After the quashing of criminal proceedings against MF Hussain by Delhi High Court, "liberals" supporting Hussain, are hailing it as a victory of "artistic expression." The court judgement is also being interpreted as vindication of his artistic licence to portray the Hindu Goddesses in nude.

Two arguments have always been forwarded by liberals to justify Hussain's nude portrayals of Hindu Goddesses. First is the ostensible presence of "similar" nudity in traditional sculptures and bronzes of various Goddesses and second is the existence of figurines on the outer walls of certain temples depicting erotic imagery. It isn't, however, surprising that the Westernised liberals and intellectuals, far removed from the Indian ethos, lack in their comprehension of Hindu iconography what is easily and naturally understood by illiterate Hindu masses.

Admittedly, traditional Indian Art has portrayed the eternal and absolute infinity in sensuous female forms, but this expression has always sought to represent divinity through it. To help achieve this, traditional art has diligently employed a conventional symbolism. This religious symbolism relies heavily on body postures and hand positions making it easy for a devotee to recognize and differentiate between, say, a "varada mudra" and an "abahya mudra" or a "gnana mudra" and a "kataka mudra". Additionally, fixed attributes such as a "Veena" for Saraswati or a "Mahisasura lying under the feet" of Durga are used to convey the various manifestations of that divinity. Hussain's paintings not only lack proper symbolism, but apply it selectively and often whimsically to portray Hindu Goddesses in doubtless derogation.

The portrait of Durga, for instance, shows the naked Goddess riding a Tiger in a pose suggesting bestiality. His painting of Saraswati is equally frivolous. As already suggested by Shourie elsewhere, this painting is seriously wanting in conventional attributes associated intricately with Saraswati. Hussain's Saraswati is pitch dark when tradition invokes her as "tushaarahaara" and "dhavala" meaning white as moon and the flakes of snow. Neither does the ostensible purity which Hussain claims his nudes to be representing, do justice to her abiding iconography as "ya shubhra vastraavata" i.e. "draped in white." Similarly it will require an ingenious effort to find even a remote appeal to divinity or purity in his portrayals of naked Hanuman and Sita, where the latter is shown sitting on the lap of Ravana or for that matter, in his depiction of naked Lakshmi sitting on the head of Ganesh.

Hussain's hypocrisy, when he speaks of nudity in Hindu culture as a metaphor of purity and an inspiration to artists including him, is highlighted further in his other paintings. In one such painting he depicts a fully clothed Muslim King juxtaposed against a naked Brahmin. In another painting illustrating four leaders including a decapitated Mahatma Gandhi, Hussain portrays Hitler in the nude. Significantly Hussain has declared his loathing for Hitler in an interview. He has also said categorically that his nude portrayal of Hitler was done with the explicit intention of humiliating him. By contrast, his portrayals of Prophet's daughter Fatima, Mother Teresa, his own daughter Raeesa and his mother are fully clothed. Certainly, Hussain's "inspiration" is concomitant to the religious sectarianism of his subjects. But the question is, if Hussain is prepared to play subservient to Muslim sensitivities then why not to those of Hindus; this when he has already apologised for hurting the Hindu sentiments in the past.

The second argument- that of the presence of nude figurines on the outer walls of some temples- again shows the superficial understanding of liberal intellectuals about Hindu philosophy and its reflection in temple architecture. In the Hindu philosophy temple complex as a whole serves to represent the spiritual journey of the seeker from worldliness to salvation. It aims at providing a transcendental experience to the devotee. As a means to the same, the pilgrim starts circumambulating the temple until he reaches the sanctum sanctorum which represents the ultimate void, sunya or salvation.

The erotic figurines on some temple walls, most prominently in the case of Khajuraho and which even Hussain uses as an alibi represent this worldliness. The liberal intellectuals having internalised the Western notions of sex symbolism in Hindu art and architecture have failed to grasp the true import of this architecture. The erotic sculpture on the outer walls of Khajuraho temples constitutes hardly one tenth of the total statuettes there. The remaining sculpture is devoted to other mundane activities of secular life. The circumambulation of the temple and the advance towards sanctum by the pilgrim is supposed to convey symbolically the renunciation of pleasure pursuits and his movement towards "moksha" in his larger spiritual journey.

Art, in its varied forms, is a way of expressing ideas and ideals. It is difficult to find any such ideas- great or pedestrian- in Hussain's paintings. Neither has the offence caused to vast number of Hindus by his perversion been offset by the championing of some lofty ideal.

Lastly, tolerance is one continuous refrain which our liberals never tire of reiterating whenever minority sensitivities are perceived to be threatened. However when concerning the Hindu majority they seldom practice it themselves. Their silence on Cartoon violence or banning of Satanic Verses or their desertion of Tasleema is in stark contrast with their strident stand on Hussain or Ram Setu.