Miguel Braganza wrote: "Manohar Parrikar cannot be an incarnation of Vishnu. He is an "addvo Bamonn" affiliated to Partagal Mutt [not to be confused for "Portugal"] and so is a Shiva worshipper [Hence,perhaps, Rajan Parrikar's phallic fetish]."
And Dr Anil Desai replied: "It is alright to make any derogatory remarks that would be profoundly offensive to thousands of Shiva worshippers and Hindus like myself in Goa and outside, isnt it? Miguel, what should interest you to know is that bigoted views of bigots are not just restricted to religion but apply to politics as well. So, go on. Let us have more of your incoherent rants." In the M.F. Hussein Judgment, the Delhi High Court correctly observed that it has these days become some kind of a fashion to be offended by anything and everything under the sun. Some time back, members of the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti were seen outside the Inox Multiplex, passionately protesting against the screening of the movie Jodhaa Akbar on the grounds that the sentiments of Hindus were being hurt. I watched this historical epic and found nothing objectionable in it. Not many took the protests seriously and the movie went on to become a huge raging hit all across the Country. Dr Anil Desai is similarly raking up a needless issue over a harmless statement that was made in due jest, sarcasm and humor. Dr Desai(and Dr Barad) may have felt offended but the surgeon should have spoken for himself and not for the so called thousands of offended Hindus. Miguel can rest assured that Hindus have not found his post and the references therein objectionable. Had his posts been really offensive to the Hindu community or to the Saraswats, several goanetters, irrespective of their religious identities, would have come out openly against the same. Yes, even me and Dr Jose Colaco! I personally found nothing wrong in his post and I am sure the so called thousands of Hindus found nothing objectionable either; else they would have raised their heads too. The Hindu scriptures themselves are full of sexual and sensual stories and illustrations that the purists are bound to find vulgar, obscene and even scary for production. But that is the inherent beauty of the religion. That is the beauty that has been Hussein's inspiration for more than 6 decades. Such scriptures are being liberally interpreted by Hindus themselves - -students in their college festivals, professional artists in their plays, Bollywood in its movies - - I could site so many illustrations. I watched a Hindi movie about a year back in which Sanjay Dutt who plays the role of Yama- the God of death, comes to Earth, makes merry, drinks whisky, etc. Now here are some passages that I have picked up at random from Valmiki's Ramayan, in which Sita is described so passionately and sensually: "Tapering and graceful are your thighs like an elephant's trunk, Rounded and ample are your hips, Large and firm are your breasts touching each other, Painted and prominent their nipples, Two smooth,round fruits of the Tala tree pretty with pearls." And consider this self-description by Sita: "My breasts, hands, feet, thighs, Are all symmetrical, My breasts touch each other And have depressed nipples, My navel is set deep In my shapely stomach, Well-fleshed are my breasts And ample thighs, My skin-hair is soft, My complexion pearl bright..." If I research a bit more on google, I could dig up hundreds of such passages that are bound to ruffle a few more feathers than the ones ruffled so far. Why single out Miguel for just a few lines in his post? I have met Miguel on a few occasions and he has come across as a reasonable, well-mannered and a cultured person. Truly rational and secular! The way I see this, Miguel has been inspired by the scriptures too and he should be commended for using Hindu scriptural references in his posts. He certainly does not deserve to be criticized. Cheers Sandeep
