   |
I’ve previously argued advocating absolute freedom of expression in art. But when religious imagery is used to convey a social message, responsibility is important to achieve the ends desired. If a particular religion’s imagery is used positively, the social message will at least reach the followers of that religion.
This image looks alright at the outset, but it has a red ribbon for the AIDS campaign on the top right corner and is captioned: “For God’s sake, do not have multiple sex partners.” I don’t know of the origin or usage of this picture or if it is an online joke, but it is a topic for discussion nonetheless.
But when the religious imagery is negative or portrayed in a potentially offensive light, then the social image is totally lost. The followers of the religion might be offended and will not absorb the message while those that are indifferent to the religion will only find it funny totally ignoring the message.
So Krishna was a “playboy” in layman terms, an adorable one at that, and I don’t think anyone will disagree there. But He neither encouraged nor discouraged having “multiple sex partners”. If one wanted to use Krishna’s images in social work, would anybody take offense if Krishna were portrayed positively? (Well, maybe yes if He were to be shown as promoting condom usage!)
But to depict Krishna’s lifestyle as detrimental to modern health is totally unwarranted. Firstly, Krishna had over 16000 wives and He was a good husband to all of them; he didn’t have “sex partners”. Secondly, what is the point of this picture? To tell us not to have sex with multiple partners. That in itself is a ridiculous suggestion in the 21st Century. Thirdly, I don’t think any of us believe ourselves to be Krishna when we have sex with multiple partners. The idea of preventing AIDS with careful sex is absent from the picture.
Social activism definitely needs to be socially responsible. A positive message always works best. Using religious imagery in poor light is not only irresponsible, it totally defies the purpose. It leaves many Hindus offended and others indifferent. So what has it achieved?
I’m not offended by the picture, just irritated that religion should be irrelevantly and irreverently used in advertising. Are you offended?
You might also like:
hi Surag – I don’t think I’m schizoid. But I think that in social activism, responsibility is integral. Maybe they could’ve shown Rama-Sita and said have ONE sexual partner for life – that’s positive imagery. But basically I think being against multiple sexual partners is a Victorian, repressive and obnoxious idea.
Suraj says:Sooraj I disagree with a lot you have written.
Firstly you contradict yourself with this article. You cant have absolute freedom only when it suits you. There is a lot you have said which I don’t agree with but don’t have time to point them since it serves no purpose now.
I absolutely detest this imagery and for this reason I am posting even this late.
The original imagery doesn’t look alright in the first instance because Krishna was a child of 8 years of age when this dance leela took place. Yet time and time again Krishna is depicted as an adult Krishna dancing with the young ladies.
By the age of 12 he had left the village to the city. So this whole image is wrong. It seems to have been romanticised by I don’t know who in paintings but the false image has been accepted by Hindus now.
Because of this today Hindus are forever trying defend the actions of Krishna in this leela.
He married 16,000 women for a good reason and not out of some fetish lust which seems to be another teasing point by the nonHindus.
Again the story is far too long to write here.
He cannot be termed a playboy because of his age. He was lovable, cuddly cute little child but never a playboy.
hmm…I disagree that I’m contradicting myself. I’m an advocate for artistic freedom but not for advertising freedom and therein lies the distinction.
It’s interesting that you point out Krishna was only a boy during his days of the leela; but I think that it is a spiritual-romantic story and personally like Krishna being depicted as a youth in images of the leela. I don’t have any objection to what you’re saying though.
I think you’re being very defensive of Hinduism – it is the oldest surviving religion that has survived gigantic tsunamis and is thriving today. Of course it faces a tsunami of a different nature today and I can understand your defensiveness from that perspective, but don’t think it is necessary. I know Krishna married 16000 women because he widowed them by killing a villain (I forgot his name) and widow remarriage was frowned upon at that time – so he was a reformer too.
I’m sorry the word ‘playboy’ I’ve used for Krishna offends you. I don’t mean to offend at all and have used it in the devotional-romantic sense or in Bhakti.
Aham: I am – Hinduism
So M F Husain can piant Goddess Sita nude but for a good cause Lord Krishna cannot be depicted as a playboy.
Are you schizoid?
You are contradicting yourself.