top of page

By:

Minal Sancheti

2 May 2026 at 12:26:53 pm

Freedom of expression over says artist Jain Kamal

Mumbai: Veteran artist Jain Kamal believes that his fraternity lacks freedom of speech in today’s time. While speaking to ‘The Perfect Voice’, he said, “Freedom for the artists no longer exists. Now, we are living in the times of dictatorship. If we don’t have freedom of expression, then it will be very difficult for the artists to survive. There should be purity in the expression of the artists, saints, scientists, and thinkers so that there is more positivity in society.” Jain is going to...

Freedom of expression over says artist Jain Kamal

Mumbai: Veteran artist Jain Kamal believes that his fraternity lacks freedom of speech in today’s time. While speaking to ‘The Perfect Voice’, he said, “Freedom for the artists no longer exists. Now, we are living in the times of dictatorship. If we don’t have freedom of expression, then it will be very difficult for the artists to survive. There should be purity in the expression of the artists, saints, scientists, and thinkers so that there is more positivity in society.” Jain is going to exhibit his 50 years of work at the Jehangir Art Gallery from May 26 to June 1. The exhibition, ‘Retrospective’, will be inaugurated by Dattatreya Hosabale, General Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The paintings are a translation of the Jain religious chanting of the Navkar Mantra. Jain said, “I have been working on these paintings for the past 50 years and have put in a great effort to convey to the world the message of peace and harmony using the Jainism chanting. Like a mother makes delicious food for her child, I have used words to create beautiful art for the people.” When asked what inspired him, he said, “I wanted to do something with words. So I thought why not use Gayatri mantra or Hanuman Chalisa but then I chose Navkar mantra which is a Jain mantra. I used the five lines of the mantras in my paintings. In the exhibition, you will get to see a ‘Picchi’ (a broom used as a symbol of non-violence and which the Jain monks use to brush away any small insect that comes in their way.)” Jain added, “Half of the threads attached to the Picchi are in Brahmi, and half of the Picchi are in Devanagari. I have combined the time of Jain God Rishabdev with today’s generation by using both languages. I have also painted ants dancing to show nonviolence preached by the religion.” The words are formed like a chain in concentric circles in one of the key paintings. Some paintings consist of lakhs of words depicting the Jain mantras. “In these paintings, you can find the entire world through the written mantras. They convey that everything is made by God and there lies nothing in the material world. We should not be proud of our possessions, as everything in the world belongs to Khuda. So be peaceful and spread peace.” He added, “I did not talk about religion, but the philosophy of peace that I want to spread to everyone. I planted the seed of a mantra and thoughts into my artwork, which is why it is unique and different.”

Settled Smoke

The dramatic decision by America’s Department of Justice to drop all criminal charges against Gautam Adani and his nephew, Sagar Adani, instantly raises contradictory interpretations. Either the prosecutors genuinely concluded that the allegations could not survive judicial scrutiny, as the official explanation suggests. Or the affair reinforces a darker public suspicion that in the modern global economy, sufficiently powerful corporations can negotiate their way out of trouble through settlements, strategic investments and expensive lawyers.


The answer matters far beyond one billionaire. Alongside the dismissal of criminal fraud charges, Adani Enterprises has agreed to pay a whopping $275 million to settle allegations linked to Iranian-origin LPG imports, while America’s Securities and Exchange Commission has pursued civil penalties tied to claims that investors were misled regarding anti-bribery compliance. None of these settlements involve admissions of wrongdoing. Yet they hardly resemble total exoneration either.


This ambiguity ensures that the Adani saga will not end quietly. For months, the allegations surrounding the Adani Group had become inseparable from India’s domestic political wars. The Congress-led opposition under Rahul Gandhi had elevated Adani into the central metaphor of what it alleged was the unhealthy nexus between Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and big business.


Now, criminal accusations that once seemed explosive have collapsed. American prosecutors, after much fanfare, ultimately concluded they could not sustain the charges. The BJP will inevitably portray this as vindication of its long-standing claim that the Opposition inflated unproven accusations.


Yet, the settlement amount complicates any triumphalism. Ordinary citizens tend to view legal settlements less through technical distinctions than through instinctive morality. If there was absolutely nothing improper, why pay hundreds of millions of dollars at all? Why agree to compliance undertakings and civil penalties? Why did America’s Office of Foreign Assets Control still describe the sanctions-related conduct as “egregious”?


Large corporations frequently settle investigations to avoid years of litigation, commercial uncertainty and reputational damage. According to reports, Adani’s lawyers argued precisely this to American authorities: the unresolved criminal case was obstructing plans to invest $10 billion in the United States and create 15,000 jobs.


That argument appears to have resonated with President Donald Trump’s administration. Trump’s political worldview has always displayed greater enthusiasm for investment and deal-making than for prosecutorial purism.


But therein lies the danger. The more regulators rely on negotiated settlements rather than public trials, the more public faith risks eroding.


The Adani affair has exposed how dependent India’s political discourse has become on foreign regulators and foreign investigations to adjudicate domestic questions about corporate governance, transparency and political influence. Whether it was the Hindenburg allegations, American securities probes or sanctions investigations, India’s own institutional voice often seemed oddly secondary.


That is unhealthy for a country aspiring to great-power status. For India, however, the affair leaves behind a more uncomfortable question: if settlements increasingly replace definitive judicial outcomes, will the public ever truly know where accountability ends and influence begins?

Comments

bottom of page