Hitler vs. Ganesha: A "Rambunctious" Play

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste,

I am surprised no thread was created about this topic as it is about a week old now.

Anyway, there is a play that is going to be showcased at the Melbourne Festival from Sep. 29th, 2011. The play is about Ganesha fighting the Nazis (from WWII) to take back the Swastika (an auspicious symbol stolen by Nazis). Although the cause may be somewhat good (taking back the symbol to mean what it actually does), the trivialization of a revered deity like VinAyakA (Sri GaneshA) is highly disrespectful and hurtful towards Hindus.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...st-Hitler.html

From Rajan Zed in the US to Hindus in Australia, there is a slow but steady protest building up against this puerile depiction of Ganesha.

Hindu Jagruti has started a campaign protesting it as well. It is here: http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/12776.html

What are your thoughts on this? Is this another form of art and freedom of expression (to run roughshod on Hindu sentiments) or is it a calculated denigration of Hindu deities?

My feelings can easily be surmised; I object to it because Australia is a fundamentalist christian country; they have repeatedly and overtly denigrated India and Hinduism over the years. A popular radio-host recently called the Ganga a "junkyard" and India some names I cannot repeat on this forum. He merely got a slap on his wrist for what he said.

Some of the aspects of the play are highly disgusting. For instance, the following quote was taken from an article on the issue:

"Creating irrelevant imaginary imagery, like reportedly depicting him being tortured and interrogated by Nazi SS, hurt the devotees,"

A picture from the "play".

[Kismet]

Now, I must say that (as a practitioner of SD myself) I find this depiction far more distasteful than the K-tattoo. That I could allay my fears about by reasoning that the artist was genuinely interested in conveying his love for the deity, albeit in an inappropriate and ultimately unworthy way.

Here, the sense I get is far more irresponsible and it really does look like Ganesha is being mocked, in a very cavalier, careless sort of way. It all looks too absurd to have any redeeming value given to it.

Yes, the swastika is an originally auspicious symbol. But for it to be "reclaimed" in such a stupid manner, really isn't necessary. Ganesha just looks foolish here, and that is why I see this as offensive.

Far more offensive than the K-tattoo, though I have reasoned that is offensive as well.

[TTCUSM]

What's even more offensive is that it depicts Ganesha fighting on the side of the British Empire, which played a role in the persecution of his followers.

[Adhvagat]

The funny thing is the image the author attributes to Ganesha, he becomes a Godzilla, a creature that can eat a human being in a second, perhaps that's the relation of the creator regarding these numinous images, they are so strong and he doesn't stand a chance against its vile nature relative to his egoical stance.

Just like the Christians turned every deity that wasn't Jesus into a demon. Insecurity goes a long way...

Jungian analysts also observe this tendency of Gods (archetypes) to become stereotypes, since westerners completely depredated their own pantheon, they are now turning to the East.

[sm78]

Ram fought and killed well known and not so well known, evil and not so evil demons in dozens. Krishna's list is even longer. The sole pupose for Shiva procreating was to create son's like Ganesha and Kartikeya who would slay demons and enemies of dharma (not the sham we call hinduism today, represented by Rajan whatever). Hindu gods fighting evil is the very epicenter of all hindu stories, without which there is no purana, no itihasa - not even vedas and tantras. Ganesha fighting Hitler is just moving that understanding in the contemporary world. It should be much more deep than getting back the swastika symbol.

But we have here new puritans, loud mouthed Hindus whose understanding of Hinduism is worse than a Mormon's understanding of Christianity Or Mr Daniken's knowledge about Pyramids. Only thing that ticks them "is who else in this world may be laying a claim on their Gods?". It seems Rajan Zed et.al feel Hindu Gods are solely their own personal slaves given to them as their birth right. They only have the right to denigrate and reduce the Gods to utter triviality or completely irrevant entities without meaning or purpose -OR the only purpose to have Gods is to shout and create a lot of noise if someone else touches them.

About Australia, I don't know if it is a fundamentalist christian nation (there is definitely some christianity, but is it worse than the heaven on earth US??). But they definitely suck up to Han ass, and are no freind of India in geopolitical terms. But has that anything to do with this play in any relevant meaningful way?

[Kumar_Das]

Plain and simple. Hindu Puranas have actual theological meanings outside of the symbology. Its not a bunch of tales where deities go around owning villains.This is why we should keep our religion exclusive and away from untouchable filth.

[Mana]

Namasté Kumar_Das,

Should that we become so possessive of an Ideology, is it paramount to materialism? We can not renounce that which is in essence a worldly pleasure?

Imprisoned.

Just a thought ...

praNAma

mana

[sm78]

Plain and simple. Hindu Puranas have actual theological meanings outside of the symbology. Its not a bunch of tales where deities go around owning villains.This is why we should keep our religion exclusive and away from untouchable filth.

Yes, go ahead and keep these theological meanings and what ever you consider pristine hinduism exclusive. That will only mean that such conceptions of/about Hinduism becomes irrelevant and extinct even faster than it already has...not a sad outcome.

[Sahasranama]

Rajan Zed has made a full time job out of protesting against depiction of Hindu deities. He seems to always protest no matter what. But sometimes protest is waranted, like when Hindu gods are depicted on toilet seats, slippers or underwear. Some plays, movies and books can also be highly offensive. Let's not forget that when the Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammed, many european politicians publicly anounced their disdain for that act, even though the picture was not distasteful or offensive. Now when lakshmi devi is decorating someone's crotch or someone has kali and krishna painted on their toilet seat, people think it is fashionable. This is when all Hindus should protest, no exception.

There was also an incidence in the Netherlands with a large store chain that sold plasic murtis of Hindu deities. Personally, I didn't find this offensive and was actually quite happy too see some Hindu statues instead of the overdone meditating Buddhas you see everywhere. But there was a group of Hindus that protested against this and therefore the chain stopped selling the statues. I thought that this protest was going too far, but later I noticed in western houses with Buddha statues that people used them for hanging their clothes on and letting their children climb on it. It probably isn't such a bad thing after all that Hindu statues are not found on every corner of the street. It is not part of the western phyche, after the abrahamic religions started to overtake the pagan ones, to show respect to an object. I routinely see westerners standing or sitting on books, while most Hindus are taught not to touch books with their feet or put them on the floor.

The problem is that it is very difficult for a nastika to portray the Hindu deities in a way that is respectful. Even the tibetan Buddhists had a habit of portraying Hindu deities being trampled by their "superior" gods. Ganesha being tortured by the Nazis is no less offensive.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Here's another modern portrayal: http://rsboensch-ganesha.blogspot.com/ I like it because it shows Him doing the kind of stuff he does. I wonder if Mr. Zed would protest this one.

Aum Namasivaya