The relevant laws in India are these:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176300164/

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2079/1/AA2012-32.pdf

Quoting from the latter's Section 2(1)(da):

“child pornography” means any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a child which include photograph, video, digital or computer generated image indistinguishable from an actual child and image created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict a child;

Now I suppose you could argue that "sexually explicit conduct", or from the former law "sexually esplicit [sic] act or conduct", or "obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner", should not be interpreted as referring to nudity alone. In which case I would like to know what exactly you were doing with Monica Lewinsky between 1995 and 1997, Mr. Clinton. "No sexual relations", huh? Interesting. :^)

This whole series of comments of yours reminds me of this old YouTuber I used to watch called Cosmodore. When it was found that he had groomed a 15-year-old girl, he faked an acknowledgement of his wrongdoing, while at the same time downplaying his actions by pointing to German law, claiming that the age of consent in his country was only 14 years old — hence, "See? See? It's, it's totally legal guise, Germans just have a whole different culture where grooming 15 year olds is perfectly normal and fine, see? Don't judge me by your American standards! Bla-bla-bla-bla!"

Viewers quickly found that his claims about German law were a grave misrepresentation of the law as it actually stood, and in any case his desperation to downplay his actions cast doubt on the sincerity of his own "redemption". And indeed it was soon found that after he was outed as a groomer, he groomed another child.

Cosmodore's case is quite illustrative with regards to arguing from "legality" or from supposed "cultural differences". It's a form of argument which allows for what one might call the rhetorical "horns of the bull formation", to borrow old Shaka's term: "why should we care about legality?" as the one horn, and "is the law what you say it is?" on the other; or "when the culture is regressive, should it not be changed?" as the one horn, and "is the culture what you say it is?" on the other. And indeed, there is no moral, legal, or cultural justification for the person in question's views, nor is there a moral, legal, or cultural justification for your defense of him — the bull has gored you, it gored you when others simply read this comment and could immediately smell bullshit. By doubling down you are only further inviting people to question your motives and further ruining your own reputation.

There is exactly one word which fits those willing to split hairs on a bald head when it comes to child sexual abuse material, or those willing to go out of their way to defend an incel libertarian at the cost of their own dignity and the dignity of those around them, indeed the dignity of an entire country. And that word — a very good Russian word — is позорshame.