THE LATEST ON M F HUSAIN
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Fwd - The latest on MF Husain
Monday, March 1, 2010
The latest on MF Husain
By Ashok Chowgule
Very recently, Husain is supposed to have accepted the offer of
citizenship from the Arabic state of Qatar. He says he has done it
because of a self-imposed exile from his home country of India. How
this new citizenship will enable him to visit India is not
comprehensible. He has gone in exile because of some legal cases
against him, and it is his intention to avoid dealing with them
personally. He, of course, says that he is being harassed by the
cases.
The cases relate to his paintings of Hindu gods and goddesses in nude
and erotic position, which are alleged to have hurt the religious
sentiments of those who filed the complaints. The latter have said
that if he makes a sincere apology and commits that he will not
undertake such an exercise in the future, they will not pursue the
cases. But Husain has given no indication that he will do so.
Accepting the citizenship of Qatar does not mean that the legal cases
are automatically withdrawn.
I had prepared in note in 1996 on the issue of his painting Saraswati
in the nude, and addressed the issues raised by those who defended
Husain. Subsequently, nude and erotic paintings of other Hindu gods
and goddesses have come to light. The defenders of Husain are even
today raising the very same issues which they raised then. It should
be stated here that the points made by me in the note have also been
made by others in different forums. But the defenders of Husain
pretend that they do not exist.
In the note, I had said that Husain has apologised for painting the
Saraswati in the nude. This he did after an elapsed time from when
the apology was first requested. However, when the other paintings
came to light, the obstinate attitude that he first exhibited then
has become the norm for him. In this he is actively supported by
many who go under the rubric of 'secularists'. In fact, at the time
of the Saraswati incident many such secularists had expressed
displeasure when he apologised. Perhaps Husian feels that his
obstinacy has substantial support.
Since then much water has flown under the bridge. Certain events
have happened which would, in normal conditions, have made the
secularists to do some soul-searching of their own vis-�-vis Husain.
Under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the
"union information and broadcasting ministry on Monday issued a
showcause notice to Bigg Boss-3, being telecast on Colors channel,
for showing content which was "against good taste and decency" and
not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition."
(
http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/news/india/bigg-boss-served-ib-notice-for-'indecency'.aspx<http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/news/india/bigg-boss-served-ib-notice-for-
)
In another incident, it is reported as follows: "With Star Plus set
to launch the second season of its controversial reality show Sacch
ka Saamna, the Information & Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry has issued
the TV channel a warning on the nature and content of the programme
and also asked it to ensure that the "Indian ethos" is kept in mind
when formatting the international show for Indian viewers."
(
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/i&b-warns-channel-on-sacch-ka-saamna/547288/
)
There is also a following report: "The government on Thursday banned
two underwear advertisements - Lux Cozy and Amul Macho - claiming
them to be "indecent, vulgar and suggestive." The Information and
Broadcasting ministry has instructed all television channels to stop
showing the advertisement with immediate effect. The ads have been
considered "indecent, vulgar and suggestive" and thus violative of
Rule 7 (8) of the Advertising Code, the Ministry said in its order.
The Amul Macho ad showed a newly-wed woman suggestively washing her
husband's innerwear at a dhobi ghat."
(
)
Presumably, depiction of Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude would
not fall in the same category as any of the above. Nor have the
secularists come out in the defence of the above.
In February 2010, in one of the north-eastern state of India, it was
noticed that a school book had a picture of Jesus Christ holding a
cigarette in one hand, and a can of beer in another. The books were
immediately banned, and a case has been registered against the
publisher. It seems that the memory of the secularists is very, very
short. Within a span of less than 20 days, they have not seen the
irony of their current support of Husain while they ignored this
Christ incident.
One can narrate many such incidents to expose the hypocrisy of the
secularists. Are they so ignorant of these other events, and do not
realise their double standards? I personally do not think so. They
are just using Husain as another weapon in their attempt to demonise
the Hindus and Hindu organizations. But then this is nothing new.
Namaste
Ashok Chowgule
- - - - -
ALIENATION OF SOME INTELLECTUALS
When Shri M F Husain's depiction of Saraswati in the nude came to
light, he could have said, "I did not intend to hurt the sentiments
of the Hindus. However, I now see that this could have happened,
and, therefore, I am sorry for having depicted Saraswati in the
manner I did." That would have been the end of the matter. Shri
Vikramrao Savarkar, nephew of Veer Savarkar, had in fact suggested
this approach. Shri Husain chose not to follow this advice. The
support he received in this obstinacy from the intellectuals not only
made the controversy ugly, but has also prolonged it. What is more,
it has highlighted, as nothing else could, the way we deal with
issues when the sentiments of Hindus come into the picture.
The drawing depicts a female nude form with the standard Saraswati
symbols of a lotus, a peacock and the musical instrument Veena. The
lettering Saraswati (in devnagari) at the bottom clearly identifies
the artist's intentions. In case of such a drawing, the issue of
aesthetics cannot be discussed. The image of Saraswati is so
jarring, that it has to offend one's mind, if one reveres Saraswati.
If the picture had the same arrangement, with the same female form
fully clothed, the issue of aesthetics can come into play. If the
picture had the same female nude form, without the Saraswati symbols,
the issue of aesthetics can also come into play. The question is not
of a nude female form, but of a nude goddess.
Symbols are very important to society. These symbols can be visual,
textual or of some other variety. When we hear the words 'tryst with
destiny', the image of Jawaharlal Nehru comes to mind. If Mother
Teresa is depicted in a Paithani sari and not in her usual simple
garb, the form will be jarring to one's sensibilities. A Paithani is
associated with wealth, something that is not of concern of the
Mother. If one were to use the aesthetics argument here, then
obviously one is barking up a wrong tree.
Although the drawing was done about twenty years ago, it has come to
light only through a book, Husain - Riding the Lightning, by Shri
Dnyaneshwar Nadkarni, brought out in 1996. For a long period of
time, the existence of this drawing was not public knowledge. And
hence it would not have created the controversy. Using the 'long
ago' argument also implies that a fraud conducted more than twenty
years ago, but discovered only now, should not be the concern of the
law.
Shri Husain has also been supported on the basis of artistic freedom.
But, does freedom also not presuppose responsibilities? When Mahatma
Gandhi was given a Bill of Rights, he sent it back to the author,
saying that he should prepare a Bill of Duties, and from this the
Rights would automatically follow. This is the concept of Dharm
that exists in our Hindu philosophy, and a person of high social
position has a stricter Dharm than a person at a lower level. The
former is held as a role model for the rest of society. The
intellectuals obviously do not wish to have any duties, but will
demand that they enjoy all the rights.
Some say that it is prudish to be offended by Shri Husain's drawing,
since in Hindu art there are many depiction of nudity, even in temple
premises. Thus, if Khajurao is to be accepted, so should Husain's
Saraswati. What this line of argument ignores is that what Shri
Husain has drawn is not a nude form, but a Saraswati in nude.
Khajurao depicts mortal human beings, and the erotic art is
restricted to a small part of the total temple art. Similarly, we
have Hindu gods and goddesses in what could be determined to be
'intimate' positions, using today's ethical standards. In such a
case, the sensibilities are not offended because this is a
traditional form of expression. Much has also been made of a
'Saraswati' in nude at a temple. Again, one needs to understand the
rule and the exception. This nude 'Saraswati' is not in a temple of
Saraswati, and the only way it is identified as Saraswati is because
she is holding a Veena. There are no other Saraswati symbols.
Shri Husain is also said to be steeped in Hindu culture. But, does
this give him a license to hurt Hindu sensibilities? Does this not
put an even greater responsibility on him to show restrain?
Moreover, those who have objected to this drawing of Shri Husain have
never said that his other depiction of Hindu symbols are
objectionable. Again, an irrelevant argument is brought into the
picture.
All the points put forth by the supporters of Shri Husain's drawing
have been answered. Yet, they go on saying the same thing again and
again. Using different words, different structure of sentence,
rearranging the position of the points, may be good English, but it
does not add anything to the debate. One would like to assume that
those supporting the drawing are not stupid or ill-informed - this
would be a real insult to their intellectualism. Therefore, one
cannot but help to come to a conclusion that there is a deliberate
effort being made to create confusion.
This impression is reinforced when it is alleged that Shri Husain is
being targeted because he is a Muslim. The question is whether Shri
Husain has hurt Hindu sentiments. If he has, his religious identity
is immaterial. Unless, of course, one starts with a proposition that
it is perfectly legitimate for a Muslim to hurt Hindu sentiments. The
Husain supporters well know that whenever Hindu sentiments have been
affected, various people have objected to the same, even when the
ones creating the hurt are Hindus. Numerous examples can be given of
such instances. What these supporters (and even Shri Husain) seem to
have forgotten is that when he was asked to leave the premises of
Willingdon Club, the organisation that supported him was Akhil
Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad. Many of the present Husain supporters
had actually rationalised the decision of the Club. Does this mean
that these supporters were anti-Muslim then? Furthermore, some
Muslims have also condemned Shri Husain. Does this make them anti-
Muslim too?
While these supporters are unrepentant as far as Shri Husain is
concerned, they are up in arms against the reaction of the Bajrang
Dal in Ahmedabad. Before condemning, if one does not understand the
events that led to it, and some of the subsequent ones, we would be
doing a great disservice to rational discussion. Had Shri Husain
apologised earlier, would this event have happened? Is blaming
Bajrang Dal totally not akin to blaming the Pandavas for the
Mahabharat war? Why did Shri Husain suddenly apologise after the
event? Does this not mean that in the future a reasonable request
will be acceded to only after a drastic action is taken? Since the
issues cannot be answered, the programme is to change the terms of
discussions from the original one about Shri Husain hurting Hindu
sentiments, to the reactions of Bajrang Dal as a stand alone
incident.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has requested Shri Husain to make a
ceremonious destruction of the offending drawing. In turn, he has
'threatened' that he will destroy all his paintings. The VHP has
clearly stated that if he chooses to do so, then it is his artistic
freedom. However, the objective of the 'threat' is to once again
confuse the issue, and create another diversion. Clearly, if the
apology is sincere, then the existence of the drawing cannot be
accepted. Some time back, a fashion house in Europe had made some
garments with Arabic verses as a design. When it was found that
these were Koranic verses, the fashion house apologised and announced
that the dresses were destroyed.
In another instance, a popular general-purpose magazine in Japan,
Marco Polo, had published an article stating that while six million
Jews were killed by the Nazis, the method used was not the gas
chamber as is generally accepted. Various Jewish organisations
protested at this perversion, and rightly so. The publishers
immediately apologised, and on their own volition announced that the
magazine would cease to exist.
Given this background, it is amazing that some of the Husain
supporters are now criticising him for having apologised. All of
them are continuing their campaign of calumny even after Shri
Husain's apology, with the additional target being the Bajrang Dal.
What is amusing is that these supporters, who are essentially anti-
Hindu, are now using the Hindu philosophy to berate their opponents.
Their empathy for the Hindu civilisation and culture is well
recognised in that they are willing to accept an image of a nude
Saraswati - the goddess of learning.
These Husain supporters need to do some serious introspection. If
they uphold the right of artistic freedom will they support a move to
abolish censorship laws, and permit pornography to be displayed in
book stalls? Will they come out with a statement saying that they
will support the freedom of anyone who depicts symbols of other
religion in a manner that may cause hurt of the people of that
religion? Will they organise the same type of campaign in support of
such a person? Before they answer these questions, let them reflect
on the problems being faced by Prof Mishuril Hasan, the pro-Vice
Chancellor of the Jamia Millia University. He had said that while he
finds Satanic Verses to be personally objectionable, but banning is
not right. Even after three years of the controversy, he is being
prevented from entering his office at the University.
The manner in which the controversy has raged reveals a lot of the
mind set of those who call themselves intellectuals. Whenever issue
relating to Hinduism comes to the centre stage, the first reaction is
to allege that those who are taking up the issue are wanting to
create something out of nothing. When this fails, and the issue is
adopted by the people, the next stage is one of creating confusion,
by bringing in all sorts of unrelated issues. The denial tactics are
also very frequently used. In the present case, it is denied that
Hindu sentiments are hurt. Due to the tensions that this insidious
programme produces, a reaction takes place. Then the issue becomes
the reaction, without taking into cognisance the events leading to
this reaction. The whole objective, right from the beginning, is to
deny legitimate requests made by Hindus. At the same time, whenever
other religious communities make unreasonable requests, the
'intellectuals' will be in the forefront of demanding that the same
are immediately acceded to. Their plea is that the minorities are
insecure in this country, and therefore their feelings must not be
upset. The rights or the wrongs of the issue are not for
consideration, just as in the case of permitting the just requests of
the Hindus.
It is puzzling to understand why all this happens. The only logical
explanation can be that the intellectuals are so alienated from the
society, that they are unable to comprehend how the masses think so
differently from them. They are so ensconced in their own very small
world, that anything outside it is unreal. And because they read
what they want to read, they do not have the feedback from the people
at large. For them, an event like the mass celebration of Pandurang
Shastri's birthday, by lakhs of people converging at Chowpatty in
Mumbai, is incomprehensible. The tragedy for the intellectuals is
that the publications that they normally read find it demeaning to
cover such events, except as a small news item. However, a Michael
Jackson event becomes big news. Reading what they do, the
intellectuals think that there is no world beyond it. If they at all
read how the Marathi and Gujarati papers have covered the Husain
controversy, they will think that there is another parallel
controversy going on, which they are unaware of.
The manner of the English press coverage also highlights another
tactic used. Those artists who have spoken against Shri Husain are
mentioned once, and rarely repeated. However the Husain supporters
will find themselves in the news all the time. It does not matter
that they keep saying the same inane things again and again. The
impression that is sought to be created is that the artist community
is fully behind Shri Husain. If in the process the people think that
this is actually so, the ones to be blamed are not the vocal
supporters, who, after all, have a larger agenda in mind. Blame
should be entirely put on those silent opponents of this picture of
Shri Husain, since they do not have the courage to let the people
know it.
In every society, the intellectuals have an important role to play.
They can do this only if they involve themselves in the lives of the
people that they would like to lead, and deal with issues that are of
concern to the people and not to themselves.
October 21, 1996.
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.