Protest letter to Times of India for defaming HJS in articles

Paush Pournima / Krushna Pratipada

By Staff Reporter

This is the protest letter sent by HJS to Times of India with a request to publish clarification against defamation of Hindu Janjagruti Samiti with reference to articles published in Times of India.

Hindu Janjagruti Samiti

The Editor,
Times of India Newspaper,
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd,
Times of India Building,
D.N. Road, Mumbai – 400005.
Email : [email protected]

Ref: Article titled “Case for the Designer Deity” written by Bachi Karkaria dated 9 January, 2009 and “Artist faces heat for depicting Nude Shiva” by Sandhya Nair dated 6 January 2009.

Sub : Request to publish clarification against defamation of  Hindu Janajagruti Samiti with reference to above article.

Dear Sir,

Hindu Janajagruti Samiti is a registered NGO doing social, religious and National welfare work. The Samiti has been formed by devout Hindus doing voluntary charitable work. The Samiti is active throughout India educating people about Dharma in scientific way, campaigning against malpractices done under religious practices and solving problems connected with National, Religious and social fields. The Samiti is doing this work for the last six years in the most legitimate and democratic way so that common people and National property will not suffer.

Your daily Times of India is one of the leading newspapers and is giving wide coverage to various social subjects and lacs of Hindus are regular readers. We are giving this information and explanation as we came across news and articles published in TOI glorifying Mr Nitai Das who has purposely denigrated Hindu Deities and giving wrong and defaming information about Hindu Janajagruti Samiti. You have published this without finding facts and functioning of HJS and merely accused the Samiti. This is not only disgraceful to profession of Journalism and a reputed daily like yours but this has also caused irreparable damage to our organization. Hence we would like to clarify allegations made in your news /articles as follows. I would request you to publish the same.

1.    TOI’s issue dated 6th Jan 2009 with caption “Artist faces heat for depicting nude Shiva’ by Sandhya Nair, paragraph no.1 states “A nude portrait allegedly resembled Lord Shiva was withdrawn from an exhibition at Jahangir Art Gallery on Monday after protests by a little known NGO, The Hindu Janjagruti Samiti. The work by Delhi based artist Nitai Das was forcefully removed from the gallery after 8 activists (including one woman) from the NGO barged into exhibition gallery 1 at about 3:00pm. They also forced Das to remove four other paintings featuring nudes.”

Explanation: After getting the information about this exhibition our representative along with four other members visited Jahangir Art Gallery. The issue of denigration of Lord Shiva and Krushna was explained to Mr. Das. A protest letter (copy enclosed) was also given to Mr. Das and Mrs. K.G. Menon (secretary of the Gallery). After discussion Mrs Menon as well as Mr. Das agreed to remove the paintings of Lord Shiva and Shree Krushna. The exhibition of the remaining painting went on as scheduled. As the matter was settled amicably there was no question of forceful removal of all paintings as stated in the news. None of our members had attacked the exhibition as alleged by you.

2.    This has reference to your article duly published on 9th Jan 2009 by Bachi Karkaria under the caption “Case for a designer deity” Paragraph no 1 states, “’Art for aarti’s sake’ has become an unhappy mantra. Earlier this week, yet another gallery came under attack because someone’s religious sensibilities were offended; the ‘offendee’ predictably launched a counter-offensive with the help of yet another ‘rent-an-indignation’ group. The ire brigade directed its fire at an untitled oil-and-acrylic-painting by Delhi-based artist Nitai Das, who had waited six years for his maiden exhibition at Mumbai’s premier Jehangir Art Gallery. An art collector, Varsha Thakkar, had taken serious objection to what she perceived as a ‘nude Shiva’, and which Das insisted was not any specific deity, but an ”anthropomorphic image of God”

Explanation:  The painter had drawn nude Lord Shiva and Krushna (photocopy enclosed), hurting the religious sentiments of crores of Hindus. The representative of Hindu Janjagruti Samiti visited the Gallery and only objectionable paintings were removed amicably as explained in point 1. Hence your above statement is false and baseless and has defamed the Samiti. You have sent a wrong message to the readers, misguiding them inspite of Samiti’s peaceful and democratic way of working for the benefit of society. We highly object to the use of the words “rent-an-indignation” as the Samiti’s ideologies are service to the Nation and society. Hence the Samiti is honoured and accepted by the society. However it seems that the author of this article herself is yet another “rent-an-indignation” by the Times of India group.

3.    Paragraph 2, article published on 9th Jan 2009 by Bachi Karkaria under the caption “Case for a designer deity” states “The lady was in no mood to swallow this ‘poison’, and by the next afternoon had managed to awaken a little-known group called Hindu Janajagruti Samiti. In an enraged tandava, eight of its ‘activists’ stormed the gallery, and tore down not only the ‘blasphemous’ painting, but four other secular nude works as well. Mumbai’s police force, already stretched to guard vital installations against another terrorist attack in addition to its routine pressure of defending VIP egos, had to muster forces to protect one more ‘sensitive’ site, the art gallery.”

Explanation: Smt. Varsha Thakar is an art collector as well as a reputed social activist who always helps to eradicate the evils and wrong practices affecting society. As the painter had denigrated Hindu deities and wants to spread the poisonous culture in society, Smt. Thakar had to protest in a most legitimate and cultural way. Hence your statements with regards to this social worker are highly objectionable and they demand an unconditional apology from you. Further your statement “eight of its ‘activists’ stormed the gallery, and tore down not only the ‘blasphemous’ painting, but four other secular nude works as well” is totally false and baseless. This may be checked by the eye witness Mrs. K. G. Menon (secretary of Jahangir Art Gallery), painter himself and our representative. Please note that as the matter was amicably settled, we have not complained to the police nor did the police visit the place as per our knowledge. Hence your statement regarding the misuse of police force is totally uncalled for.

Thus it is noticed that you have categorically accused the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti of disrupting the exhibition of Mr. Das’ paintings at Jahangir Art Gallery, Mumbai. Your statement is nothing but unnecessarily defaming Hindu Janajagruti Samiti under the pretext of creating controversy. Crores of Hindu and proud Indian readers have expressed protest against your newspaper.

You are therefore requested to take the note of this by publishing our full explanatory letter in your TOI daily at the earliest.
 
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and take required action immediately.

Yours Truly,

S.G.Vatkar,
(For Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, Mumbai)

Related HJS section

1. Know about science of Shiva Linga
2. Protest against defamation of Hindu Deities & Icons