In the U.S. we have been talking for a while now about a Diwali stamp. In the U.K. however, it is a Christmas stamp that has gotten the attention of the Hindu community. The Telegraph reports:
Hindus are demanding that Royal Mail withdraws one of this year’s Christmas stamps, claiming the mother and child image it represents is insulting to their religion.The 68p Christmas stamp, which would be used to send mail to India, features a man and woman with Hindu markings worshipping the infant Christ.
The image is one of a series of six mother and child stamps that go on sale today.Ramesh Kallidai, secretary general of the Hindu Forum of Britain, said the image was insensitive, because it showed people who were clearly Hindu worshipping Christ.
“It is the equivalent of having a vicar in a dog collar bowing down to Lord Ram on a Diwali stamp,” he said. “These things need to be done with sensitivity.”
The main feature in this stamp that is causing anger is the fact that the man in the painting has a “tilak” on his forehead, which identifies him as a Vaishnava Hindu, and the woman has a “kumkum” mark on her forehead, identifying her as a married Hindu woman.
“It is striking to see that Royal Mail thinks it prudent to issue Christmas stamps that can cause resentment in the worldwide Hindu community but remains silent on the issuing of stamps for Diwali, the festival of lights celebrated by the third largest faith community in the UK and by a billion Hindus worldwide.”
I usually roll my eyes at things like this but I can’t help but admit that the above point is a valid one. The argument in defense of the stamp is that it is art from the 17th century. Why revise/reject it just to be politically correct?
The picture was chosen for Royal Mail by this year’s stamp designer, Irene Von Treskow, an Anglican priest in an English-speaking church in Berlin.She said she was fascinated by the image because it was so interesting to see a Mughal painting with a Christian subject.
She does not believe the picture is offensive. “How can it be?” she asked. “It is 17th-century art.”
Pickled Politics has more.
Yes, let’s have a Royal Diwali bit of sticky paper. But what a cool painting. It’s not about conversion, it’s about tolerance.
Yeah, all this stamp business is a little silly considering you can now make your own stamps. I can be as un-PC as I want (barring nudity) 🙂
Take the above painting for example. You can just use photoshop to morph Christ into Krishna and problem solved 🙂
Maybe the artist meant Baby Krishna not Baby Christ in the original painting. Subversion 17-th century style. Baby Krishna had to deal with kamsa while Baby Christ had herod to content with.
Maybe the artist thought there were parallels between the 2 religious paradigmn and meant it to be both krishna and jesus depending on who was viewing it.
“How can it be?” she asked. “It is 17th-century art.” Yaa, cuz you know ART has never offended anyone in the past. Wonder what this dolt thought of the latest offering of one of my favorite cinematic painters?
Yes, I agree, this Irene women isn’t exactly a deep-thinker.
She does not believe the picture is offensive. “How can it be?” she asked. “It is 17th-century art.”
That has got to be the lamest argument I have ever heard.
Conversion or tolerance? I don’t know.
The fact is Hindus—especially Vaishanvs—are extremely reverential and respectful towards Jesus and most of Christianity. My mom routinely let friends take me to church with them when I was a kid, bought me a New Testament to explain things with, and made sure I understood Christmas was not just about Santa Claus. Along with my Ramayan and Mahabharat videos one movie I watched OVER AND OVER AND OVER again as a six-year old (and still absolutely adore) was Brother Sun and Sister Moon, about St. Francis of Assissi. That was about the extent of it, but I know plenty of Hindus who stick a picture of Jesus in their pantry altars right along with various Hindu saints and devas and devis. In that framework Jesus is easily respected as the son of God, as a prophet, as a saintly person, as peculariarly empowered by God, even as a form of God,a profound source of truth and divine conenction. But not as the only way and the only savior, one of Three Forms of God to the exclusion of others. That’s the difference between tolerance and conversion.
And we all know that Muslims actually revere the Virgin Mary almost as much as Catholics, right?
The problem is, if that Indian tradition of digestive harmonizing of religion is what the stamp is about, there are plenty of Christians–particularly evangelical Anglican Christians more in the traditions of CS Lewis and less in the tradition of Spong–who would object heavily to a stamp that stays on the tolerance half, away from the conversion half. If the adults in the picture are heathens who respect and revere but do not accept Christ as their savior, they are still heathens–and, with that Vaishnav tilak on their face, they are still idol worshippers. If they are converts, then they are converts, and the original argument holds.
I mean, art is great and subjective, but that doesn’t mean interpreting it has to be completely wishy-washy.
A different interpretation–this is a Mughal painting by a Mughal painter. Perhaps he wanted to depict the fact that Christianity was already greatly extant in the subcontinent, being worshipped by the “Native” Indians, not having been brought in by the Mughals. Perhaps he did not understand the significance of the tilak and the kumkum, but associated it with the “Native” Indians. Imagine ANNA at a party of mostly Hindu Mallus. Most of the rest of them may be decked out in Kumkum and tilak, but our intrepid painter strikes up a conversation with the beautiful ANNA, who tells him about her 2000 year old Orthodox tradition. (1700 at this timetravelling party) He is amazed that the Christianity he is familiar with is so well grounded in this strange and exotic land. He knows she has the same culture as the rest of the people at the party, and walking home intoxicated by the imagery of the night, it all gets mashed up in his head. This painting results.
For the record I think it’s a pretty stamp, and given my personal tradition of respecting and revering Jesus while sticking devoutly to my Vaishnavism, I like it.
I thought in Hinduism you worship God in all forms…even in the form of Christ. If so, why would this stamp be offensive to a Hindu? God is God right?
or man… whatever. lame.
Superimposing a silhouette of the queen’s head over a religious image is the most offensive part to me. Kinda like how I feel about the Pledge of Allegiance issue — the “under God” part doesn’t bother me, it’s the pledging of the allegiance.
The article says that this is supposedly an ‘Indianized” version of a European work of art and it resides in Bombay (hangs in an art gallery there).
I think it is a stunningly beautiful painting – for some reason it reminds me of the paintings on the walls of the Christian palace in Fatehpur Sikri (the wife Mariam’s palace). Different time periods, Fatehpur sikri is much earlier, I think? Anyway, I remember being mesmerized by the paintings and by the entire place. I also remember seeing so many Mughal era miniatures in a museum that I was almost in tears at the sheer scope of the beauty. All those little, little jewels of paint…..
I never much care for pressure from religious groups about ‘offensive’ art, whether it is Christian conservatives upset about Piss Christ or Hindus upset about a piece of art selected for a stamp. It just doesn’t move me, but then I was taught a very private sort of worship by my mother (but am not terribly religious, either). I wonder what the full story behind the painting is?
So in the article, the Hindu spokesman (and who made this guy the spokesman for all Hindus, all places, eh?) says that even if the artist painted this painting in 1620 India, it isn’t ‘communally’ correct for today. Yucky sentiment. Let art be free to offend!
Hindu tolerance is often a one-way street. My deeply religious Hindu parents have no problem keeping a X-mas tree at home or wishing peeps a merry kissmas, happy eid etc. But the lovely bright Christian I went to see Passion of the Christ with told me, “I adore you” but “I was taught YOU will go to Hell for not accepting Jesus as Your Lord and Savior.”
Okay, so it is a pretty painting, and interesting novel theme to boot. Let it hang in a museum. A stamp (even if you can do it yourself) is a type of currency that YOUR government is printing out. A tacit nod of approval to an event/time/person; a commemoration, a revival, a fond collective memory . Had anyone heard of this painting before it was “discovered”. Is it noteworthy? The fact that this is not considered an important work like Greco’s original painting makes the issue easier to resolve. It’s not like we’re deciding whether a Confederate soldier who fought valiantly deserves a stamp. The Royal Mail Service should be magnanimous and let the minority special interest in this case have their way.
So, just because that Christian believes that, how is that intolerance? That’s a belief and Hinduism and Christianity are different in this regard. What did she do that was so intolerant? She stated her belief, that’s all. I mean, I eat meat and some hindus would tell me I’m wrong to do so. If they did, fine. But they wouldn’t be intolerant, they would simply be expressing a belief.
As for whether this should be a stamp or not: I’m not a Brit, and it’s not for me to say. By all means, have a Diwali stamp. I still think the Hindu spokesman and the spokesman types are a pain.
No one has engaged my point: that this is an Indian depiction of a European painting. Why did the Indian artist change the painting into this one? What was the artist doing, by this? Should Christians also be offended by this? The taking of a piece of Christian art and Indianizing it?
to be fair to christians, that’s one interpretation of christianity today. in the west it is no longer the majority interpretation from the polls i have seen (the roman catholic church has, to some extent, stepped away from that). it is, i think, prominent to hindus because those who don’t believe non-christians are going to hell won’t usually come up to you say, “hey, i love you, let me witness to you the truth of jesus christ, cuz you know, you might go to heaven anyway because you are a good person.” to use daycruz’s phraseology, if a person ain’t drowning, why offer ’em a lifejacket?
christ was not anglo so who cares? who knows, maybe growing up in that part of the world he sortof looked desi? you never know
Middle class Hindus seem to be fiercely against conversions, and as a consequence, against Christianity, which is why missionaries don’t operate as much in urban India. They–the Hindus–associate Christianity with colonialism, American cultural expansionism, etc.
This painting seems to be an example of inculturation–the Christian strategy of adopting local cultural motifs before eventually destroying them.
Hindus of course inculturate back: Jesus becomes a little godling, jostling for attention with thousands of others in the fecund Hindu pantheon. Christians hate that.
The Ramakrishna mission converted Jesus into a yogi–run of the mill–whose enlightenment experience was no better than any other Yogi. They disassociated him from what they called “Churchianity.”
Actually Ramesh Kallidai http://www.hinduforum.org/Default.aspx?sID=766&cID=78&ctID=36&lID=0 as you can see here is much, much more than a self-appointed leader (as most leaders usually are in informal contexts). Now just as you have taken it upon yourself to decide how Hindus should feel about a certain artistic representation, Kallidai thinks it is important to take up certain issues that he believes (and many agree) are important to the public understanding of Hinduism. Any problems? Or do you think he shouldnÂ’t talk and simply remain silent? Now if the matter is put to vote or for public comment you could have your say. Do you realise you too are acting as some sort of self-appointed commentator on the Hindu community in presuming that this is no issue at all? The UK does not prohibit any group claiming a common religious faith taking up issues related to its beliefs. The question is not whether one agrees with the Forum’s point of view.
I didn’t exactly say her beliefs were intolerant. I use the Batsignal prudently! I offered the anecdote because I thought it was telling of a larger phenomena not because I was offended. But I do believe any literal interpretaions of religious texts or mere regurgiation of whatever dogma is daft. And there’s probably Christians out there who are offended by this reimagined painting as well. But like I said I think it’s real puurty. But shouldn’t be on a gov’t stamp.
Saw a great bit of agit-prop on a wall in the Motherland recently. On the side of a wall of a tire shop, hand-painted, Shiva and Jesus with the tag line, “Be Holy..Don’t Pee on me” Now anyone who dared take a leak or launch a pan-laden loogie on that wall is straight going to Hell. No chaser!
I use the Batsignal prudently!
We need a Sepia Mutiny Signal, and we need it now.
MD, some Christians believe that Hindu’s are going to hell not all. These Christians are able to exert a lot of influence on the legislators and the government. That affects me and that’s why it is important to me. Do think the mullahs who pray and preach “death to Israel” and death to “infidel crusaders” are wrong or are they just exercising their right to religion ?
i think the stamp rocks……..
if the artist do not take freedom in creativity, they will be the “dumbest/ doddest/ borest” dudes. art only progress in pushing the limits, cojoining your different experiences. an artist not pushing the limits is a “assembly line” worker.
here the artist is meshing his/ her expression of mughal period and christianity in an untold manner.
picassco’s cubist art was very much inspired by (or extensions of) african art and religous motifs/ symbols, he experienced in paris. should african countries be protesting every other day about his paintings…..you know the ones like guernica and all.
I like the stamp. It’s just so…odd. The parents look very Indian but the infant Christ and the others look gora. Also, did the Indian artist forget to paint the halo over the infant Christ or was it a common medieval thing to have the halo only over Virgin Mary? (yes I know nothing about art)
Its a non issue. Theresnt much to be offended here Indian postal service should issue stamps showing jesus in kashmir. or issue stamps based on mani
I snarked about this a little on Fark the other day. There’s some people saying that this painting may be fraudulent… it may just be sour grapes, but there are some things that stand out even to this person who dropped first semester art history.
The halo over Mary-figure is definitely reminiscent of Christian iconography, but I echo SMR above : Where’s Baby Jesus’s halo? And why, oh lord, is he blond? Why not go 100% there and paint him too with darker skin, black hair and a tilak (along with the halo) ? Africans have black Holy Family iconography, the Virgin of Guadalupe does look Mexican, and Europeans have always pictured a blond or light brown-haired, fair-skinned Jesus. Why not an Indian one, and why not in this particular painting?
So I do understand the ire of the “look at the Hindus worshipping the British Baby Jesus” crowd – the art kind of insinuates that. And I’m weirded out about the missing halo, too.
So, why only apply the tilak to the man and woman. Why not apply it to Baby Jesus as well?
Would that offend anyone?
Honestly I don’t think a lot of Christians are thrilled with this stamp either. The artist was out to offend anyone in my opinion, but it was not a particularly smart selection given the hyper sensitivity of people in matters religious.
Saheli, I appreciate Hindus respect towards Christianity. It is however by no means the norm in India any longer. I have heard and been at the receiving end of violent invective against Christianity :Semitic religion, conversions ,missionaries etc etc. I am not claiming that a majority of Hindus think this way, but in my experience the proportion who do is only increasing sadly.
Believe me, most Indian Christians (I can only speak for them as that is my background) do respect Hinduism a lot. I and most Catholics I knew in Bombay celebrate Diwali, Holi, Ganeshotsav etc. My Hindu friends have visited churches with me and I have visited many temples. (Gurudwaras and mosques too).And my experience growing up in Bombay was by no means unique.
The irony in all this is that the two “Hindus” are representations of Joseph and Mary, the earthly parents of Jesus Christ, which means the painting essentially (and most likely, unintentionally), depicts Christianity as being borne from Hinduism.
From a technical standpoint, if the artist’s intention was to “Indian-nize” Jesus Christ, it makes sense that his parents be depicted as Hindus because at the time of his birth, Joseph and Mary were Jews and not Christians and therefore followed the religion of the land (and not the still unspoken teachings of their baby). So, logically, Indian Mary and Joseph would have to be Hindu.
Historically, Indian Catholics have sometimes been known to incorporate a form of aarti into their rituals that involves “marking” the forehead (in fact, there is a somewhat controversial photo of the Pope receiving this in the 1800s). This painting is obviously Catholic, as only Catholics, not all Christians, revere the Virgin and so it’s plausible that the artist thought he/she was depicting Catholics, not Hindus.
In my family, women wear bindis to church and as a child, in certain villages we sometimes saw Christians attend church with tilak/kum kum to maintain caste separation. I haven’t seen that lately, but then again, I haven’t been to a village lately. However, I did read that the Catholic Church is considering incorporating more Hindu traditions into its rituals to heighten its “Indian-ness.”
In the end, the painting is conceptually vague and therefore, shouldn’t be used. There’s no way of knowing why the tilak/kum kum is there and there’s no way of explaining how a white baby pops out of brown parents unless one refers to blue-skin Krishna and Hinduism; as someone mentioned earlier, for this to be truly “Indian,” Jesus et al would need to be dark, not light. In the end it could just be one confused Mughal who, in darkening the skin of Mary and Joseph, wanted to whisk Christ back to his true origins but was so colonized by images that he couldn’t decide if he was going to paint Mughals, angels, Krishna with a bowl of butter or Christ with butter-colored hair…
Art is art and the painting is a compelling representation of India’s religious chaos but the image is confusing and therefore, possibly bad art. And cultural sensitivities aside, that alone should be enough reason not to use it.
As heard on BBC world – The Royal Mail has apparently issued an appology, but has no plans to withdraw the stamp.
Marx was right “Religion is the opium of the masses”.
I would say
“Religion is the opiate of Dumbasses “
It’s perfectly understandable that hindus are upset over this.
If India puts out a stamp of muslims praying to a hindu deity I would be very upset.
I don’t really get why hindus outside India are so complacant, while the ones in India are fanatics.
I don’t really get why hindus outside India are so complacant, while the ones in India are fanatics.
Only the so-called religious leaders are upset over issues, whether in India or elsewhere. Most people have better issues to worry about. To think this is offensive to Hinduism per-se is pure stupidity.
Why ? They show hindus worshiping a christian idol (jesus) and was created by a christian, so I think it would be offensive if you are a religious hindu.
I think most hindus in the west are atheists not pagans.
They show hindus worshiping a christian idol (jesus) and was created by a christian
No it doesn’t show any worshipping going on. It may be baby Jesus, it may not be. There is no halo. It’s just a white baby.
Secondly, where is the proof this was created by a Christian? If a Hindu created it, you would accept it?
I think most hindus in the west are atheists not pagans. Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
Hi,
I feel obliged to respond to the comments by the ‘World Hindu Mahasangam’ Secretary S Swaminathan regarding his objections to displaying the bindi on the forehead of the woman in question.
I have a few points to make regarding this
Bindis are not the monopoly of the Hindu religion.
His statement that non Hindus in India do not wear bindis is a deliberate untruth. I say deliberate as he cannot make a statement for an entire country purely on the basis of his ‘position’ as a spokesperson – how he reached there being a matter for an entirely different kind of speculation.
Many Catholics in India wear the bindi as a sign of Indianness and as a practicing Catholic I am very happy to see the stamp as an excellent fusion of the Indian culture with the Catholic faith. I am sure that many Catholics would be similarly happy and just because they are not naturally a vociferous and belligerent community does not make their needs less important. The Royal Mail would be doing them a great injustice by withdrawing these stamps. I therefore urge you not to. Of course, threats and verbal abuses may be directed against you, which may – to enable the functioning of an essential service, deter you from releasing the stamps into the market. Still one could do without the abject apologies from the Royal mail.
The point brought in about St Thomas is irrelevant but it does add to the length of the apparent grouse of the ‘injured’ parties. Christianity has evolved in India serving innumerable purposes – not the least of them being to give a sense of humanness to the Dalits who have been subjected to degradation that is – putting it simply – unacceptable. The Christian community have included many traditions of the Indian culture like wearing saffron, lighting incense, worshipping in a communal setting without a big church and ofcourse wearing bindis and flowers on their head. I think this is an essential requirement for two cultures to blend and fuse to worship in a way that allows spiritual and cultural comfort.
The very same people who up and breathe fire about the Christian converts from Hinduism would do very well to take a minute’s silence ( it doesn’t take much longer than that) to think (that may be bit more difficult) and introspect as to why people leave their religious system and convert to Christianity. The reasons are obvious and glaring – suffice to say that those who leave the ‘Hindu faith’ are not usually the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas or even the Vaishnavas. Once these learned and literate individuals have found the real answer to this question – they may be more able to understand that there is no other way this could be, other than seriously implementing the suggestions of the very well read and educated Dr. Ambedkar – namely dismantle the Hindu system!
The Hindus could do well to learn from the lessons of their Christian (practicing) brethren regarding tolerance of the views of another religion. If this picture had been issued with anything other than a genuine and good intent – it may call for the noise made about it. I see no reason not to link two religions if it means linking two cultures and two countries. I for one would be extremely upset if the stamps were withdrawn.
Kind regards
Dr. Sylvia Selvaraj