A Delhi artist paints Arundhati Roy nude, in bed with Chairman Mao and Osama bin Laden.

Says it’s his way of protesting against the Booker-winning author for supporting Naxals and Kashmiri separatists.

These strokes are enough to give conventionalists a stroke. A naked Arundhati Roy caresses herself as she enjoys a threesome with the two blood thirsty figures of history, Mao and Osama bin Laden, and a voyeur-loving skull looks over their shoulder.

Artist Pranava Prakash’s ’Goddess of Fifteen Minutes of Fame’ sure promises him more than that, as the painter, who was last in news for his controversial nude painting of MF Husain, this time takes on the case of the activist-author as fearlessly as his subject herself.

Further, he goes on to call Arundhati Roy a publicity seeker. (Yes, the irony.)


“Arundhati represents all the intellectuals who are selfless promoters of all sorts of causes which can give them publicity. They are dancing to the tune of publicity as a hungry monkey dances to the tune of its master for a banana,” explains the painter. He goes on to reason why communist leader Mao and Taliban mastermind Laden needed to be in bed with her: “Arundhati was seen supporting ruthless Naxalites in their war against innocent Indian citizens and then she was hobnobbing with merciless Kashmiri killers who were remorseless in their act.”

As a painter, he should have the freedom of expression. Unlimited freedom also separates the good from the bad, the wise from the foolish.

I found his paintings in bad taste because for him, nudity is an expression of revenge. (He has painted M.F. Husain in the nude too.) He doesn’t appear to use nudity to show his subjects in their purest form — he doesn’t even claim to do so. His reason for nudity is spite. It is bad art, and not because nudity must only be used to show purity, but because doing anything with a deeper thought process adds creativity. His art lacks that layer.


Popular opinion is that Arundhati Roy is a publicity seeking celebrity (the contradiction) but I for one am convinced that she truly believes what she says. Her opinions might not be agreeable but I don’t have any reason to disbelieve her intentions. Her intentions, as far as she is concerned, are noble. And we ought to grant this to those we disagree with. We are often too busy in finding hidden intentions and meanings in places where the intentions are noble but we disagree with the opinion.

[An excellent example is the recent Paul Ryan budget proposal that would’ve caused a major change to Medicare. When President Obama was asked about it, he did not resort to calling Ryan an elitist who wanted to end Medicare and didn’t care about the poor — the low hanging fruit his Democratic colleagues are taking. Obama said that Ryan’s intentions were noble and he had every reason to believe Ryan truly believed in his own ideology. It’s just that Ryan’s ideology conflicted with Obama’s. So he disagreed with Ryan’s budget proposal.

Just one more reason why Obama — with his flaws — deserves to be President over other clowns in the arena.]