speak on behalf of Hinduism. As you probably know the roots of these traditions can be traced back thousands of years. It has survived and will survive. It needs no defending.