Indecency on Indology-Net?

[y.r.rani at mail.utexas.edu]

The Telcom Bill recently passed by the U.S. 104th Congress and signed by
President Clinton is vague in the extreme and an obvious violation of
freedom of expression.  What does this have to do with Indology, you may
ask?  Especially our European colleagues may think that this bill is only
sadly laughable and has no application to them.  Think again!

Allow me to quote from the Telcom Bill, Section 1462 of title 18:,

"Whoever brings into the United States. . .  or knowingly uses any . . .
interactive computer service. . . for carriage in interstate or foreign
commerce--

    "(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet,
    picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or
    other matter of indecent character; or

   "(b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy phonograph
    recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing. . ."
(end quote)

What is your definition of "lewd and lascivious" and the particularly
precise term "filthy"?

Many users of the Internet darkened their Web Pages to protest the Telcom
bill, many have changed the backgrounds of their Web Pages to black and the
script to white, symbolic of a period mourning this attack on freedom of
expression.  Discussion groups of  all persuasions are attempting forms of
civil disobedience to protest this bill, which is a blatant travesty to the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.   Several law suites have already been filed, and it is
obvious (at least to me) that this bill be thrown out by the Judicial
Branch of the government. (What I find hard to understand, is why the law
makers and chief executive of this country would pass a law that is this
vague and in violation of the Bill of Rights?!)

But, what effect could this have on the Indology-Net?  Think about it:  If
an Indologist in Holland, Denmark, India, or another foreign country
"brings into the United States, . . . . [via] interactive computer service
. . . any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . letter, . . . or other
matter of indecent character; or . . . any obscene, lewd, lascivious or
filthy . . . electrical transcription. . ."  they could be subject to
prosecution. The maximum fine is $250,000 and two years in jail.

I am sure that my definition of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy" is
in great contrast to those of Pat Robertson, a T.V. evangelist, avid Hindu
basher, and representative of the Christian Far-Right or Bob Dole, the
conservative Republican Senator from Kansas.  Individuals such as these and
the writers of the Telcom Bill, would undoubtedly find the statuary at
Indian sites such as Khajuraho to be "lewd and lascivious."  As a means of
symbolic protest, and a method of non-cooperation, which has such powerful
roots in the Subcontinent, may I suggest a thread for the Indology
Discussion Group?

Re:  Indecent Lascivious Iconography

In my travels through India, while visiting temples such as Khajuraho,
Konarak, and numerous other sites where erotic sculpture is depicted, I
marveled at the sexual explicitness of the art and wondered as to the
symbolism of these powerful and very erotic artistic expressions.  What do
they mean?  The carvings, though aesthetically pleasing, are even more
erotic and sexually explicit than much of what is considered to be
pornography, which is the target of the Telcom Bill.

I have heard various arguments espoused to explain the erotic or tantic
iconography:

1)  "It was meant to be purely symbolic, the iconographical representation
of the union of the male and female principle--i.e. Siva/Shakti, etc."

2)  "It was meant as a visual "test" for the practitioner or Sadhu.  To
help keep the Holy Man (or Woman) on the Path, by challenging his or her
mental commitment to celibacy and renunciation. . . by looking at these
erotic representations, they are forced to overcome their desirous response
to the sexually stimulating and explicit art."

3)  "It is an indicator that Indian social mores of that period had
declined and a period of decadence influenced temple/art patrons."

4)  "It is proof that women in ancient India were not veiled, that they
enjoyed life, scantily clad and expressing robust sexuality."

There are other exegesises concerning the meaning and social context of the
erotic art of India which is found not only at the above mentioned sites
but in Pahari miniature painting and numerous other artistic traditions in
Hinduism and Buddhism.  Yab-Yam is certainly symbolic, but that does not
diminish its basically erotic expression.  The carvings at Khajuraho
include a wide variety of sexual positions of copulating couples and even
bestiality and group sex.

Could the above discussion be considered "lewd and lascivious" under the
vague definition in the Telcom Bill?  Would sending a response to this
query be considered illegal under the new legislation?  What if Indology
posted scanned reproductions of these ancient images at their web site?
Would we find our European colleagues, who maintain this list, prevented
from visiting the U.S. due to fear of arrest and incarceration as a result
of bringing into the "United States. . .  an obscene, lewd, lascivious
picture of indecent character."

Certainly, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a Christian missionary
in U.P. in the1880s would view this Tantric/erotic art differently than
would a Dharma Bum of the 1960s, or an Indologist in 1995.

I would greatly appreciate the perspectives of Indologists concerning the
interpretation of the pervasiveness and explicitness of erotic art found in
Indian iconography and especially its symbolic meaning.  This is a serious
question and meant not only as a form of protest against the idiocy of the
Telcom Bill but as a genuine inquiry, since none of the above mentioned
explanations are satisfactory.

Thank you,

Yvette C. Rosser
UT Austin
----------------
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
		--Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.