Daily News and Analysis
May 09, 2008
India’s cultural divide
by Ranjona Banerji
The Delhi High Court has done both India and art an enormous favour by dropping three obscenity cases against the 91-year-old artist, MF Husain.
As is well-known, India’s most famous artist has spent almost two years in self-imposed exile, ever since he was threatened for his ‘obscene’ portrayal of Hindu goddesses and mythological figures and his works were vandalised by Hindutva fundamentalists.
Yet, at every art venue, Husain’s works have continued to sell for top dollar — he remains India’s most coveted painter both at home and abroad. In his quirky, whimsical manner, he has also given the idea of an artist new impetus. His obsession with a series of Hindi film actresses, his delightful forays into film-making, his keen interest in current affairs, and his own unique way of transferring that interest into his art add to his greatness.
Husain has had his share of controversy within the art world as well and that is inevitable given his long career and body of work. But it is the controversy in the outside world that is truly shameful.
That he should be hounded and attacked by obscure groups looking for cheap publicity and that the idea of offending ‘sentiments’ should stop the law from being implemented is one of independent India’s less salutary episodes in upholding freedom of expression.
Because whatever the ferocity of the religious organisations which have attacked him, the government of India should have stood up to them with courage rather than cowardice.
Instead, we are unable to truly understand the significance of ‘freedom of expression’ — of artistic expression as well as of poetic licence. In all societies, popular culture rules over ‘high’ art. But in most societies, ‘high’ art is revered — it does not have to bow down to popular culture.
Rather, the popular strives to reach higher. We seem to have turned that wisdom on its head. As more of us get ‘voices’, we register our outrage at everything that offends us and even more at what we do not understand.
Some of this anguish has been expressed by Justice Sanjay K Kaul of the Delhi High Court. He said in his judgment, “We have been called the land of the Kama Sutra. Then why is it that in this land we shy away from its very name? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and so does obscenity.” He went on to say, “It’s most unfortunate that India’s new Puritanism is being carried out in the name of cultural purity and that ignorant people vandalise art.”
In the second sentence lies the crux of the matter. When art critics or art lovers have objected to Husain — and they have —it has been on the basis of his art and that alone.
When the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti launched the vicious campaign against Husain, it did not consider his work as an artist. It understood neither context not subtext but went straight for obvious pictorial representation. Even by itself, the right of these neo-Puritan saviours of ‘cultural purity’ to be offended would stand. But they went beyond intellectual discourse into physical intimidation, destruction of artworks and vituperative public campaigns. Dissent is essential in a democracy; threat, extortion, blackmail and violence are not.
The judge has gone back to both ancient Indian culture as well as contemporary art traditions and rued that the people who have attacked Husain are not familiar with either. He has pointed — perhaps inadvertently — to a singularly divisive fault line in India today. The cultural divides between an open and cultured elite and a neo-puritanical middle class obsessed with maintaining ‘cultural purity’ are extreme and silly. The recent debate over the cheerleaders in cricket matches exposed both.
The fault lies in a society which makes no effort to create space for both popular and high cultures. If your ideas of Indian mythology, for instance, are based solely on Hindi potboilers or televised mythological serials, then it is hardly surprising that Husain’s interpretations would offend you. If you have never read any of ancient India’s many eye-popping and enlightening texts, but have relied solely on word of mouth, then definitely Husain’s interpretations would offend you. This ignorance is not deliberate but it is a natural corollary of a system where once the elite kept everyone else out and today, technical education is given more prominence than the humanities. Interestingly, it is the techies of Bangalore and the US’s Silicon Valley who are the biggest supporters of India’s religious fundamentalist groups.
By mentioning what is known but rarely publicly stated, the Delhi High Court has pushed intelligence to the forefront over obscurantist rantings. It can only be hoped that now Husain will come home again and India will start a reasoned debate on how to disagree in a civilised manner.
May 09, 2008
India’s cultural divide
by Ranjona Banerji
The Delhi High Court has done both India and art an enormous favour by dropping three obscenity cases against the 91-year-old artist, MF Husain.
As is well-known, India’s most famous artist has spent almost two years in self-imposed exile, ever since he was threatened for his ‘obscene’ portrayal of Hindu goddesses and mythological figures and his works were vandalised by Hindutva fundamentalists.
Yet, at every art venue, Husain’s works have continued to sell for top dollar — he remains India’s most coveted painter both at home and abroad. In his quirky, whimsical manner, he has also given the idea of an artist new impetus. His obsession with a series of Hindi film actresses, his delightful forays into film-making, his keen interest in current affairs, and his own unique way of transferring that interest into his art add to his greatness.
Husain has had his share of controversy within the art world as well and that is inevitable given his long career and body of work. But it is the controversy in the outside world that is truly shameful.
That he should be hounded and attacked by obscure groups looking for cheap publicity and that the idea of offending ‘sentiments’ should stop the law from being implemented is one of independent India’s less salutary episodes in upholding freedom of expression.
Because whatever the ferocity of the religious organisations which have attacked him, the government of India should have stood up to them with courage rather than cowardice.
Instead, we are unable to truly understand the significance of ‘freedom of expression’ — of artistic expression as well as of poetic licence. In all societies, popular culture rules over ‘high’ art. But in most societies, ‘high’ art is revered — it does not have to bow down to popular culture.
Rather, the popular strives to reach higher. We seem to have turned that wisdom on its head. As more of us get ‘voices’, we register our outrage at everything that offends us and even more at what we do not understand.
Some of this anguish has been expressed by Justice Sanjay K Kaul of the Delhi High Court. He said in his judgment, “We have been called the land of the Kama Sutra. Then why is it that in this land we shy away from its very name? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and so does obscenity.” He went on to say, “It’s most unfortunate that India’s new Puritanism is being carried out in the name of cultural purity and that ignorant people vandalise art.”
In the second sentence lies the crux of the matter. When art critics or art lovers have objected to Husain — and they have —it has been on the basis of his art and that alone.
When the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti launched the vicious campaign against Husain, it did not consider his work as an artist. It understood neither context not subtext but went straight for obvious pictorial representation. Even by itself, the right of these neo-Puritan saviours of ‘cultural purity’ to be offended would stand. But they went beyond intellectual discourse into physical intimidation, destruction of artworks and vituperative public campaigns. Dissent is essential in a democracy; threat, extortion, blackmail and violence are not.
The judge has gone back to both ancient Indian culture as well as contemporary art traditions and rued that the people who have attacked Husain are not familiar with either. He has pointed — perhaps inadvertently — to a singularly divisive fault line in India today. The cultural divides between an open and cultured elite and a neo-puritanical middle class obsessed with maintaining ‘cultural purity’ are extreme and silly. The recent debate over the cheerleaders in cricket matches exposed both.
The fault lies in a society which makes no effort to create space for both popular and high cultures. If your ideas of Indian mythology, for instance, are based solely on Hindi potboilers or televised mythological serials, then it is hardly surprising that Husain’s interpretations would offend you. If you have never read any of ancient India’s many eye-popping and enlightening texts, but have relied solely on word of mouth, then definitely Husain’s interpretations would offend you. This ignorance is not deliberate but it is a natural corollary of a system where once the elite kept everyone else out and today, technical education is given more prominence than the humanities. Interestingly, it is the techies of Bangalore and the US’s Silicon Valley who are the biggest supporters of India’s religious fundamentalist groups.
By mentioning what is known but rarely publicly stated, the Delhi High Court has pushed intelligence to the forefront over obscurantist rantings. It can only be hoped that now Husain will come home again and India will start a reasoned debate on how to disagree in a civilised manner.
