Govt Shriks From Responsibility on Ensuring Freedom of Expression: M F Husain’s paintings will not be part of Arts Exhibit

IN THE ABSENCE OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM

The New Sunday Express
1 August 2009

Editorial

The absence of M F Husain’s paintings in a forthcoming arts exhibition in Delhi will not surprise anyone. No organiser would like to put up a show that would almost certainly be the target of attack by vandals. The solution could lie in arranging for the posting of a large police contingent. But, again, no organiser would like to turn the exhibition site into a fortress if only because it might put off some visitors. In any event, nothing can be farther apart than art and the strong arm of the state. What is worse, even the presence of armed policemen may not deter at least a few ruffians to sneak in posing as spectators and then attack Husain’s handiwork.

It was probably unavoidable, therefore, for the masters of the show to play safe. But what their capitulation to the threat of anti-socials implies is that the politically-inspired spirit of intolerance continues to be alive and well. The Hindutva brigade may have suffered an electoral setback, but its followers continue to pose a danger to any kind of art or artists of whom they do not approve. In the social sphere, therefore, they continue to hold the whip over a painter or writer or filmmaker who may transgress their perception of what is permissible.

But while the thuggish behaviour of these political activists is understandable, what is curious is the supine response of even those governments that claim to be secular and liberal-minded. The very fact that Husain is unable to return to his home country is in itself an indictment of the government at the Centre for its inability to offer him protection. As the Delhi High Court has said, “a painter at 90 deserves to be in his home, painting his canvas”. But if this criticism has had no impact on the powers-that-be, the reason apparently is that they consider it prudent not to let their political opponents exploit a controversial issue over which there is probably no unanimity of views even in the secular camp.

The high court may have observed that “a painter has his own perspective of looking at things” and that “it would not be proper to hold that he (Husain) had a deliberate intention to manifestly insult Bharat Mata” in his one of his paintings. But to the government, the option of retreat is clearly preferable to upholding artistic freedom.