"I think your comment about Prudent Indian was not fair. You write that it was not a threat, but readers understand. You were not threatening the Prudent for that, but actually you were threatening the readers! Putting facts and figures in public, like Prudent has done, does make a lot of people uncomfortable." This is what Kumar Rahul said in one of the comments. I thought this deserved a clarification.

You are making the same mistake that everyone who is on one side or the other make.

To begin with, let me say that I talk of artist's freedom DESPITE that picture. I am a Christian (at least my Hindu friends say so!) My entire point is that even if I think it is vulgar, it should be permitted. I believe freedom of speech is more important than my feelings. I feel offended seeing that picture, but I am defending Prudent's freedom in putting up that picture completely. That is what everyone should have done.

The media did not do that. Media talked about artistic freedom without showing people what the artist did. I think that is treatiung people like fools.

Prudent showed that picture, and said if a picture is so offensive, one should not make such creations. I objected only to that point of view. Not the picture!

My point is that offense or not, one should publish such a picture and then defend freedom.

I am a journalist in some ways - I run a news website - but if I publish that picture on my front page I will go to jail. Simple. If I say that see this pic, its offensive, still I will go to jail. if I say, see this pic, its offensive but publishing it is important for freedom of ex-pression, still I will go to jail. I object to that.

Threat to Prudent? NO WAY.

I was only pointing out that despite the motives, publishing such a picture is enough to send anyone to jail in India. Prudent survives because his is a blog, my site gets thousands of visitors, and one oftem, FROM MY OWN COMMUNITY, will get offended and file a complaint against me. So I applaud Prudent's courage, but it is dangerous nevertheless.

Unlike you say, the motive is not important in India. The court may finally release you looking at your motives, but you still get arrested.

So, here I am, defending the right of the artist to offend me and my religious feelings. Am I making myself clear?

Sirji, (I am learning delhi hindi nowadays!) I am on the side of freedom of ex-pression, and against my own community. I am against ban on da Vinci Code. I am against ban on satanic verses. I am against ban on husain's paintings.

And I am not threatening readers! Readers or even Prudent have done nothing wrong. If people understand it wrong, they need to stop thinking about as enemies and friends.

Worldwide, freedom of ex-pression is gaining more ground every day. So I don't think any code of conduct would work. In fact, the moment we have a code of conduct, we will be compared to Saudi Arabia or China. No government would do that.

I understand the psychology of demanding a ban, Rahul. I feel the same way often, but I go against my feelings. That is what makes me human, I think. That I can overcome my emotions with my logic.

The world is overall coming over to the point of view that the only way to tackle problems arising out of artists' 'dangerous' ex-pressions is by allowing it, and by allowing others also to protest creatively as they see fit, and drown out what they don't like.

Here are some interesting links on the topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_versus_blasphemy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ