The Times of India
Journalist with RSS link to head Indira arts centre
TNN | Apr 15, 2016, 06.59 AM IST
New Delhi: In one stroke on Thursday, the Modi government reconstituted the board of trustees of Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA) and replaced the members with its own favourites. To be headed by veteran journalist Ram Bahadur Rai, an RSS insider and an associate of late Jayprakash Narayan during the Emergency, the new board also has Daya Prakash Sinha of RSS's Sanskar Bharati, who rose to fame with his campaign against late artist M F Husain.
Rai, who wrote a biography of former PM Chandrasekhar - 'Rahbari Ke Sawal' - and of V P Singh titled 'Manjil Se Jyada Safar', worked as news editor in 'Jansatta' and now edits the monthly 'Yatarth', where in December 2014 he made some revelations on the demolition of Babri masjid.
Appointed by the UPA, many members of the previous board had three years left of their five year-term. Terms can also be renewed.
The culture ministry only retained danseuse Padma Subrahmanyam from the previous board. The incoming members are known for their proximity to BJP. They includes Odissi dancer Sonal Mansingh, film director Chandraprakash Dwivedi, also a member of the Censor Board, lyricist and adman Prasoon Joshi, former chairperson of Khadi and Village Industries Corporation Mahesh Sharma, former Andhra Pradesh DGP K Aravinda Rao, also author of 'How To Tell Hinduism To Your Child', portrait artist Vasudeo Kamath, author of 'Thulasidasarum Thulasiramayanamum' M Seshan, and industrialist and art aficionado Harsh Neotia.
A few experts have also been roped in. They include retired IAS officer Rathi Vinay Jha of 1967 batch, Karnataka cadre. A former head of Fashion Design Council of India, Jha was instrumental in the establishment of National Institutes of Fashion Technology. IGNCA's Nirmala Sharma, an expert on Ragmala and Buddhist paintings, renowned art historian and scholar Saryu Doshi and economist Nitin Desai are also new members. Two relatively unknown names are Bharat Gupta and Viraj Yagnik.
The previous trust was headed by former diplomat Chinmaya R Gharekhan and consisted of art scholar Kapila Vatsyayan, former foreign secretary Salman Haidar, artist A Ramachandran, writer Namita Gokhale, retired bureaucrat Subas Pani, former home secretary G K Pillai, educationist Sukanya Bharatram, danseuse Shovana Narayan, former model and businesswoman Feroze Gujral, hotelier Priya Paul, actor Kulbhushan Kharbanda, scholar of Zoroastrian religion and gallerist Pheroza Godrej, art scholar Sudha Gopalakrishnan and historian Nayanjot Lahiri.
|
Showing posts with label MF Hussain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MF Hussain. Show all posts
April 15, 2016
September 26, 2015
India:: MF Husain at 100: Hindu outfit Sanatan Sanstha still painting black
Daily O - 25-09-2015
MF Husain at 100: Hindu outfit Sanatan Sanstha still painting black
It's curious that September 2015 has again brought the two face-to-face albeit with a slight difference.
It is ironic. The very month late MF Husain is in the news, the Sanatan Sanstha has also hit the headlines.
On September 17, Husain, would have turned 100, had he been
alive. Instead, the country's most-prized artist had died in 2011 in
London at age 96, after years of being in self-exile, and longing to
return "home" till the end.
The Sanatan Sanstha, a little-known charitable trust, is now
in the spotlight. One of its members, Samir Gaikwad, has been arrested
for the murder of the veteran CPI leader and trade union activist Govind
Pansare, 82, in Kolhapur on February 16, 2015.
Everyone knows why Husain left India in 2006. He was facing a
vicious campaign of harassment, vandalisation, attacks, intimidation
and death threats, for his artistic depiction of Hindu deities. When he
left, he was on the verge of getting arrested, at best, and maimed,
blinded or killed, at worst.
Not much is known about the Sanstha. It was set up in 1990
by "hypnotherapist" Jayant Balaji Athavale. According to its website, it
provides "education on dharma in scientific terminology for the benefit
of Hindus": spirituality to festivals, wedding to hair care, bathing to
brushing teeth. Why? To help people negate "black energy" arising out
of Raja-Tama (passion-ignorance) particles or waves all around them.
What's the link between Husain and Sanstha? Simply that, it
was the active campaign of the Sanstha that had led to the artist's
ouster. Surprisingly, the Sanstha was named in very few media reports of
the time. But according to its own (original) website, it had
started the "protest campaign" against Husain from November 13, 2005,
with a "mass awakening among Hindus": about 28,000 online signatories
from across the world, 1,250 police complaints against Husain, over 150
demonstrations, marches and effigy-burning, six press conferences and
active support of over 250 protestors.
From March 2006, the district courts had started issuing
simultaneous summons. On March 29, a Meerut court held that Husain had
indeed hurt Hindu sentiments. Well-orchestrated protests took place
outside Christie's auction house at Rockefeller Centre, New York, on
March 30, with some driving down from Toronto, Canada, to stop
auctioning of Husain's works (the auction fetched a record price of
$5,76,000 for the artist).
Real politics came into play, with the then UPA home
minister Shivraj Patil instructing Delhi and Mumbai police to take
"appropriate action" against Husain in May. The Shiv Sena and BJP
brought up the issue in Parliament. In Gujarat, Jashubhai Patel,
announced a prize of one kilogram gold to anyone to gouge out Husain's
eyes and cut off his right thumb. Not to be left behind, Akhtar Baig,
vice-president of the Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee in Indore
announced Rs 11 lakh as reward for chopping off his hands.
Who took the cake? Ashok Pande of Lucknow, a lawyer nobody
had heard of. Claiming to be the president of a non-profit called the
Hindu Personal Law Board, he announced Rs 101 crore to kill Husain.
Pande and his non-profit are closely linked to the Sanstha even now,
often receiving congratulatory mentions in Sanatan Prabhat, a publication of the Sanstha, and the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti website, a Sanstha mouthpiece.
It was ultimately the Supreme Court, which intervened
(2008-10), refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against Husain or
compel him to return to India. "There are many such pictures, paintings
and sculptures and some of them are in temples," the bench held. The SC
also concluded that Husain had not violated sections 292, 294, 298 or
500 of IPC - on obscenity, hurting religious sentiments, defamation and
disrespect. It said: "In India, a new puritanism is being carried out in
the name of cultural purity and a host of ignorant people are
vandalising art and pushing us towards a pre-renaissance era."
Pande was hauled up in 2012 by the Gujarat High Court for a
frivolous PIL. The court had issued a non-bailable warrant against him,
as fine for moving a frivolous public interest litigation, and relented
only after he deposited the Rs 25,000. Justices AL Dave and JB
Pardiwala had dismissed the PIL with the comment: "Is this a publicity
interest litigation or personal interest litigation?".
Yet, courts and even death have not been able to end the
campaign. On September 17, Husain's 100th birthday, the Hindu
Janajagruti Samiti posted this: "Alert Hindus notified Forum for Hindu
Awakening (FHA), about the celebration of MF Husain's 100th birth
anniversary named as 'Husain at Hundred' at Aicon Gallery, in New York,
USA which will be held from September 17 through October 24, 2015.
Accordingly, Forum for Hindu Awakening wrote to the Aicon Gallery and
the speaker of the exhibition, Sumathi Ramaswamy but there has been no
response from them."
It's curious that September 2015 has again brought the two
face-to-face - Husain vs Sanstha - albeit with a slight difference:
Sanstha is on the dock now, and Husain, well beyond caring.
June 09, 2013
India: Screening of film on MF Husain by French filmmaker cancelled after VHP protests
Indian Express
Even after his demise, controversy continues to surround artist MF Husain. Recently, the screening of a film on him was cancelled in Chandigarh.
The film, 'The Barefoot Pilgrim', by French filmmaker Laurent Bregeat, was scheduled to be screened on June 2 at the Government Museum and Art Gallery by the city's Lalit Kala Akademi. However, following a "request'' by the members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to cancel the screening, the event was reportedly called off at the last minute.
"We at VHP have pledged to oppose the works of MF Husain across the country. This man maligned our gods and goddesses and showed them in nude forms, which is unacceptable. When we came to know that the Chandigarh Lalit Kala Akademi is screening a film on Husain, we wrote a letter of protest to them, requesting the cancellation of the same," says Vijay Singh Bhardwaj, working presidentof VHP, Chandigarh. According to Bhardwaj, the letter was received by the Akademi's chairman, Diwan Manna, and after a meeting with the committee members, it was decided that the screening would not be held.
"It was a peaceful polite request to the organisers, that's all," says Bhardwaj, adding that at first, he thought Husain's paintings were being displayed.
"I did not know a film was being screened. Although I have not seen the film, our contention was that if it showed his works, then what? We will not let people see it," further added Bhardwaj.
Had the screening carried on as planned, Bhardwaj says the VHP would have used its full force to stop it.
Despite repeated attempts all day, Manna refused to take calls or make a comment.
Meanwhile, thespian Neelam Man Singh voiced her disgust and concern over this abrupt cancellation and attack on art. "It's a tough question to answer, as I cannot fathom the pressures and constraints of the organisers. But I'd like to say that we cannot buckle under such threats and or let someone dictate terms to us," says Neelam adding that in a democracy one has the right to freedom of speech and expression.
"I find it illogical, this protest, for there is no issue here. It's a government museum and a short film and a handful of people to watch it. How can this lead to trouble? These constant assertions stirring controversy are disturbing and baseless," she added.
Sculptor and artist Shiv Singh who faced public ire and regular visits from the police when he came out with his 'Erotica' series, feels this cancellation is not justified. "What Husain made are Husain's impressions. Such interventions are political, and such bodies are channels to create controversy. Most people still don't understand any form of art - visual, oral or theatrical," feels Shiv Singh.
When contacted, SSP Naunihal Singh said that the police is here to help. "We allow protests but not at the cost of subversion of freedom. If such a thing happens, the police is there," he said.
Jaskiran Kapoor : Chandigarh, Tue Jun 04 2013, 01:49 hrs
Even after his demise, controversy continues to surround artist MF Husain. Recently, the screening of a film on him was cancelled in Chandigarh.
The film, 'The Barefoot Pilgrim', by French filmmaker Laurent Bregeat, was scheduled to be screened on June 2 at the Government Museum and Art Gallery by the city's Lalit Kala Akademi. However, following a "request'' by the members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to cancel the screening, the event was reportedly called off at the last minute.
"We at VHP have pledged to oppose the works of MF Husain across the country. This man maligned our gods and goddesses and showed them in nude forms, which is unacceptable. When we came to know that the Chandigarh Lalit Kala Akademi is screening a film on Husain, we wrote a letter of protest to them, requesting the cancellation of the same," says Vijay Singh Bhardwaj, working presidentof VHP, Chandigarh. According to Bhardwaj, the letter was received by the Akademi's chairman, Diwan Manna, and after a meeting with the committee members, it was decided that the screening would not be held.
"It was a peaceful polite request to the organisers, that's all," says Bhardwaj, adding that at first, he thought Husain's paintings were being displayed.
"I did not know a film was being screened. Although I have not seen the film, our contention was that if it showed his works, then what? We will not let people see it," further added Bhardwaj.
Had the screening carried on as planned, Bhardwaj says the VHP would have used its full force to stop it.
Despite repeated attempts all day, Manna refused to take calls or make a comment.
Meanwhile, thespian Neelam Man Singh voiced her disgust and concern over this abrupt cancellation and attack on art. "It's a tough question to answer, as I cannot fathom the pressures and constraints of the organisers. But I'd like to say that we cannot buckle under such threats and or let someone dictate terms to us," says Neelam adding that in a democracy one has the right to freedom of speech and expression.
"I find it illogical, this protest, for there is no issue here. It's a government museum and a short film and a handful of people to watch it. How can this lead to trouble? These constant assertions stirring controversy are disturbing and baseless," she added.
Sculptor and artist Shiv Singh who faced public ire and regular visits from the police when he came out with his 'Erotica' series, feels this cancellation is not justified. "What Husain made are Husain's impressions. Such interventions are political, and such bodies are channels to create controversy. Most people still don't understand any form of art - visual, oral or theatrical," feels Shiv Singh.
When contacted, SSP Naunihal Singh said that the police is here to help. "We allow protests but not at the cost of subversion of freedom. If such a thing happens, the police is there," he said.
January 23, 2012
The jelly-legged war over Salman Rushdie (Shoma Chaudhury)
From: Tehelka. 28 January 2012
The jelly-legged war over Salman Rushdie
The State’s failure to ensure the writer’s visit to Jaipur is indefensible. But the noise he generates may have other lessons
By Shoma Chaudhury
Misplaced anger People in Lucknow protest against Salman Rushdie’s proposed visit to the Jaipur Lit Fest
Photo: Indian Photo Agency
IN A moment of rapier irony, MF Husain — who died in exile, prisoner of right-wing Hindu outrage — had once told TEHELKA that he could perhaps return to India only if the BJP came back to power. There can be no more succinct comment on the Congress’ spineless politics than the dead master’s sarcastic jibe.
Over the past week, the shameful controversy over Salman Rushdie’s trip to the Jaipur Literature Festival has been a sort of inverse mirror that’s served up the same depressing face. This time it’s right-wing Muslim outrage. But the Congress — which increasingly seems to live more by the historical dividends of its luminous founders than by any contemporary glory — has reacted in exactly the same way. Fearfully. Timidly. Expediently. Hiding behind bogus “security concerns” instead of boldly declaring its bounden duty and deploying the force it commands to back that. (Are we really supposed to believe that a determined government lacks the manpower and bandwidth to secure one writer or artist against the threat of two dozen-odd vandals who usually turn up to disrupt a show?)
There is no poorer excuse in India than the phoney concern for “law and order”.
Of course, no Indian who cares about liberal freedoms needs a reminder that nothing in this vaudeville show is new or unique. It was a Congress government that first banned The Satanic Verses back in the 1980s. A Congress-NCP government that banned Professor James Laine’s book on Shivaji. The Congress that refused to stand by Rohinton Mistry or, most recently, AK Ramanujan’s wonderful essay about the many Ramayanas.
There is a reason the Congress deserves special censure for these jelly-legged capitulations: its history and foundational idea ought to have handcuffed it permanently to an inviolable defence of liberal freedoms. No matter what the cost. Instead, it constantly demeans itself by mucking about in the shallow pool of “sentiment”.
But no other party can afford to gloat over the Congress’ failures. The Left Front has to look Taslima Nasreen in the eye and the BJP’s list is even longer: there’s Professor DN Jha’s book; Aamir Khan’s Fanaa; Habib Tanveer’s plays; and Deepa Mehta’s Fire, to name just a few.
Like the true master he was, therefore, Husain’s artistic little jab was lined to cut both Congress and BJP to size in one shot.
FOR THOSE of us who take the basic principles of democracy as a settled issue, the recurring debate about artistic freedom, hurt sentiment and censorship seems a very tedious one to engage with. It’s true there’s nothing new to say; but it is not a debate we can ever abandon. Every ungainly episode like the current Rushdie fracas maroons us into smaller and smaller holes. And narrows our civilisational imagination.
Curiously though, it’s easier to understand — even empathise with — the aggressors in this debate than those who were elected to defend and fail to do so.
The fact is, in a democracy, if we stand by our right to offend, we must stand by others’ right to feel hurt as well. It might be tempting to remind those who get into a froth over the way Saraswati was depicted or the Prophet was written of that the gods are meant to protect us, we don’t need to protect them. But no reasonable citizen can deny another citizen’s right to feel that froth. One cannot demand deracinated coolth as a pre-requisite for citizenship: every civilised society has to defend the space for cultural conservatism as zealously as it defends the right to challenge it. So as long as the Dar ul-Uloom elders or the platoons of Internet Hindus are not threatening violence or bodily harm, they are not really wrong to voice their protest. Or even ask for bans.
Rushdie has become the living embodiment of the banality of a ban: a fight over thin air
It’s for elected governments to stoically absorb that sentiment and remind them that we have agreed to live in a democratic society and if any fellow Indian’s imagination offends them, they have the right to not read a book, not watch a show, not buy a canvas. Or just plain rebut. (The possibility of exercising choice, therefore, seems to be the most crucial piece in the censorship debate. One can safely argue that books, films, exhibitions or websites should never be banned or censored because they allow the viewer the fundamental right of choice. An offensive ad hoarding on a road that one cannot avoid encountering on one’s way to work, might, on the other hand, violate that right and invoke a legitimate order to be brought down.)
Interestingly, therefore, exasperating as these eruptions might be, it would probably be myopic to wish that the noise cease altogether. It is cultural differences that make the world an interesting place; that prevent it from being reduced to a dull supermarket of uniformly brash liberal sensibilities. Tradition and cultural conservatism function as enclaves that preserve a certain aesthetic or emotional fibre. Ironically, in fact, some of the best art and writing arises out of a tense dialogue with these enclaves — descriptions of them; departures from them; rejection of them.
Cultural sensitivity, therefore, is an ephemeral but necessary code for every society. It is forged through creative friction, through these equal rights to offend and express hurt; to push new boundaries and patrol old ones. It is dangerous to want a blanket barometer for everyone; but equally dangerous not to want a barometer at all. The only argument it seems important to make, therefore, is that artists be allowed to walk that creative minefield without fear of bodily harm and find their own individual zones of aesthetic and intellectual comfort.
The threat of violence is the simplest end of the stick: a virtual no-brainer. Britain’s already set a good example in the case of Salman Rushdie. India would do well to follow even a fraction of that resolve.
THE FASCINATING story of Salman Rushdie then is a distillate of every aspect of the censorship debate: both its real and extreme dangers; and its ludicrous postures. He is both the story. And the parody.
Some of the world’s greatest writing has always arisen out of the tension between securing individual freedom against collective belief. If Rushdie’s Satanic Verses was pushing the boundaries of settled religious belief, he was treading the sacred soil reserved for writers and artists and thinkers: they are meant to push the boundaries of how we see and understand ourselves. They are tasked to protect a society’s soul. To bend the limits of its imagination.
The trouble is nobody any longer knows what Rushdie was doing in The Satanic Verses: neither those who are offended by him, nor those who defend him. Almost no one, including this writer, was given a chance to read the book. The fracas around Rushdie, therefore, is just the babble of the ignorant. He has become the living embodiment of the banality of a ban: a fight over thin air.
It would be a terrible loss to everyone — aggressors, defenders and failed guardians of liberal freedoms — if Rushdie were to be scared off from coming to Jaipur. It would be to declare our collective intellectual delinquency. That rather than have an informed debate, a country of a billion plus people came to a conclusion on something it knew nothing about.
It may be too much to ask to lift the ban on The Satanic Verses. But surely the writer can be assured safe passage. There are other conversations to be had with him. And even some lessons to be learnt.
It is part of the ironic symmetries of this entire debate that the Hindu Right and the Muslim Right hate each other viscerally but are an exact replica of the other: both seek absolute purities and pieties; both seek to curb women’s freedoms, both feel the need to protect their gods rather than the other way round; both feel injured and embattled all the time. And both feel the need to back their “hurt sentiments” with the promise of violence.
But in a further ironic twist, befitting the master fiction writer he can be, far from engaging with his own detractors, no matter how civil they may be, Rushdie himself refuses to speak to anyone who criticises him. That might be a disappointing position coming from someone who has been at the heart of one of the most heroic censorship debates of our times. But the Dar ul-Uloom elders could still take a lesson from him: it’s much better not to speak to those who offend you than ask for them to be banned.
Shoma Chaudhury is Managing Editor, Tehelka.
shoma@tehelka.com
December 02, 2011
Don't bend to bigots (Editorial in The Hindu)
The Hindu
December 1, 2011
Editorial
Don't bend to bigots
“One is my brother and the other is not is the thinking of a narrow-minded person. For those who are broad-minded, liberals, or noble people, the entire world is one big family.” This translation from the Maha Upanishad is part of the vision statement of the International Film Festival of India (IFFI), established in 1952 and held annually in Goa. Unfortunately, the IFFI directorate seemed to have momentarily lost the nerve to uphold the spirit of broad-mindedness and tolerance reflected in these uplifting lines. When faced with the threat from right wing groups such as the Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), which had vociferously demanded that a documentary directed by the celebrated painter M.F. Husain be withdrawn, the IFFI's organisers, in a Pavlovian response, deferred the screening of the film. They also came up with a dubious explanation for their action. The IFFI director, Shankar Mohan, said legal technicalities (an apparent reference to the court cases against Husain that a HJS memorandum had drawn attention to) would be examined before a final decision was taken on screening. But what law could have possibly prevented or interfered with the screening of a documentary produced by the Films Division of the Government of India — one that was good enough to win the Golden Bear award at the Berlin International Film Festival? Not surprisingly, the abrupt cancellation of the scheduled screening was widely perceived as a re-run of 2009, when the Husain documentary was withdrawn following threats from the very same quarters.
To their credit, the IFFI's organisers acted quickly to reverse course. To have buckled under the threat would have been unpardonable. After all, the Goa film festival is jointly conducted by the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and the State government; and the director of IFFI is appointed by the central government. In other words, it was not as if the HJS was attempting to sabotage the screening by threatening a few vulnerable individuals or a weak organisation. Like the news media, cinema creates its own space for free expression. An important reason for an organisation such as IFFI to stage film festivals is to promote cinema as a vehicle for encouraging reflection and debate on a variety of social issues. Withdrawing the film would have been tantamount to encouraging those very groups that forced Husain to flee India by threatening his life and liberty and by filing a slew of venomous complaints against him. Fortunately, IFFI did the right thing in the end by declaring it would go ahead with screening the film in the face of the threats — a decision that sends a timely message against cultural bigotry, obscurantism, and moral vigilantism.
December 1, 2011
Editorial
Don't bend to bigots
“One is my brother and the other is not is the thinking of a narrow-minded person. For those who are broad-minded, liberals, or noble people, the entire world is one big family.” This translation from the Maha Upanishad is part of the vision statement of the International Film Festival of India (IFFI), established in 1952 and held annually in Goa. Unfortunately, the IFFI directorate seemed to have momentarily lost the nerve to uphold the spirit of broad-mindedness and tolerance reflected in these uplifting lines. When faced with the threat from right wing groups such as the Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), which had vociferously demanded that a documentary directed by the celebrated painter M.F. Husain be withdrawn, the IFFI's organisers, in a Pavlovian response, deferred the screening of the film. They also came up with a dubious explanation for their action. The IFFI director, Shankar Mohan, said legal technicalities (an apparent reference to the court cases against Husain that a HJS memorandum had drawn attention to) would be examined before a final decision was taken on screening. But what law could have possibly prevented or interfered with the screening of a documentary produced by the Films Division of the Government of India — one that was good enough to win the Golden Bear award at the Berlin International Film Festival? Not surprisingly, the abrupt cancellation of the scheduled screening was widely perceived as a re-run of 2009, when the Husain documentary was withdrawn following threats from the very same quarters.
To their credit, the IFFI's organisers acted quickly to reverse course. To have buckled under the threat would have been unpardonable. After all, the Goa film festival is jointly conducted by the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and the State government; and the director of IFFI is appointed by the central government. In other words, it was not as if the HJS was attempting to sabotage the screening by threatening a few vulnerable individuals or a weak organisation. Like the news media, cinema creates its own space for free expression. An important reason for an organisation such as IFFI to stage film festivals is to promote cinema as a vehicle for encouraging reflection and debate on a variety of social issues. Withdrawing the film would have been tantamount to encouraging those very groups that forced Husain to flee India by threatening his life and liberty and by filing a slew of venomous complaints against him. Fortunately, IFFI did the right thing in the end by declaring it would go ahead with screening the film in the face of the threats — a decision that sends a timely message against cultural bigotry, obscurantism, and moral vigilantism.
November 27, 2011
India's top film festival caves in to Hindu Right protest and postpones screening of MF Hussain film
Source: Indian Express
IFFI defers screening of M F Hussain documentary
Sun Nov 27 2011, 16:48 hrs Panaji:
The organizers of International Film Festival of India (IFFI) today deferred the screening of a documentary by legendary painter M F Husain amid protests by a Hindu rights group.
The documentary 'Through the Eyes of a Painter', produced-written and directed by Husain in 1967, was to be screened today under the homage section of the festival.
But the IFFI director Shankar Mohan said they decided to defer the tribute screening, pending legal opinion.
“The petitioners (Hindu Janjagruti Samiti) had said that the matter is subjudice," Mohan said, adding, “We don't want to do anything illegal. We are taking legal opinion.”
HJS had threatened to demonstrate at the IFFI venues if the 15-minute documentary was screened at the festival.
Husain, who earned both fame and controversy with his paintings, died in London in June this year at the age of 95.
Produced by the Film Division of India, the documentary was set in Rajasthan and records Husain's impression of the state and its people.
It won the Golden Bear award at the Berlin International Film Festival.
IFFI defers screening of M F Hussain documentary
Sun Nov 27 2011, 16:48 hrs Panaji:
The organizers of International Film Festival of India (IFFI) today deferred the screening of a documentary by legendary painter M F Husain amid protests by a Hindu rights group.
The documentary 'Through the Eyes of a Painter', produced-written and directed by Husain in 1967, was to be screened today under the homage section of the festival.
But the IFFI director Shankar Mohan said they decided to defer the tribute screening, pending legal opinion.
“The petitioners (Hindu Janjagruti Samiti) had said that the matter is subjudice," Mohan said, adding, “We don't want to do anything illegal. We are taking legal opinion.”
HJS had threatened to demonstrate at the IFFI venues if the 15-minute documentary was screened at the festival.
Husain, who earned both fame and controversy with his paintings, died in London in June this year at the age of 95.
Produced by the Film Division of India, the documentary was set in Rajasthan and records Husain's impression of the state and its people.
It won the Golden Bear award at the Berlin International Film Festival.
November 23, 2011
Hindu Right Opposes Tribute to M F Husain at 2011 International Film Festival being held in Goa
Right-wing organisation opposes tribute to Husain at IFFI
Press Trust of India
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 (Panaji)
A Hindu right-wing organization in Goa has taken objection to a film section at the International Film Festival of India (IFFI), which pays tributes to painter M F Husain.
Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, which had sued the painter for his controversial paintings on Hindu Gods and Goddesses, has urged the organisers of the festival not to pay tribute to the painter.
Husain, who earned both fame and wrath for his paintings, died in London in June this year at the age of 95.
IFFI 2011, which will begin from today, plans to show a documentary-- 'Through The Eyes of the Painter,' directed by Husain on his journey through Rajasthan.
HJS delegation, led by women-wing chief Rajashree Gadekar, on Tuesday met Manoj Srivastava, the Chief Executive Officer of the Entertainment Society of Goa (ESG), asking him to drop the tribute section. Gadekar told PTI that ESG, which is a state government body, however, told the members that the section is curated by the IFFI directorate.
Since IFFI Director Shankar Mohan was not available, the delegation left a memorandum of demands at his office.
HJS has warned to stage an agitation, if IFFI goes ahead with the plan.
Read more at: http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=ENTEN20110188676&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&keyword=bollywood&nid=152425&cp
Press Trust of India
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 (Panaji)
A Hindu right-wing organization in Goa has taken objection to a film section at the International Film Festival of India (IFFI), which pays tributes to painter M F Husain.
Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, which had sued the painter for his controversial paintings on Hindu Gods and Goddesses, has urged the organisers of the festival not to pay tribute to the painter.
Husain, who earned both fame and wrath for his paintings, died in London in June this year at the age of 95.
IFFI 2011, which will begin from today, plans to show a documentary-- 'Through The Eyes of the Painter,' directed by Husain on his journey through Rajasthan.
HJS delegation, led by women-wing chief Rajashree Gadekar, on Tuesday met Manoj Srivastava, the Chief Executive Officer of the Entertainment Society of Goa (ESG), asking him to drop the tribute section. Gadekar told PTI that ESG, which is a state government body, however, told the members that the section is curated by the IFFI directorate.
Since IFFI Director Shankar Mohan was not available, the delegation left a memorandum of demands at his office.
HJS has warned to stage an agitation, if IFFI goes ahead with the plan.
Read more at: http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=ENTEN20110188676&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&keyword=bollywood&nid=152425&cp
August 19, 2011
Hindutva groups in the US protest against the movie 'Sita Sings the Blues' and display of Hussain paintings at art show
The Times of India
Hindu groups protest screening of 'Sita Sings the Blues'
August 18, 2011, 04.41PM IST
Several local Hindu organizations joined forces Aug. 6 to protest the San Jose Museum of Art's screening of Nina Paley's 2008 animated film, "Sita Sings the Blues" - which intersperses events from the Indian epic Ramayana with the artist's own life - at the Camera 12 theater here.
"I'm very angry about this film and feel very humiliated by the portrayal of Lord Ram in this very perverted way," Khanderao Kand told India-West at the rally, adding that he particularly objected to a scene in the film where Ram kicks a pregnant Sita. "Negative portrayals of Hinduism cause discrimination and religious intolerance," he said.
But museum officials said they were going ahead with the screening that afternoon. "We do not support artistic censorship," Deb Norberg, deputy director for the SJMA, told India-West.
Paley's film intersperses the legend of Lord Ram ordering his pregnant wife Sita out of his court following her imprisonment by Ravana, with the filmmaker's biographical tale about her own failed marriage, which begins happily in San Francisco, Calif., and ends badly in Trivandrum, India. The film is set off by a superb, smoky soundtrack sung by Annette Hanshaw.
"Sita is a most sacrificing, self-abasing woman who places herself below Ram, but at the same time is elevated to a goddess," Paley told India-West in a brief telephone interview, adding that she was inspired by Sita's dying for love. Lord Ram is not depicted well in the film, conceded Paley, but added, "No one has to like it."
Protestors simultaneously decried the museum's showcasing of the late M.F. Husain's depiction of a nude, blue Sita, an untitled work in his Ramayana series. The painting is part of a special exhibition, "Roots in the Air, Branches Below," a collection of Indian art on loan from several Indian American collectors residing in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The exhibit is on display until Sept. 5 and features the artists Tyeb Mehta and Jamini Roy, among others. Three Husains, including a portrait of Mother Teresa, are also in the collection.
Husain came under fire several times in his eight-decade long career, primarily for depicting Hindu goddesses in the nude. One of India's best-known artists, Husain died in exile in London last June.
Representatives of several organizations met with SJMA representatives Aug. 4 to ask the institution to cancel its screening.
"We had a cordial conversation, but decided to go ahead with our program," Sherrill Ingalls, press contact for the museum, told India-West Aug. 4, adding, "We support artistic freedom."
Nilesh Shirodkar, a volunteer with the Forum for Hindu Awakening, also attended the Aug. 4 meeting. "We spoke about the denigration of our revered Hindu deities in this film, but they told us they could not retract the show. So we have staged this peaceful protest," he told India-West.
The activists began their rally mid-morning on the steps of the museum, and then marched two blocks over to Camera 12, carrying signs exhorting Paley not to blame Hinduism for her failed marriage and chanting "M.F. Husain, shame, shame," along with "Sita Sings the Blues, but Nina Paley has no clue."
At one point, the activists vehemently repeated, "Nina Paley, go to hell," until an organizer intervened and asked the group to tone it down, in view of the several children participating in the rally.
Vijay Simha, national joint secretary of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh USA, echoed Kand's remarks. "I feel offended and concerned by this kind of slur to our value system," he told India-West. "Ram is the ideal father, husband and king. Millions of Hindus are inspired by his character and worship him daily."
"Ram symbolizes everything noble for a Hindu," said Simha, adding that SJMA should have cancelled its program after learning that the film had upset Hindu sensibilities.
"Trying to promote India's rich culture in such a way is appalling," Gaurang Desai, a volunteer with the Friends of India Society, told India-West. "Depicting the goddess Sita in a sexual way is denigrating," he said, adding that the SJMA "should not have hosted such an event in the name of India."
Asked about nude carvings and sculptures abundant in Indian temple art dating back several thousand years, Desai said he had no objection to nudity in art, but did oppose the sexualizing of Hindu goddesses.
After the screening, protestors marched back to the museum and staged a sit-in at its capacious cobblestoned entrance. Norberg and Ingalls then met with a small group of activists on the museum's steps.
"They expressed their concerns and asked us to stay in touch with them for future programs," Norberg told India-West after the meeting. "We are in disagreement with them but we have made their material available at the museum," she said.
A screening of "Sita Sings the Blues" was cancelled last month at the Starlight Pavilion in New York, after the Forum for Hindu Awakening and the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti sent more than 1,000 e-mails protesting the event to 26-year-old organizer Rohan Narine. The film was shown at Narine's parents' home instead.
India-West
Hindu groups protest screening of 'Sita Sings the Blues'
August 18, 2011, 04.41PM IST
Several local Hindu organizations joined forces Aug. 6 to protest the San Jose Museum of Art's screening of Nina Paley's 2008 animated film, "Sita Sings the Blues" - which intersperses events from the Indian epic Ramayana with the artist's own life - at the Camera 12 theater here.
"I'm very angry about this film and feel very humiliated by the portrayal of Lord Ram in this very perverted way," Khanderao Kand told India-West at the rally, adding that he particularly objected to a scene in the film where Ram kicks a pregnant Sita. "Negative portrayals of Hinduism cause discrimination and religious intolerance," he said.
But museum officials said they were going ahead with the screening that afternoon. "We do not support artistic censorship," Deb Norberg, deputy director for the SJMA, told India-West.
Paley's film intersperses the legend of Lord Ram ordering his pregnant wife Sita out of his court following her imprisonment by Ravana, with the filmmaker's biographical tale about her own failed marriage, which begins happily in San Francisco, Calif., and ends badly in Trivandrum, India. The film is set off by a superb, smoky soundtrack sung by Annette Hanshaw.
"Sita is a most sacrificing, self-abasing woman who places herself below Ram, but at the same time is elevated to a goddess," Paley told India-West in a brief telephone interview, adding that she was inspired by Sita's dying for love. Lord Ram is not depicted well in the film, conceded Paley, but added, "No one has to like it."
Protestors simultaneously decried the museum's showcasing of the late M.F. Husain's depiction of a nude, blue Sita, an untitled work in his Ramayana series. The painting is part of a special exhibition, "Roots in the Air, Branches Below," a collection of Indian art on loan from several Indian American collectors residing in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The exhibit is on display until Sept. 5 and features the artists Tyeb Mehta and Jamini Roy, among others. Three Husains, including a portrait of Mother Teresa, are also in the collection.
Husain came under fire several times in his eight-decade long career, primarily for depicting Hindu goddesses in the nude. One of India's best-known artists, Husain died in exile in London last June.
Representatives of several organizations met with SJMA representatives Aug. 4 to ask the institution to cancel its screening.
"We had a cordial conversation, but decided to go ahead with our program," Sherrill Ingalls, press contact for the museum, told India-West Aug. 4, adding, "We support artistic freedom."
Nilesh Shirodkar, a volunteer with the Forum for Hindu Awakening, also attended the Aug. 4 meeting. "We spoke about the denigration of our revered Hindu deities in this film, but they told us they could not retract the show. So we have staged this peaceful protest," he told India-West.
The activists began their rally mid-morning on the steps of the museum, and then marched two blocks over to Camera 12, carrying signs exhorting Paley not to blame Hinduism for her failed marriage and chanting "M.F. Husain, shame, shame," along with "Sita Sings the Blues, but Nina Paley has no clue."
At one point, the activists vehemently repeated, "Nina Paley, go to hell," until an organizer intervened and asked the group to tone it down, in view of the several children participating in the rally.
Vijay Simha, national joint secretary of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh USA, echoed Kand's remarks. "I feel offended and concerned by this kind of slur to our value system," he told India-West. "Ram is the ideal father, husband and king. Millions of Hindus are inspired by his character and worship him daily."
"Ram symbolizes everything noble for a Hindu," said Simha, adding that SJMA should have cancelled its program after learning that the film had upset Hindu sensibilities.
"Trying to promote India's rich culture in such a way is appalling," Gaurang Desai, a volunteer with the Friends of India Society, told India-West. "Depicting the goddess Sita in a sexual way is denigrating," he said, adding that the SJMA "should not have hosted such an event in the name of India."
Asked about nude carvings and sculptures abundant in Indian temple art dating back several thousand years, Desai said he had no objection to nudity in art, but did oppose the sexualizing of Hindu goddesses.
After the screening, protestors marched back to the museum and staged a sit-in at its capacious cobblestoned entrance. Norberg and Ingalls then met with a small group of activists on the museum's steps.
"They expressed their concerns and asked us to stay in touch with them for future programs," Norberg told India-West after the meeting. "We are in disagreement with them but we have made their material available at the museum," she said.
A screening of "Sita Sings the Blues" was cancelled last month at the Starlight Pavilion in New York, after the Forum for Hindu Awakening and the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti sent more than 1,000 e-mails protesting the event to 26-year-old organizer Rohan Narine. The film was shown at Narine's parents' home instead.
India-West
August 12, 2011
Hindutva Fanatics haunt MF Husain in death
From: Mail Today, 12 August 2011
Fanatics haunt Husain in death
By Archana in New Delhi
A LITTLE - KNOWN group of rightwing hotheads, the Thane- based Hindu Janajagruti Samiti ( HJS), has been shooting off e- mails opposing art shows in the city where the late M. F. Husain’s works are on display.
The first target of the e- mail bombardment was the Harvest 2011 show mounted by Payal Kapoor of Arushi Arts.
Kapoor instantly withdrew the work, though it wasn’t controversial. “ It was part of a group show in which 75 artists were participating and I couldn’t have jeopardised the careers of the others,” Kapoor said in her defence.
“I went to the police and filed an FIR and withdrew the Husain canvas.” Obviously emboldened by this, the HJS fired another e- mail to the Delhi Art Gallery, which is co- hosting with DLF Emporio, a tribute to the departed master at the atrium of the luxury mall at Vasant Kunj. The show is called ‘ Celebrating Husain’. Kishore Singh, head ( publications and exhibitions), Delhi Art Gallery, confirmed receiving an email from the HJS. “ There is no sense of aggression or any demand in the letter; it seems more like a letter to the editor,” Singh said.
The HJS earned notoriety a few years back when it launched a sustained campaign against the master. As a result of threats from the HJS and pro- Hindutva groups targeting his paintings, Husain eventually left India in February 2006 and died in exile in London on June 9, 2011.
Many Husain supporters believed that the fundamentalists would bury their opposition to the master after his death, but the HJS seems to be in no mood to pipe down.
The recent HJS campaign against Husain started with a letter dated August 6 by S. G. Vatkar, the organisation’s coordinator for the Mumbai region, to Kapoor.
It ended with the plea: “ We are approaching you to request you to withdraw Husain’s work from this sale and exhibition and honour the national sentiments of Indians and religious sentiments of Hindus.” Kishore Singh said there hadn’t been any trouble at the venue of the Delhi Art Gallery exhibition. “ Ever since we got the e- mail, we have enhanced the security, but we don’t want to give legitimacy to the protest.” If the HJS is milking Husain’s name for personal gains, it is doing what it is accusing Husain’s friends of — hurting popular sentiments.
Fanatics haunt Husain in death
By Archana in New Delhi
A LITTLE - KNOWN group of rightwing hotheads, the Thane- based Hindu Janajagruti Samiti ( HJS), has been shooting off e- mails opposing art shows in the city where the late M. F. Husain’s works are on display.
The first target of the e- mail bombardment was the Harvest 2011 show mounted by Payal Kapoor of Arushi Arts.
Kapoor instantly withdrew the work, though it wasn’t controversial. “ It was part of a group show in which 75 artists were participating and I couldn’t have jeopardised the careers of the others,” Kapoor said in her defence.
“I went to the police and filed an FIR and withdrew the Husain canvas.” Obviously emboldened by this, the HJS fired another e- mail to the Delhi Art Gallery, which is co- hosting with DLF Emporio, a tribute to the departed master at the atrium of the luxury mall at Vasant Kunj. The show is called ‘ Celebrating Husain’. Kishore Singh, head ( publications and exhibitions), Delhi Art Gallery, confirmed receiving an email from the HJS. “ There is no sense of aggression or any demand in the letter; it seems more like a letter to the editor,” Singh said.
The HJS earned notoriety a few years back when it launched a sustained campaign against the master. As a result of threats from the HJS and pro- Hindutva groups targeting his paintings, Husain eventually left India in February 2006 and died in exile in London on June 9, 2011.
Many Husain supporters believed that the fundamentalists would bury their opposition to the master after his death, but the HJS seems to be in no mood to pipe down.
The recent HJS campaign against Husain started with a letter dated August 6 by S. G. Vatkar, the organisation’s coordinator for the Mumbai region, to Kapoor.
It ended with the plea: “ We are approaching you to request you to withdraw Husain’s work from this sale and exhibition and honour the national sentiments of Indians and religious sentiments of Hindus.” Kishore Singh said there hadn’t been any trouble at the venue of the Delhi Art Gallery exhibition. “ Ever since we got the e- mail, we have enhanced the security, but we don’t want to give legitimacy to the protest.” If the HJS is milking Husain’s name for personal gains, it is doing what it is accusing Husain’s friends of — hurting popular sentiments.
June 15, 2011
M.F.Husain: Victim of Intolerance
Ram Puniyani
On 9th June 2011, M.F. Husain breathed his last in a London Hospital, and was later buried in the cemetery in London as per his wish that he should be buried at a place of his death. The most celebrated painter of India, more Indian than any of his detractors died, away from his home, due to self imposed exile. This self imposed exile was due to the threats of Hindu fundamentalists. The renowned painter called by many as Picasso of India, had the fate similar to that of Picasso, who also went into self exile in the regime of Fascist Franco of Spain.
M.F. Husain’s work spanned a long period, evolving with time and deeply rooted in the rich traditions of India, plural, diverse Hinduism. He was confronted as to why he does not pick up Islamic motifs for his work to which he replied that Islam has Calligraphy alone and human figures are not drawn in Islamic tradition. He came more into the news from the decade of 1980s, with the rise of sectarian politics, as the intolerant Hindutva groups started attacking his painting- exhibitions regularly. The allegation was that he is hurting the sensibilities of Hindus, and is doing it deliberately as he is a Muslim. He was abused for painting Hindu Goddesses like Sarswati, Durga, Draupadi and the one titled Bharat Mata in nude. Interestingly some of these paintings were done in 1970s or so. With the rise of the movement for Ram Temple the Hindu Fundamentalist forces became more assertive, the intolerance grew in the society, many a magazines and newspapers stated fanning the fire of ‘hurting our sentiments’ and that’s when the followers of VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena started attacking Husain’s, exhibition, his Gufa in Ahmadabad, SAHMAT painting exhibition and so.
Later these communal forces went on filing case after case against him to harass him. The Courts ruled in Husain’s favor saying that his paintings are not promoting enmity between communities in any way, and that he is well within the limits of his artistic freedm. Husain by this time was quiet old, he was offered the security by the state but he declined to be imprisoned in the cordon of security and decided to take the citizenship in Qatar to continue his work in his own uninterrupted way, while maintaining that the Passport is a piece of paper and he remains an Indian at heart. He also missed India but it was a strong choice, to do the work in an uninterrupted way or to face the physical and mental wrath of the Hindu fundamentalists. As such he was not spared by Muslim Fundamentalists also, who had objected to his film, Meenaxi: ‘A Tale of Three cities’ on the charge that it blasphemes Koran.
As such Husain probably represents the best of Indian syncretic traditions and that too his rooting in Hindu mythology and culture may be much deeper than those who kept attacking him. He was born in the Maharashtrian town of Pandharpur; a place of pilgrimage for the Warkari’s the followers of great Marathi Saint Tukaram. He belongs to Sulaimani sect of Shias, whose some practices are like Hindus and they also believe in the theory of reincarnation. During his childhood years he was very impressed by the staging of Ramlila and along with his Hindu friend used to enact it. He also went to study the Valmiki and Tulsidas versions of Ramayana. His quest for understanding the society led him to the study and discussion of Gita, Puranas and other spiritual texts. His rooting in liberal Hindu culture, not the Brahmanical variety, was very deep. One example we can glean from the information card which he designed for telling people about his daughter Raeesa’s marraige, who did not want any ceremonies. His card showed Parvati sitting on the thigh of Lord Shiv with Shiva’s hands on Parvati’s breast. Husain regarded this union as the first marriage in the cosmos.
When he was in Hyderabad, Ram Manohar Lohia suggested to him to paint Ramayana. Husain was broke at that time, but he undertook this job seriously and drew 150 canvasses around Ramayana mythology over a period of eight years. He also used to discuss with the Pundits of Kashi on the themes when drawing this Hindu epic. He regards Ganesha as one of the figures with a delightful form, a brilliant material to draw and generally before beginning on a large painting first used to draw Ganesha. The major criticism against him was and is definitely politically motivated. Being a Muslim and drawing these motifs so boldly was unacceptable to the offshoots of Sangh Parivar. As such the charge that nudity is an insult to Hindu Goddesses does not hold water as Husain pointed out that Nudity is a metaphor for purity in Hindu mythology. The example of Khajuraho cannot be dismissed on the ground that people wanted to increase the population so these were drawn, and were otherwise of no consequence to Hindu culture. As such Khajuraho paintings were expression of the prevalent culture. The painting or any other work of art has to be seen in the context of the artist and the cultural rooting of the work. Nudity can express vulgarity as well as purity, and that’s where the fundamentalists of all variety show their intolerance to the extreme.
The rise of fundamentalism for various reasons has exiled the creative people, like Tasleema Nasreen, Salman Rushdi and tormented the likes of Vijay Tendulakar and Deepa Mehta in recent times. The case of Husain is a bit more unique, as here is an artist whose work on Hindu iconography is insurmountable, one who is deeply rooted in the deeper spirit of broad Hindu culture, still he has been hounded by both varieties of fundamentalists. All this has taken place while the other political formations have been so ineffectual in protecting him, creating an atmosphere where the creative people can undertake their work without any fear or intimidation. While the Hindutva party has been the blatant opponent of his work the other parties have done precious little for protecting the maestro.
On 9th June 2011, M.F. Husain breathed his last in a London Hospital, and was later buried in the cemetery in London as per his wish that he should be buried at a place of his death. The most celebrated painter of India, more Indian than any of his detractors died, away from his home, due to self imposed exile. This self imposed exile was due to the threats of Hindu fundamentalists. The renowned painter called by many as Picasso of India, had the fate similar to that of Picasso, who also went into self exile in the regime of Fascist Franco of Spain.
M.F. Husain’s work spanned a long period, evolving with time and deeply rooted in the rich traditions of India, plural, diverse Hinduism. He was confronted as to why he does not pick up Islamic motifs for his work to which he replied that Islam has Calligraphy alone and human figures are not drawn in Islamic tradition. He came more into the news from the decade of 1980s, with the rise of sectarian politics, as the intolerant Hindutva groups started attacking his painting- exhibitions regularly. The allegation was that he is hurting the sensibilities of Hindus, and is doing it deliberately as he is a Muslim. He was abused for painting Hindu Goddesses like Sarswati, Durga, Draupadi and the one titled Bharat Mata in nude. Interestingly some of these paintings were done in 1970s or so. With the rise of the movement for Ram Temple the Hindu Fundamentalist forces became more assertive, the intolerance grew in the society, many a magazines and newspapers stated fanning the fire of ‘hurting our sentiments’ and that’s when the followers of VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena started attacking Husain’s, exhibition, his Gufa in Ahmadabad, SAHMAT painting exhibition and so.
Later these communal forces went on filing case after case against him to harass him. The Courts ruled in Husain’s favor saying that his paintings are not promoting enmity between communities in any way, and that he is well within the limits of his artistic freedm. Husain by this time was quiet old, he was offered the security by the state but he declined to be imprisoned in the cordon of security and decided to take the citizenship in Qatar to continue his work in his own uninterrupted way, while maintaining that the Passport is a piece of paper and he remains an Indian at heart. He also missed India but it was a strong choice, to do the work in an uninterrupted way or to face the physical and mental wrath of the Hindu fundamentalists. As such he was not spared by Muslim Fundamentalists also, who had objected to his film, Meenaxi: ‘A Tale of Three cities’ on the charge that it blasphemes Koran.
As such Husain probably represents the best of Indian syncretic traditions and that too his rooting in Hindu mythology and culture may be much deeper than those who kept attacking him. He was born in the Maharashtrian town of Pandharpur; a place of pilgrimage for the Warkari’s the followers of great Marathi Saint Tukaram. He belongs to Sulaimani sect of Shias, whose some practices are like Hindus and they also believe in the theory of reincarnation. During his childhood years he was very impressed by the staging of Ramlila and along with his Hindu friend used to enact it. He also went to study the Valmiki and Tulsidas versions of Ramayana. His quest for understanding the society led him to the study and discussion of Gita, Puranas and other spiritual texts. His rooting in liberal Hindu culture, not the Brahmanical variety, was very deep. One example we can glean from the information card which he designed for telling people about his daughter Raeesa’s marraige, who did not want any ceremonies. His card showed Parvati sitting on the thigh of Lord Shiv with Shiva’s hands on Parvati’s breast. Husain regarded this union as the first marriage in the cosmos.
When he was in Hyderabad, Ram Manohar Lohia suggested to him to paint Ramayana. Husain was broke at that time, but he undertook this job seriously and drew 150 canvasses around Ramayana mythology over a period of eight years. He also used to discuss with the Pundits of Kashi on the themes when drawing this Hindu epic. He regards Ganesha as one of the figures with a delightful form, a brilliant material to draw and generally before beginning on a large painting first used to draw Ganesha. The major criticism against him was and is definitely politically motivated. Being a Muslim and drawing these motifs so boldly was unacceptable to the offshoots of Sangh Parivar. As such the charge that nudity is an insult to Hindu Goddesses does not hold water as Husain pointed out that Nudity is a metaphor for purity in Hindu mythology. The example of Khajuraho cannot be dismissed on the ground that people wanted to increase the population so these were drawn, and were otherwise of no consequence to Hindu culture. As such Khajuraho paintings were expression of the prevalent culture. The painting or any other work of art has to be seen in the context of the artist and the cultural rooting of the work. Nudity can express vulgarity as well as purity, and that’s where the fundamentalists of all variety show their intolerance to the extreme.
The rise of fundamentalism for various reasons has exiled the creative people, like Tasleema Nasreen, Salman Rushdi and tormented the likes of Vijay Tendulakar and Deepa Mehta in recent times. The case of Husain is a bit more unique, as here is an artist whose work on Hindu iconography is insurmountable, one who is deeply rooted in the deeper spirit of broad Hindu culture, still he has been hounded by both varieties of fundamentalists. All this has taken place while the other political formations have been so ineffectual in protecting him, creating an atmosphere where the creative people can undertake their work without any fear or intimidation. While the Hindutva party has been the blatant opponent of his work the other parties have done precious little for protecting the maestro.
June 13, 2011
Husain's enduring legacy for India
The Times of India
by Dileep Padgaonkar | Jun 13, 2011
To die in exile is to die twice over: the first time in the spirit, the second time in the flesh. The very inevitability of death in the flesh makes its aftermath predictable. Kith and kin and friends will mourn it in the sure knowledge that the pain of loss will subside in due course. Not so the death in the spirit. Exile stokes rage against those who hounded you from your homeland. The thought that you might never return to it, not even as a bird of passage, reduces you to such a state of helplessness that you begin to wallow in self-pity - the surest sign of terminal impotence.
It is to M F Husain's resounding credit that he was able to defy both deaths as long as he did. He lived until the age of 95 with all his faculties intact. Except for a few weeks in hospital before he passed away, he continued to crisscross continents, cherish the good life and, above all, draw and paint with unflagging zeal. Artists half his age suffer from a burnout. Not Husain. He sought solace in prayer and the purest joy in his art. To anyone who knew him even in passing, he resembled a lark in full flight: utterly free from the conceits and foibles of the world though, truth to tell, he did exploit his business acumen with a suave insouciance. Barefoot in a Ferrari!
Far more impressive, however, was Husain's refusal to make a to-do about his exile. Of course he missed India as anyone who ran into him in Qatar or Dubai, Paris, London or New York would testify. But he bore no ill will against those who vandalised his works, burnt his effigies, defaced his portraits, hurled the most vicious insults at him and hauled him in courts across the country. After all this, to argue, as many have done, that his exile was self-imposed is to give his tormentors the cachet of wayward ruffians.
If he did not utter a word of reproach against them, it was because he never wavered in his abiding faith in the people of India - in their steadfast adherence to a syncretic culture steeped in the most subtle and sophisticated artistic, spiritual and philosophical traditions. Throughout his life he drew inspiration from every creative endeavour that shed light on the bewildering paradoxes of Indian life: the sublime cheek-by-jowl with the crass and the ludicrous. He looked at the idiosyncrasies with an amused and benevolent twinkle in the eye.
But make no mistake about it: his tormentors had hit him where it hurts most. More than any artist of his time, this pious Muslim nursed nothing if not reverence and unbound affection for the divinities of the Hindu pantheon. Few know, or care to know, that among his finest paintings are the ones based on themes and characters of the two great Hindu epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Nothing would have caused him more anguish than to be told that in some of his drawings he had with malicious and deliberate intent 'hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus'. He chose to be discreet about it.
But India must refuse such discretion. The most enduring tribute that one can pay to Husain's memory is to put an end once and for all to this bogey of 'hurt sentiments'. It has allowed goons of every stripe to take the law into their hands to harass and intimidate people, curtail the freedom of writers and artists and impose on the citizenry a shallow and monochromatic view of Indian culture.
This is of course easier said than done for even parties who swear by secularism and progressive ideas have failed again and again to bring the goons to book. The regressive phenomenon first reared its head when a secular government at the Centre banned Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. It has gathered momentum ever since. The goons have routinely vandalised theatre and cinema halls, assaulted writers, sculptors and painters, ransacked media houses and not spared even such venerable centres of learning and research as the Bhandarkar Institute in Pune. Governments of all shades who are supposed to uphold the law have failed to bring the casteist and communal elements to book.
Moral and cultural policing by bigoted caste and communal outfits is a grave danger for Indian democracy. The overt or covert support they receive from established political parties and certain 'cultural' outfits emboldens them. So does the lackadaisical attitude of avowedly secular parties. All this is done with an eye on vote banks. All parties engage in it despite growing evidence that India wants to put divisive, identity-based politics behind it.
Corruption in public life is now on the top of the agenda as it should be. But it tends to detract attention from other dangers: the growing chasm between the rich and the poor and the denial of basic democratic rights to large swathes of the population. Of equal significance is the need to acknowledge the depredations of the casteist and communal forces and the inaction of the secular parties.
Don't expect any positive response from Ramdev or his supporters. His yoga asanas might cure cancer and, God willing, even the 'disease' of homosexuality. But he proposes no asanas for the mind and the heart to arrest the growth of a malignant tumour called bigotry. For that you must turn not to Ramdev's carnival of cant and chicanery but to the uplifting art of M F Husain.
by Dileep Padgaonkar | Jun 13, 2011
To die in exile is to die twice over: the first time in the spirit, the second time in the flesh. The very inevitability of death in the flesh makes its aftermath predictable. Kith and kin and friends will mourn it in the sure knowledge that the pain of loss will subside in due course. Not so the death in the spirit. Exile stokes rage against those who hounded you from your homeland. The thought that you might never return to it, not even as a bird of passage, reduces you to such a state of helplessness that you begin to wallow in self-pity - the surest sign of terminal impotence.
It is to M F Husain's resounding credit that he was able to defy both deaths as long as he did. He lived until the age of 95 with all his faculties intact. Except for a few weeks in hospital before he passed away, he continued to crisscross continents, cherish the good life and, above all, draw and paint with unflagging zeal. Artists half his age suffer from a burnout. Not Husain. He sought solace in prayer and the purest joy in his art. To anyone who knew him even in passing, he resembled a lark in full flight: utterly free from the conceits and foibles of the world though, truth to tell, he did exploit his business acumen with a suave insouciance. Barefoot in a Ferrari!
Far more impressive, however, was Husain's refusal to make a to-do about his exile. Of course he missed India as anyone who ran into him in Qatar or Dubai, Paris, London or New York would testify. But he bore no ill will against those who vandalised his works, burnt his effigies, defaced his portraits, hurled the most vicious insults at him and hauled him in courts across the country. After all this, to argue, as many have done, that his exile was self-imposed is to give his tormentors the cachet of wayward ruffians.
If he did not utter a word of reproach against them, it was because he never wavered in his abiding faith in the people of India - in their steadfast adherence to a syncretic culture steeped in the most subtle and sophisticated artistic, spiritual and philosophical traditions. Throughout his life he drew inspiration from every creative endeavour that shed light on the bewildering paradoxes of Indian life: the sublime cheek-by-jowl with the crass and the ludicrous. He looked at the idiosyncrasies with an amused and benevolent twinkle in the eye.
But make no mistake about it: his tormentors had hit him where it hurts most. More than any artist of his time, this pious Muslim nursed nothing if not reverence and unbound affection for the divinities of the Hindu pantheon. Few know, or care to know, that among his finest paintings are the ones based on themes and characters of the two great Hindu epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Nothing would have caused him more anguish than to be told that in some of his drawings he had with malicious and deliberate intent 'hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus'. He chose to be discreet about it.
But India must refuse such discretion. The most enduring tribute that one can pay to Husain's memory is to put an end once and for all to this bogey of 'hurt sentiments'. It has allowed goons of every stripe to take the law into their hands to harass and intimidate people, curtail the freedom of writers and artists and impose on the citizenry a shallow and monochromatic view of Indian culture.
This is of course easier said than done for even parties who swear by secularism and progressive ideas have failed again and again to bring the goons to book. The regressive phenomenon first reared its head when a secular government at the Centre banned Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. It has gathered momentum ever since. The goons have routinely vandalised theatre and cinema halls, assaulted writers, sculptors and painters, ransacked media houses and not spared even such venerable centres of learning and research as the Bhandarkar Institute in Pune. Governments of all shades who are supposed to uphold the law have failed to bring the casteist and communal elements to book.
Moral and cultural policing by bigoted caste and communal outfits is a grave danger for Indian democracy. The overt or covert support they receive from established political parties and certain 'cultural' outfits emboldens them. So does the lackadaisical attitude of avowedly secular parties. All this is done with an eye on vote banks. All parties engage in it despite growing evidence that India wants to put divisive, identity-based politics behind it.
Corruption in public life is now on the top of the agenda as it should be. But it tends to detract attention from other dangers: the growing chasm between the rich and the poor and the denial of basic democratic rights to large swathes of the population. Of equal significance is the need to acknowledge the depredations of the casteist and communal forces and the inaction of the secular parties.
Don't expect any positive response from Ramdev or his supporters. His yoga asanas might cure cancer and, God willing, even the 'disease' of homosexuality. But he proposes no asanas for the mind and the heart to arrest the growth of a malignant tumour called bigotry. For that you must turn not to Ramdev's carnival of cant and chicanery but to the uplifting art of M F Husain.
The Barefoot Secularist
Pranay Gupte: The Barefoot Secularist
Al Arabiya, 09 June 2011
`
Maqbool Fida Husain was arguably the leading proponent of secularism in a constitutionally secular country. (File photo)
By PRANAY GUPTE
Al Arabiya
The death in London Thursday of Maqbool Fida Husain, widely known as India’s Picasso, brings to an end a career that began on the bustling footpaths of Bombay as a painter of Bollywood billboards and became one that brought him great riches and critical acclaim globally.
They may have called him “Picasso,” but a better moniker would have been “Gandhi.”
It’s not as a creator of tens of thousands of paintings and sculptures alone that Husain will be missed. A devout Muslim, he was arguably the leading proponent of secularism in a constitutionally secular country where restive Hindu radicals would like nothing more than drive India’s Muslims away, or at least reduce them to the status of second-class citizens.
The only problem with that, Husain often told me in Dubai—where he lived in exile—was that a handful of malevolent Hindus would have to subjugate more than 200 million people, the second largest Muslim cohort in the world after Indonesia. Husain refused to believe that the majority of India’s billion Hindus subscribed to an ideology of sectarian segregation.
His belief in secularism was unshakable, and he paid a price for it. Hindu fundamentalists took umbrage at his paintings, which sometimes depicted nude Hindu goddesses. They besieged his home in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), they burned his art, they flamed him on dozens of ugly Web sites, they brought lawsuits against him, and they threatened him with bodily harm. They succeeded in driving him into exile in the Middle East.
Being away from his beloved motherland, away from an ancient land whose history and mythology animated his art, did not pain Husain as much as what he perceived as the dangerous descent of India into mindless communalism.
He frequently noted that he was more than 30 years old when the British Raj’s colonial rulers portioned Greater India into India—which opted to be secular—and Pakistan, which adopted an Islamic creed. As a mature adult, he witnessed the horrors of Partition, when Hindus fled Pakistan, and Muslims migrated to the new Islamic nation. Thousands died, and more thousands were displaced.
“I though that we had learned lessons from that tragedy,” Husain told me in one of our conversations earlier this year in Dubai. “But, of course, we didn’t.”
He did not bill himself as a secular artist who happened to be Muslim-born. With self deprecating humor, Husain would say that he was quite happy with being characterized as “eccentric.”
And that he was. He walked around barefoot. He wore clothes that were elegant but defied designation. And he loved fast cars, and the adoring women who piled on to him. He openly acknowledged his infatuation with Bollywood actresses, some of whom he painted in suggestive poses.
But it was his very eccentricity that agitated Hindu fundamentalists in India. Without quite defining what “wholesome art” should be, they felt that Husain’s sensibility was offensive to Hinduism. Not particularly conversant with art and its various schools, they assailed Husain’s cubism as a grotesque parody of Indian culture. They failed to acknowledge that Hinduism celebrates sensuality just as it does spirituality. They also failed to understand that a predicate of a democratic society is freedom of expression.
Husain refused to be straitjacketed by the Hindu thought police. Already in the 90s when they ratcheted up their campaign against him, he held out as long as he could. Then one day he left for Dubai.
Perhaps not surprisingly, few secular voices bemoaned his departure. Few decried the shameful treatment meted out to Husain. Charitably put, it could have been because India’s opinion shapers and decision makers may have had other issues on their mind. My own view is that Hindu radicals, through their relentless thuggery, have succeeded in suppressing dissent, for the most part. If they don’t like you, they beat you up, or worse.
I speak here as a Hindu-born secularist. I hadn’t been born when Husain witnessed the end of the Raj, enthralled by high hopes for an independent India. But like him, I really did not expect that things would turn out this way. Like Husain, I always thought that a secular society meant a tolerant society. I always thought that post-Independence Indians would have the courage to resist the blandishments of communalists.
Instead, they drove away Maqbool Fida Husain. So today I mourn not just him, but the India that might have been.
(Pranay Gupte’s “Mother India: A Political Biography of Indira Gandhi,” has just been issued in paperback by Penguin. His next book, “Dubai: The Journey,” will be published by Viking Penguin later this year. Mr. Gupte can be reached at: pranaygupte@gmail.com)
Al Arabiya, 09 June 2011
`
Maqbool Fida Husain was arguably the leading proponent of secularism in a constitutionally secular country. (File photo)
By PRANAY GUPTE
Al Arabiya
The death in London Thursday of Maqbool Fida Husain, widely known as India’s Picasso, brings to an end a career that began on the bustling footpaths of Bombay as a painter of Bollywood billboards and became one that brought him great riches and critical acclaim globally.
They may have called him “Picasso,” but a better moniker would have been “Gandhi.”
It’s not as a creator of tens of thousands of paintings and sculptures alone that Husain will be missed. A devout Muslim, he was arguably the leading proponent of secularism in a constitutionally secular country where restive Hindu radicals would like nothing more than drive India’s Muslims away, or at least reduce them to the status of second-class citizens.
The only problem with that, Husain often told me in Dubai—where he lived in exile—was that a handful of malevolent Hindus would have to subjugate more than 200 million people, the second largest Muslim cohort in the world after Indonesia. Husain refused to believe that the majority of India’s billion Hindus subscribed to an ideology of sectarian segregation.
His belief in secularism was unshakable, and he paid a price for it. Hindu fundamentalists took umbrage at his paintings, which sometimes depicted nude Hindu goddesses. They besieged his home in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), they burned his art, they flamed him on dozens of ugly Web sites, they brought lawsuits against him, and they threatened him with bodily harm. They succeeded in driving him into exile in the Middle East.
Being away from his beloved motherland, away from an ancient land whose history and mythology animated his art, did not pain Husain as much as what he perceived as the dangerous descent of India into mindless communalism.
He frequently noted that he was more than 30 years old when the British Raj’s colonial rulers portioned Greater India into India—which opted to be secular—and Pakistan, which adopted an Islamic creed. As a mature adult, he witnessed the horrors of Partition, when Hindus fled Pakistan, and Muslims migrated to the new Islamic nation. Thousands died, and more thousands were displaced.
“I though that we had learned lessons from that tragedy,” Husain told me in one of our conversations earlier this year in Dubai. “But, of course, we didn’t.”
He did not bill himself as a secular artist who happened to be Muslim-born. With self deprecating humor, Husain would say that he was quite happy with being characterized as “eccentric.”
And that he was. He walked around barefoot. He wore clothes that were elegant but defied designation. And he loved fast cars, and the adoring women who piled on to him. He openly acknowledged his infatuation with Bollywood actresses, some of whom he painted in suggestive poses.
But it was his very eccentricity that agitated Hindu fundamentalists in India. Without quite defining what “wholesome art” should be, they felt that Husain’s sensibility was offensive to Hinduism. Not particularly conversant with art and its various schools, they assailed Husain’s cubism as a grotesque parody of Indian culture. They failed to acknowledge that Hinduism celebrates sensuality just as it does spirituality. They also failed to understand that a predicate of a democratic society is freedom of expression.
Husain refused to be straitjacketed by the Hindu thought police. Already in the 90s when they ratcheted up their campaign against him, he held out as long as he could. Then one day he left for Dubai.
Perhaps not surprisingly, few secular voices bemoaned his departure. Few decried the shameful treatment meted out to Husain. Charitably put, it could have been because India’s opinion shapers and decision makers may have had other issues on their mind. My own view is that Hindu radicals, through their relentless thuggery, have succeeded in suppressing dissent, for the most part. If they don’t like you, they beat you up, or worse.
I speak here as a Hindu-born secularist. I hadn’t been born when Husain witnessed the end of the Raj, enthralled by high hopes for an independent India. But like him, I really did not expect that things would turn out this way. Like Husain, I always thought that a secular society meant a tolerant society. I always thought that post-Independence Indians would have the courage to resist the blandishments of communalists.
Instead, they drove away Maqbool Fida Husain. So today I mourn not just him, but the India that might have been.
(Pranay Gupte’s “Mother India: A Political Biography of Indira Gandhi,” has just been issued in paperback by Penguin. His next book, “Dubai: The Journey,” will be published by Viking Penguin later this year. Mr. Gupte can be reached at: pranaygupte@gmail.com)
March 06, 2010
MF Hussain Caught between the Hindu moral police and Govt inaction
Mail Today
5 March 2010
EXILING TRADITION
by Jyotirmaya Sharma
Husain’s work is rooted in the pauranik tradition which celebrates interpretation and improvisation
THE M. F. Husain controversy can be viewed at various levels. At one level, it is one of the uneducated literates and the uneducated illiterates of the sangh parivar making a public display of bad taste.
They have been caught in a time warp that compels them to think of Hindu gods and goddesses only in the artless, yet stylised, form that Raja Ravi Varma gave them.
Most of them can hardly distinguish between a kirana- shop new- year calendar and a canvas: they are to art what Bal Thackeray is to democracy, namely, a pestilence and a running sore. Despite their nationalist and Hindu rhetoric, there is scarcely anyone who can convince them that they are prisoners of Victorian tastes and morality, and what they impose in the name of moral policing through their unchecked thuggery is neither national nor Hindu.
The sangh parivar also has a few English- speaking Oxbridge types who, perhaps, privately collect and possess a Husain painting or two, but make a show of public condemnation of the artist. They are ready to question Husain’s acceptance of Qatari citizenship, but are more than willing to embrace an ill- informed and megalomaniac individual like V. S. Naipaul as Indian, Hindu and as one of their own just because he repeats their mindless platitudes and universalises their deep- seated prejudices.
While political expediency has led the RSS, the BJP and their other excitable affiliates to take unusual positions with regard to the Shah Rukh Khan controversy, it represents no paradigm shift as far as their core ideology is concerned. Having flogged the rhetoric of nationalism for so long, they can scarcely take on the likes of Mukesh Ambani, Sachin Tendulkar, Shah Rukh Khan and Asha Bhonsle.
In taking divergent positions, for instance, on Shah Rukh Khan as contrasted with the Husain controversy, the sangh parivar has sought to confuse those elements within what they perceive as the Hindu community who remain disenchanted with their brand of intolerant and threatening Hindutva.
Sins
Their political strategy is to present not one unified face of Hindutva, but a proliferation of various masks that would, in the end, be successful in hiding the true tenets of their ideology.
The sangh parivar has realised that for the Indian middle class, there is no single idea of the sacred but a plurality of choices, some of them secular, that an individual might consider sacred and impart equal value.
If this argument is plausible, the question remains why the sangh parivar has one set of positions in relation to Taslima Nasreen and Shah Rukh Khan and another stance in relation to M. F. Husain. On the face of it, they are all Muslims.
The Hindutva votaries see Taslima Nasreen as someone who speaks against the hardened and fanatical aspects of Islam and Islamic clergy.
Shah Rukh Khan speaks about being an ardent nationalist, wears his and his family’s nationalism on the sleeve and speaks of a soft humanism that forms the very stuff that the middle class and the new- age gurus espouse. On the contrary, Husain dares to interpret the great epics and the gods and goddesses that inhabit these texts in the manner of a grand pauranik commentator. The freedom that a pauranik has to interpret, interpolate and improvise a classical tradition and keep it alive is the very antithesis of what Hindutva stands for and seeks in the name of religion.
In other words, Husain is guilty in the eyes of the Hindutva fanatics of two cardinal sins. The first is to claim the right to partake of the common heritage of this country by not seeking permission from the selfappointed guardians of faith, but exercising this right as a free citizen of a free country.
The second, and more serious misdemeanour in the eyes of the lunatic mainstream of the sangh parivar, is to don the traditional mantle of a pauranik at a time when the Hindutva votaries themselves are seeking to abandon the dazzling plurality of the pauranik tradition in favour of a misunderstood and faulty notion of oneness. This manifests itself in a notion of advaita and its more contemporary pop variants in the service of arguments for national unity within the nationalist discourse.
It is no one’s business to question the taboo on the idea of representation in Islam, but Husain’s appropriation and celebration of the freedom to represent within the Hindu traditions, classical and folk, is a way also of intervening and questioning the hijacking of Islam by those who represent the al- Qaeda’s brand of intolerant Islam, which prohibits all forms of creativity, whether it is art, music or cinema. Questioning Husain’s right to interpret and represent Hindu gods and goddesses is symptomatic of the confusion that has existed within Hindu nationalism since the nineteenth century.
The Hindu nationalist attempt to paint the entity called Hinduism in monochromatic colours and to compel compliance on the basis of a distorted version of a unified faith makes its family resemblance to more fanatical versions of Islam more evident than it realises or is ready to admit.
Husain on the other hand has the best of both worlds.
State
He remains a Muslim in the sense that would make every civilised and reasonable Muslim proud, and he has fashioned himself also as an illustrious pauranik in the best sense that can be conveyed by that term.
The sangh parivar, on the other hand, lives in this vast sea of confusion, mouthing platitudes that are foreign, colonial and, worst still, Victorian.
Their vilification of Husain is a symptom of their own confusion and disarray; their only way of finding a solution, given their intellectual and moral bankruptcy, is to bully and intimidate. This is also one reason why the political affiliates of the Sangh are always ready to capture political power, which they see as the only way to impose their agenda.
Characteristically, the Indian state too has failed to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Indian Constitution. In its actual functioning, the Indian state is secular on certain days of the week, indifferent on some other days, and aids and abets mindlessness on other days, and there are days when it actively colludes with the malcontents of society.
Even if the reasons are different, there is no explanation why the same state that can protect Shah Rukh Khan and the screening of his film cannot prevent the vandalism of Husain’s home or his exhibitions.
The Indian state too mirrors in many ways the confusion that has claimed the sangh parivar.
Mediocrity
It tries hard to be democratic, secular and fair on most days, but it lapses into populism, expediency and electoral calculations more often than it is desirable.
It is only a piece of useless legalism to claim that the state is different from the regime, and that the sins of the regime in power ought not to be interpolated on to the formal structures of the state.
This is nothing but pious intent, a dream that may some day fructify. But by the time it happens, the barbarians within would have driven many artists and other creative individuals out into self- imposed exile.
We will be left with our own mediocre crumbs and live in the smug satisfaction of at least having the dregs to contend with.
The writer teaches politics at University of Hyderabad
5 March 2010
EXILING TRADITION
by Jyotirmaya Sharma
Husain’s work is rooted in the pauranik tradition which celebrates interpretation and improvisation
THE M. F. Husain controversy can be viewed at various levels. At one level, it is one of the uneducated literates and the uneducated illiterates of the sangh parivar making a public display of bad taste.
They have been caught in a time warp that compels them to think of Hindu gods and goddesses only in the artless, yet stylised, form that Raja Ravi Varma gave them.
Most of them can hardly distinguish between a kirana- shop new- year calendar and a canvas: they are to art what Bal Thackeray is to democracy, namely, a pestilence and a running sore. Despite their nationalist and Hindu rhetoric, there is scarcely anyone who can convince them that they are prisoners of Victorian tastes and morality, and what they impose in the name of moral policing through their unchecked thuggery is neither national nor Hindu.
The sangh parivar also has a few English- speaking Oxbridge types who, perhaps, privately collect and possess a Husain painting or two, but make a show of public condemnation of the artist. They are ready to question Husain’s acceptance of Qatari citizenship, but are more than willing to embrace an ill- informed and megalomaniac individual like V. S. Naipaul as Indian, Hindu and as one of their own just because he repeats their mindless platitudes and universalises their deep- seated prejudices.
While political expediency has led the RSS, the BJP and their other excitable affiliates to take unusual positions with regard to the Shah Rukh Khan controversy, it represents no paradigm shift as far as their core ideology is concerned. Having flogged the rhetoric of nationalism for so long, they can scarcely take on the likes of Mukesh Ambani, Sachin Tendulkar, Shah Rukh Khan and Asha Bhonsle.
In taking divergent positions, for instance, on Shah Rukh Khan as contrasted with the Husain controversy, the sangh parivar has sought to confuse those elements within what they perceive as the Hindu community who remain disenchanted with their brand of intolerant and threatening Hindutva.
Sins
Their political strategy is to present not one unified face of Hindutva, but a proliferation of various masks that would, in the end, be successful in hiding the true tenets of their ideology.
The sangh parivar has realised that for the Indian middle class, there is no single idea of the sacred but a plurality of choices, some of them secular, that an individual might consider sacred and impart equal value.
If this argument is plausible, the question remains why the sangh parivar has one set of positions in relation to Taslima Nasreen and Shah Rukh Khan and another stance in relation to M. F. Husain. On the face of it, they are all Muslims.
The Hindutva votaries see Taslima Nasreen as someone who speaks against the hardened and fanatical aspects of Islam and Islamic clergy.
Shah Rukh Khan speaks about being an ardent nationalist, wears his and his family’s nationalism on the sleeve and speaks of a soft humanism that forms the very stuff that the middle class and the new- age gurus espouse. On the contrary, Husain dares to interpret the great epics and the gods and goddesses that inhabit these texts in the manner of a grand pauranik commentator. The freedom that a pauranik has to interpret, interpolate and improvise a classical tradition and keep it alive is the very antithesis of what Hindutva stands for and seeks in the name of religion.
In other words, Husain is guilty in the eyes of the Hindutva fanatics of two cardinal sins. The first is to claim the right to partake of the common heritage of this country by not seeking permission from the selfappointed guardians of faith, but exercising this right as a free citizen of a free country.
The second, and more serious misdemeanour in the eyes of the lunatic mainstream of the sangh parivar, is to don the traditional mantle of a pauranik at a time when the Hindutva votaries themselves are seeking to abandon the dazzling plurality of the pauranik tradition in favour of a misunderstood and faulty notion of oneness. This manifests itself in a notion of advaita and its more contemporary pop variants in the service of arguments for national unity within the nationalist discourse.
It is no one’s business to question the taboo on the idea of representation in Islam, but Husain’s appropriation and celebration of the freedom to represent within the Hindu traditions, classical and folk, is a way also of intervening and questioning the hijacking of Islam by those who represent the al- Qaeda’s brand of intolerant Islam, which prohibits all forms of creativity, whether it is art, music or cinema. Questioning Husain’s right to interpret and represent Hindu gods and goddesses is symptomatic of the confusion that has existed within Hindu nationalism since the nineteenth century.
The Hindu nationalist attempt to paint the entity called Hinduism in monochromatic colours and to compel compliance on the basis of a distorted version of a unified faith makes its family resemblance to more fanatical versions of Islam more evident than it realises or is ready to admit.
Husain on the other hand has the best of both worlds.
State
He remains a Muslim in the sense that would make every civilised and reasonable Muslim proud, and he has fashioned himself also as an illustrious pauranik in the best sense that can be conveyed by that term.
The sangh parivar, on the other hand, lives in this vast sea of confusion, mouthing platitudes that are foreign, colonial and, worst still, Victorian.
Their vilification of Husain is a symptom of their own confusion and disarray; their only way of finding a solution, given their intellectual and moral bankruptcy, is to bully and intimidate. This is also one reason why the political affiliates of the Sangh are always ready to capture political power, which they see as the only way to impose their agenda.
Characteristically, the Indian state too has failed to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Indian Constitution. In its actual functioning, the Indian state is secular on certain days of the week, indifferent on some other days, and aids and abets mindlessness on other days, and there are days when it actively colludes with the malcontents of society.
Even if the reasons are different, there is no explanation why the same state that can protect Shah Rukh Khan and the screening of his film cannot prevent the vandalism of Husain’s home or his exhibitions.
The Indian state too mirrors in many ways the confusion that has claimed the sangh parivar.
Mediocrity
It tries hard to be democratic, secular and fair on most days, but it lapses into populism, expediency and electoral calculations more often than it is desirable.
It is only a piece of useless legalism to claim that the state is different from the regime, and that the sins of the regime in power ought not to be interpolated on to the formal structures of the state.
This is nothing but pious intent, a dream that may some day fructify. But by the time it happens, the barbarians within would have driven many artists and other creative individuals out into self- imposed exile.
We will be left with our own mediocre crumbs and live in the smug satisfaction of at least having the dregs to contend with.
The writer teaches politics at University of Hyderabad
March 03, 2010
India's halfbaked secularism where the pretext of hurt religious sentiment stops all administrative action cold in its tracks
The Telegraph
28 February 2010
PAINTED OUT
Like the proverbial swallow, one My Name is Khan does not make a summer. The most striking illustration — and the most embarrassing for India as a secular democracy with a tradition of glorious, unfettered art — is the fact that a foremost artist of the country has been conferred honorary citizenship by Qatar after he has found it impossible to return to India for years. Else, this could just have been celebrated as an acknowledgment of brilliance by another country. Maqbool Fida Husain, in self-imposed exile since 2006 when the decade-long campaign against his art became too threatening for his work and person, has never made any bones about his longing for India. But he was remembered only through the incredible exclusion of his work from the 2008 India Art Summit, held with the support of the secular United Progressive Alliance government. So it was not the Bajrang Dal, or the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or any similar organization — which destroyed paintings, vandalized galleries, broke into the artist’s home and constantly threatened him — that was behind this exclusion. The government was plain terrified of the damage a mob with Hindu sentiment as their excuse could wreak during the event. For in India, the pretext of hurt religious sentiment stops all administrative action cold in its tracks.
The nation has grown used to the infringement of artistic space by politics. Literature, film, the visual or performing arts are all made scapegoats in the political need to assert strident group identities, sometimes to recover lost space in the public memory, or to repeatedly make visible invisible divisions so that interests vested in conflict are kept in clover. What is more disturbing about the ‘secular’ parties’ apparent ineffectuality in protecting Mr Husain’s work, home and reputation, however, is the inescapable feeling that tolerance, secularism, freedom of expression and aesthetic values vanish like a puff of smoke before the bogey of religion. Nobody is sure about its hold on the self, and whether proclaiming the simple unacceptability of vandalism as a way of protest — against Mr Husain’s nude Saraswati or anything else — would mean a loss of votes. Superstition can be of many kinds.
This sign of an inadequately developed attitude to the relationship between religion and a society of many faiths is most obvious in the lukewarm response of the Indian government to the news of Qatar’s offer of citizenship to Mr Husain. He can come home if he wants to, runs the signature tune, the government can give him security but no guarantees. This disinterest, now and for years earlier, may be, of course, an expression of the very mature realization that all art is universal and the true artist has no home. All the world is his home, but perhaps not India.
28 February 2010
PAINTED OUT
Like the proverbial swallow, one My Name is Khan does not make a summer. The most striking illustration — and the most embarrassing for India as a secular democracy with a tradition of glorious, unfettered art — is the fact that a foremost artist of the country has been conferred honorary citizenship by Qatar after he has found it impossible to return to India for years. Else, this could just have been celebrated as an acknowledgment of brilliance by another country. Maqbool Fida Husain, in self-imposed exile since 2006 when the decade-long campaign against his art became too threatening for his work and person, has never made any bones about his longing for India. But he was remembered only through the incredible exclusion of his work from the 2008 India Art Summit, held with the support of the secular United Progressive Alliance government. So it was not the Bajrang Dal, or the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or any similar organization — which destroyed paintings, vandalized galleries, broke into the artist’s home and constantly threatened him — that was behind this exclusion. The government was plain terrified of the damage a mob with Hindu sentiment as their excuse could wreak during the event. For in India, the pretext of hurt religious sentiment stops all administrative action cold in its tracks.
The nation has grown used to the infringement of artistic space by politics. Literature, film, the visual or performing arts are all made scapegoats in the political need to assert strident group identities, sometimes to recover lost space in the public memory, or to repeatedly make visible invisible divisions so that interests vested in conflict are kept in clover. What is more disturbing about the ‘secular’ parties’ apparent ineffectuality in protecting Mr Husain’s work, home and reputation, however, is the inescapable feeling that tolerance, secularism, freedom of expression and aesthetic values vanish like a puff of smoke before the bogey of religion. Nobody is sure about its hold on the self, and whether proclaiming the simple unacceptability of vandalism as a way of protest — against Mr Husain’s nude Saraswati or anything else — would mean a loss of votes. Superstition can be of many kinds.
This sign of an inadequately developed attitude to the relationship between religion and a society of many faiths is most obvious in the lukewarm response of the Indian government to the news of Qatar’s offer of citizenship to Mr Husain. He can come home if he wants to, runs the signature tune, the government can give him security but no guarantees. This disinterest, now and for years earlier, may be, of course, an expression of the very mature realization that all art is universal and the true artist has no home. All the world is his home, but perhaps not India.
February 25, 2010
2006 Letter to the President of India on M.F. Husain (SAHMAT)
In the light of the news report in The Hindu today, that MF Husain has been offered honorary citizenship of QATAR, we re-issue the letter sent to President Kalam in 2006. We never received an acknowledgement or any response to this communication. It is a sad day for our democracy when an artist of the stature of Husain might change his citizenship. The letter speaks for itself.
Ram Rahman, SAHMAT, Feb 25, 2010
SAHMAT
15 November 2006
Letter to the President of India on M.F. Husain
We, the undersigned, write to you to suggest that the arts and the nation would be made proud if the contribution of the distinguished artist, Maqbool Fida Husain, is recognized in the form of the highest award of the land: India’s Bharat Ratna.
M.F. Husain has received national and international recognition in abundance; it remains for him to join the constellation of Bharat Ratna awardees – Satyajit Ray, M.S. Subbalakshmi, Ravi Shankar, Bismillah Khan, Lata Mangeshkar – to become one the most treasured artists of this country. A large number of artists, art historians and critics, as well as spectators in the general public, believe that M.F. Husain, the 91-year-old painter and filmmaker, most fully belongs in this constellation.
The Indian civilization, in all its diversity, has been Husain’s basic inspirational project. Since the year of Independence, through the Nehruvian decades and thereon, cognizant of all the challenges involved in nation-building, Husain has been steadfast in maintaining a most affirmative relationship with the Indian people’s consciousness of their national identity. Through him, we have learned to address a whole gamut of issues pertaining to the interactive dynamic of modernity with the country’s many-layered art and culture.
We believe that he has made a signal contribution in reworking the aesthetic traditions of India including especially the tradition of iconographic innovation. He is among those few modern artists who have focused on mythological and epic narratives, and, for over half a century, he has painted themes from the epics in literally thousands of paintings and drawings. This alone speaks of his passion for these narratives and, further, of his understanding that their literary, performing and visual form has changed through the centuries, and therefore carries the mandate for new articulations within the contemporary.
Equally important, these series of Husain paintings have been shown in urban and rural sites through unique modes of public dissemination. And it speaks of the generous comprehension of this project by viewers all over India, viewers who cut across barriers of class and culture, that they have been received with the affectionate regard and playful participation they require.
Posterity will certainly name Husain as one of the most prominent post-Indpendence artists to shape the contemporary in the spirit of a living and changing tradition. More than any other modern artist in India, he has understood how a syncretic civilization and the dynamics of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation have together prompted these interpretations and empowered the community of artists to evolve a uniquely modern language consistent with the complexity of these civilizational narratives.
Indeed, Husain is such an iconic figure that we could use the very iconography of Maqbool Fida Husain, of the person himself, to forward ideas about Indian visual culture in the framework of a dynamic public sphere. Already, his life and work are beginning to serve as an allegory for the changing modalities of the secular in modern India – and the challenges that the narrative of the nation holds for many of us. This is the opportune, and crucial, time to honour him for his dedication and courage to the cultural renaissance of his beloved country.
Signed by:
Vivan Sundaram, Ashok Vajpeyi, Gulammohammed Sheikh, Krishen Khanna, Ram Rahman, M.K. Raina, Geeta Kapur, Arpita Singh, A. Ramachandaran, Aditi De, Akbar Padamsee, Alaknanda Patel, Amit Judge, Amiya Bagchi, Aneesh Pradhan, Anil Chandra, Anuradha
Kapur, Arun Vadhera, Ashutosh Gowarikar, Astad Deboo, Atul Bhalla, Atul Tiwari, Aziz Mirza, Bal Chabda, Balkrishan Doshi, Bharati Kher, Bhaskar Chandavarkar, C.P. Chandrasekhar, D.N. Jha, Dadi Pudumjee, Dadiba Pundole, Dolly Narang, E. Alkazi, Gayatri Sinha, Geeta Mehra, Gitanjali Shree, Indira Chandrasekhar, Indra Pramit Roy, Irfan Habib, Javeed Alam, Jayati Ghosh, Jitish Kallat, Jogen Chowdhury, Jyotindra Jain, K. Bikram Singh, K.G. Subramanyan, K.T. Ravindran, Kedar Nath Singh, Kekoo Gandhy, Khorsheed Gandhy, Krishen Baldev Vaid, Kumar Shahani, Kundan Shah, Laxma Gaud, Madangopal Singh, Madhu Prasad, Madhukar Upadhyaya, Malini Bhattacharya, Mani Kaul, Maya Rao, Mira Nair, Mihir Bhattacharya, Mrinalini Mukherjee, Muzaffar Ali, Nadira Babbar, Nagji Patel, Nalini Malani, Namwar Singh, Navjot Altaf, Neelam Man Singh, Nilima Sheikh, Paramjit Singh, Paritosh Sen, Parthiv Shah, Prabhat Patnaik, Prasanna, Pushpamala N., Rafeeq Elias, Raj Babbar, Raj Rewal, Rajeev Bhargava, Rajendra Yadav, Rajinder Arora, Rajiv Sethi, Ram Kumar, Ramgopal Bajaj, Ranbir Kaleka, Reene Saini Kallat, Renu Modi, Saeed Mirza, Sangita Jindal, Sashi Kumar, Sasidharan Nair M., Shashi Tharoor, Sheba Chhachhi, Shireen Gandhi, Shireen Moosvi, Shubha Mudgal, Shyam Benegal, Sohail Hashmi, Subodh Gupta, Sudhir Chandra, Sudhir Mishra, Sudhir Patwardhan, Sukumar Muralidharan, Suresh B.V., Teesta Setalvad, Tyeb Mehta, U.R. Ananthamurthy, Veer Munshi, Vidya Shah, Vijay Bagodi, Virendra Saini, Zarina Hashmi
Ram Rahman, SAHMAT, Feb 25, 2010
SAHMAT
15 November 2006
Letter to the President of India on M.F. Husain
We, the undersigned, write to you to suggest that the arts and the nation would be made proud if the contribution of the distinguished artist, Maqbool Fida Husain, is recognized in the form of the highest award of the land: India’s Bharat Ratna.
M.F. Husain has received national and international recognition in abundance; it remains for him to join the constellation of Bharat Ratna awardees – Satyajit Ray, M.S. Subbalakshmi, Ravi Shankar, Bismillah Khan, Lata Mangeshkar – to become one the most treasured artists of this country. A large number of artists, art historians and critics, as well as spectators in the general public, believe that M.F. Husain, the 91-year-old painter and filmmaker, most fully belongs in this constellation.
The Indian civilization, in all its diversity, has been Husain’s basic inspirational project. Since the year of Independence, through the Nehruvian decades and thereon, cognizant of all the challenges involved in nation-building, Husain has been steadfast in maintaining a most affirmative relationship with the Indian people’s consciousness of their national identity. Through him, we have learned to address a whole gamut of issues pertaining to the interactive dynamic of modernity with the country’s many-layered art and culture.
We believe that he has made a signal contribution in reworking the aesthetic traditions of India including especially the tradition of iconographic innovation. He is among those few modern artists who have focused on mythological and epic narratives, and, for over half a century, he has painted themes from the epics in literally thousands of paintings and drawings. This alone speaks of his passion for these narratives and, further, of his understanding that their literary, performing and visual form has changed through the centuries, and therefore carries the mandate for new articulations within the contemporary.
Equally important, these series of Husain paintings have been shown in urban and rural sites through unique modes of public dissemination. And it speaks of the generous comprehension of this project by viewers all over India, viewers who cut across barriers of class and culture, that they have been received with the affectionate regard and playful participation they require.
Posterity will certainly name Husain as one of the most prominent post-Indpendence artists to shape the contemporary in the spirit of a living and changing tradition. More than any other modern artist in India, he has understood how a syncretic civilization and the dynamics of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation have together prompted these interpretations and empowered the community of artists to evolve a uniquely modern language consistent with the complexity of these civilizational narratives.
Indeed, Husain is such an iconic figure that we could use the very iconography of Maqbool Fida Husain, of the person himself, to forward ideas about Indian visual culture in the framework of a dynamic public sphere. Already, his life and work are beginning to serve as an allegory for the changing modalities of the secular in modern India – and the challenges that the narrative of the nation holds for many of us. This is the opportune, and crucial, time to honour him for his dedication and courage to the cultural renaissance of his beloved country.
Signed by:
Vivan Sundaram, Ashok Vajpeyi, Gulammohammed Sheikh, Krishen Khanna, Ram Rahman, M.K. Raina, Geeta Kapur, Arpita Singh, A. Ramachandaran, Aditi De, Akbar Padamsee, Alaknanda Patel, Amit Judge, Amiya Bagchi, Aneesh Pradhan, Anil Chandra, Anuradha
Kapur, Arun Vadhera, Ashutosh Gowarikar, Astad Deboo, Atul Bhalla, Atul Tiwari, Aziz Mirza, Bal Chabda, Balkrishan Doshi, Bharati Kher, Bhaskar Chandavarkar, C.P. Chandrasekhar, D.N. Jha, Dadi Pudumjee, Dadiba Pundole, Dolly Narang, E. Alkazi, Gayatri Sinha, Geeta Mehra, Gitanjali Shree, Indira Chandrasekhar, Indra Pramit Roy, Irfan Habib, Javeed Alam, Jayati Ghosh, Jitish Kallat, Jogen Chowdhury, Jyotindra Jain, K. Bikram Singh, K.G. Subramanyan, K.T. Ravindran, Kedar Nath Singh, Kekoo Gandhy, Khorsheed Gandhy, Krishen Baldev Vaid, Kumar Shahani, Kundan Shah, Laxma Gaud, Madangopal Singh, Madhu Prasad, Madhukar Upadhyaya, Malini Bhattacharya, Mani Kaul, Maya Rao, Mira Nair, Mihir Bhattacharya, Mrinalini Mukherjee, Muzaffar Ali, Nadira Babbar, Nagji Patel, Nalini Malani, Namwar Singh, Navjot Altaf, Neelam Man Singh, Nilima Sheikh, Paramjit Singh, Paritosh Sen, Parthiv Shah, Prabhat Patnaik, Prasanna, Pushpamala N., Rafeeq Elias, Raj Babbar, Raj Rewal, Rajeev Bhargava, Rajendra Yadav, Rajinder Arora, Rajiv Sethi, Ram Kumar, Ramgopal Bajaj, Ranbir Kaleka, Reene Saini Kallat, Renu Modi, Saeed Mirza, Sangita Jindal, Sashi Kumar, Sasidharan Nair M., Shashi Tharoor, Sheba Chhachhi, Shireen Gandhi, Shireen Moosvi, Shubha Mudgal, Shyam Benegal, Sohail Hashmi, Subodh Gupta, Sudhir Chandra, Sudhir Mishra, Sudhir Patwardhan, Sukumar Muralidharan, Suresh B.V., Teesta Setalvad, Tyeb Mehta, U.R. Ananthamurthy, Veer Munshi, Vidya Shah, Vijay Bagodi, Virendra Saini, Zarina Hashmi
January 10, 2010
MF Hussain purged from Himachal Textbook
Hindustan Times
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=08_01_2010_001_015&mode=1
November 02, 2009
India's Leading Artist MF Hussain Needs Protection from Unrelenting fanatics
Mail Today
November 2, 2009
End Husain’s agony now
The artist has sincerely apologised and removed all paintings in his control from view
MAQBOOL Fida Husain, an art icon, has become a political toy.
The Congress led Union Government has flashed support for his return to India. On 29 October 2009, it declared that it would approach the Supreme Court for a quick disposal of his cases. On 30 October 2009, he was assured ‘ Z’ security. This is clearly a change of heart. In May 2006, Mr. Patil, the Congress Home Minister, issued an advisory to the Police Commissioners of Delhi and Mumbai that “ there are grounds to believe that certain paintings of painter M. F. Husain hurt the religious sentiments of the majority community, and, therefore might be a provocation for communal disturbance”. In other words: “ Prosecute Husain. Criminalise his art as hate speech”. Karan Thapar reminded us of an old earlier interview where Congress spokesperson, Jayanthi Natrajan responded on the need for protecting Husain by saying, “ I don’t think it’s the highest thing on our list of priorities at the moment given the act of terror against our country ( and) given ( the) particular situation we find ourselves ( in).
It’s simply not the job of the government in my view.”
Harassment
After all this, the government now wants to protect Husain and expedite his trials.
The hype apart, the offer is a limited offer: the process of criminalisation of his work will continue. He should give up his freedom in exile, give effect to his sentiment to return to India and virtually become a prisoner under home arrest with ‘ Z security’. Husain pithily remarked that the government has not been able to protect his paintings, leave alone himself.
These new proposals are minimalist. They offer little by way of ‘ law’ and an alluring feeler to civil libertarians, secularists and Muslims that the Union Government is prepared to go an inch or two forward.
This controversy started thirteen years ago in 1996.
In September 1996, Mr. V. S. Vajpayee called Husain a ‘ butcher’ for allegedly painting Hindu goddesses in the nude. No real protection emerged when the Herwitz Gallery was attacked in 1996 and 2004.
Husain’s South Mumbai home was invaded in May 1998. These sites remain unprotected. Mr. Ashok Pandey offered UP Minister Qureshi Rs. 100 crores to kill Husain and in February 2006, Jashubhai Patel from Gujarat offered 1 kg of gold for gouging Husain’s eyes and cutting his hands off. Around the same time the Congress Minority Cell of Madhya Pradesh offered 11 lakhs to any patriot who would chop off Husain’s hands for hurting Hindu sentiments.
What did the Union Government and State Governments do about these criminal exhortations to maim and kill Husain? An official party protest? None. Legal action? None.
Instead eight complaints were filed against Husain all over India. In turn, in April 2006 warrants were issued in Surat and proceedings going on in Rajkot were temporarily injuncted by the Supreme Court allowing Husain to appear through a counsel to apologise. Had this dispensation not been granted, Husain would have been assaulted, possibly killed. Husain’s humiliation continued. Eventually on December 2006, all cases were transferred to Delhi. In August 2008 his paintings were not displayed at an art summit even though the government had taken a mildly positive stance that his paintings should be displayed.
When Minister Ambika Soni inaugurated this summit on 22 August 2008, the Husain issue was put on the back burner. On 2 March 2009 Himachal removed a chapter on Husain’s life from an NCERT book on the basis that this would not “ inspire students”. In fact, if anything, Husain’s ascent from the footpath to India’s greatest artist status is nothing if not inspiring.
The point is that even protest by political parties was minimal even nonexistent.
Meanwhile the legal processes churned on. We know that on 4 December 2006 complaint cases were transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court. Then, on 8 May 2008 came a remarkable decision by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul which dismissed the case against Husain after balancing protecting art and free speech against the allegations of obscenity, and communalism under the Indian Penal Code.
This is one of the most significant decisions on artistic free speech for a long time. Clearly, the rest should follow suit. Now, the government wants to expedite the cases. Surely this should have been done a long time ago. There is a difference between the “ law” and the “ use and abuse” of the law.
Law
Unfortunately, our law is complainant based. In both civil and criminal law the ground of “ vexatious and frivolous” litigation has been narrowly construed to surrender to the view that even if a worthless case has something in it, the trial will go on. The concept of malevolent litigation is limited. The ‘ abusers’ of the law and legal processes have the upper hand. Perhaps, heavy costs in such cases to meet actual expenses and for violation of fundamental rights might deter such ‘ abusers’ of the law.
But judges, imbued by their own biases and predilections are mild except in dealing with contempt law in judges’ defence.
Equally significantly, India’s substantive law on hate speech ( whether antifeminist, obscene, racist, anti- dalit or tribal or communal) is drifting from a strictly applied concept of “ hate” and what is “ objectionable” to a more lax approach of “ hurting sentiments and sensitivities”. This further strays into virtually forbidding what others do not like. Many people may not like something. They may misconstrue motives. They may politically invent sensitivities to gather support and votes. These are realities of ‘ hate’ speech litigation which is usually inspired by hate. The Husain litigation is an example of this — nothing more, nothing less.
Into all this, we have to bring in the concept of apology.
Nelson Mandela saved South Africa by his policy of truth, reconciliation and apology. In Indian law there is little scope for apology at pre- litigation and trial stages. Some minor criminal cases are compoundable.
Even “ hate litigation” has no scope for “ reconciliation” and “ mercy”. I say this because Husain has genuinely apologised to the point of removing all paintings within his control from public view. That a Muslim is prevented from painting Hindu gods and goddesses in forms in which they have been depicted for centuries is tragic. But he has apologised.
Apology
What weight do we give to this genuine apology? One complainant in the Supreme Court agreed to withdraw his complaint because of the apology.
Why cannot the others do the same? If they do not, it is because they are diehard fundamentalists committed to being unreasonable.
These ‘ die- hards’ are vulnerable to pressure — not just from secularists ( whom they ignore) but from the BJP which should bring peace by publicly declaring that Husain’s apology be accepted.
Many are not happy with Husain being driven to an apology. But Husain has apologised. What we need is a campaign: “ Accept Husain’s apology”. As far as legal processes are concerned the High Court’s jurisdiction should be invoked. Justice Kaul has already given a landmark judgment. The High Court should be urged to decide expeditiously. This litigation has to be brought to an end.
Unrelenting fanatics can only be kept at bay by providing security for Husain.
In the meanwhile, a 1969 painting of Husain was sold at Christie’s, London for Rs. 3.1 crores. But commercial justice cannot be a substitute for a real remedy.
The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer
November 2, 2009
End Husain’s agony now
The artist has sincerely apologised and removed all paintings in his control from view
MAQBOOL Fida Husain, an art icon, has become a political toy.
The Congress led Union Government has flashed support for his return to India. On 29 October 2009, it declared that it would approach the Supreme Court for a quick disposal of his cases. On 30 October 2009, he was assured ‘ Z’ security. This is clearly a change of heart. In May 2006, Mr. Patil, the Congress Home Minister, issued an advisory to the Police Commissioners of Delhi and Mumbai that “ there are grounds to believe that certain paintings of painter M. F. Husain hurt the religious sentiments of the majority community, and, therefore might be a provocation for communal disturbance”. In other words: “ Prosecute Husain. Criminalise his art as hate speech”. Karan Thapar reminded us of an old earlier interview where Congress spokesperson, Jayanthi Natrajan responded on the need for protecting Husain by saying, “ I don’t think it’s the highest thing on our list of priorities at the moment given the act of terror against our country ( and) given ( the) particular situation we find ourselves ( in).
It’s simply not the job of the government in my view.”
Harassment
After all this, the government now wants to protect Husain and expedite his trials.
The hype apart, the offer is a limited offer: the process of criminalisation of his work will continue. He should give up his freedom in exile, give effect to his sentiment to return to India and virtually become a prisoner under home arrest with ‘ Z security’. Husain pithily remarked that the government has not been able to protect his paintings, leave alone himself.
These new proposals are minimalist. They offer little by way of ‘ law’ and an alluring feeler to civil libertarians, secularists and Muslims that the Union Government is prepared to go an inch or two forward.
This controversy started thirteen years ago in 1996.
In September 1996, Mr. V. S. Vajpayee called Husain a ‘ butcher’ for allegedly painting Hindu goddesses in the nude. No real protection emerged when the Herwitz Gallery was attacked in 1996 and 2004.
Husain’s South Mumbai home was invaded in May 1998. These sites remain unprotected. Mr. Ashok Pandey offered UP Minister Qureshi Rs. 100 crores to kill Husain and in February 2006, Jashubhai Patel from Gujarat offered 1 kg of gold for gouging Husain’s eyes and cutting his hands off. Around the same time the Congress Minority Cell of Madhya Pradesh offered 11 lakhs to any patriot who would chop off Husain’s hands for hurting Hindu sentiments.
What did the Union Government and State Governments do about these criminal exhortations to maim and kill Husain? An official party protest? None. Legal action? None.
Instead eight complaints were filed against Husain all over India. In turn, in April 2006 warrants were issued in Surat and proceedings going on in Rajkot were temporarily injuncted by the Supreme Court allowing Husain to appear through a counsel to apologise. Had this dispensation not been granted, Husain would have been assaulted, possibly killed. Husain’s humiliation continued. Eventually on December 2006, all cases were transferred to Delhi. In August 2008 his paintings were not displayed at an art summit even though the government had taken a mildly positive stance that his paintings should be displayed.
When Minister Ambika Soni inaugurated this summit on 22 August 2008, the Husain issue was put on the back burner. On 2 March 2009 Himachal removed a chapter on Husain’s life from an NCERT book on the basis that this would not “ inspire students”. In fact, if anything, Husain’s ascent from the footpath to India’s greatest artist status is nothing if not inspiring.
The point is that even protest by political parties was minimal even nonexistent.
Meanwhile the legal processes churned on. We know that on 4 December 2006 complaint cases were transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court. Then, on 8 May 2008 came a remarkable decision by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul which dismissed the case against Husain after balancing protecting art and free speech against the allegations of obscenity, and communalism under the Indian Penal Code.
This is one of the most significant decisions on artistic free speech for a long time. Clearly, the rest should follow suit. Now, the government wants to expedite the cases. Surely this should have been done a long time ago. There is a difference between the “ law” and the “ use and abuse” of the law.
Law
Unfortunately, our law is complainant based. In both civil and criminal law the ground of “ vexatious and frivolous” litigation has been narrowly construed to surrender to the view that even if a worthless case has something in it, the trial will go on. The concept of malevolent litigation is limited. The ‘ abusers’ of the law and legal processes have the upper hand. Perhaps, heavy costs in such cases to meet actual expenses and for violation of fundamental rights might deter such ‘ abusers’ of the law.
But judges, imbued by their own biases and predilections are mild except in dealing with contempt law in judges’ defence.
Equally significantly, India’s substantive law on hate speech ( whether antifeminist, obscene, racist, anti- dalit or tribal or communal) is drifting from a strictly applied concept of “ hate” and what is “ objectionable” to a more lax approach of “ hurting sentiments and sensitivities”. This further strays into virtually forbidding what others do not like. Many people may not like something. They may misconstrue motives. They may politically invent sensitivities to gather support and votes. These are realities of ‘ hate’ speech litigation which is usually inspired by hate. The Husain litigation is an example of this — nothing more, nothing less.
Into all this, we have to bring in the concept of apology.
Nelson Mandela saved South Africa by his policy of truth, reconciliation and apology. In Indian law there is little scope for apology at pre- litigation and trial stages. Some minor criminal cases are compoundable.
Even “ hate litigation” has no scope for “ reconciliation” and “ mercy”. I say this because Husain has genuinely apologised to the point of removing all paintings within his control from public view. That a Muslim is prevented from painting Hindu gods and goddesses in forms in which they have been depicted for centuries is tragic. But he has apologised.
Apology
What weight do we give to this genuine apology? One complainant in the Supreme Court agreed to withdraw his complaint because of the apology.
Why cannot the others do the same? If they do not, it is because they are diehard fundamentalists committed to being unreasonable.
These ‘ die- hards’ are vulnerable to pressure — not just from secularists ( whom they ignore) but from the BJP which should bring peace by publicly declaring that Husain’s apology be accepted.
Many are not happy with Husain being driven to an apology. But Husain has apologised. What we need is a campaign: “ Accept Husain’s apology”. As far as legal processes are concerned the High Court’s jurisdiction should be invoked. Justice Kaul has already given a landmark judgment. The High Court should be urged to decide expeditiously. This litigation has to be brought to an end.
Unrelenting fanatics can only be kept at bay by providing security for Husain.
In the meanwhile, a 1969 painting of Husain was sold at Christie’s, London for Rs. 3.1 crores. But commercial justice cannot be a substitute for a real remedy.
The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer
October 04, 2009
What steps has Indian govt taken to enable MF Husain to return home?
Hindustan Times
October 04, 2009
Silly spokespersons
Karan Thapar
October 04, 2009
I wonder how often our politicians think before they speak? I’m not talking of their long and tiresome speeches or the crafty answers they offer in formal interviews. I assume those must be thought out. Although when they’re not, it’s painfully obvious — it just cannot be hidden.
No, I’m referring to the ceaseless small comments they make on a vast assortment of subjects, which the rest of us accept as oracular pronouncements and television calls sound bytes. And, before I proceed further, let me add that television both entices and encourages them, as well as provides an easy and always available platform.
Not so long ago, on the occasion of M.F. Husain’s 94th birthday, a Congress spokesperson was asked what the government was doing about protecting the artist against the many ‘Hindutva’ threats he faces that have forced him to live in exile. This was the reply:
“I don’t think it’s the highest thing on our list of priorities at the moment given the act of terror against our country (and) given (the) particular situation we find ourselves (in). It’s simply not the job of the government in my view.”
When I heard that delivered on the nine o’clock news I almost fell out of my chair. I was dumbfounded. Why? Because, I can’t think of a more disastrous answer. It’s not only insensitive and callous, it’s ignorant of the duty of government and it fails to realise that what Husain faces is also a form of terror. To put it in a nutshell, it’s downright wrong.
I’d say the first duty of government is to protect the life and property of each citizen. From Plato to Hobbes and down to Dworkin — and let’s not forget our own Chanakya — there’s not a political philosopher who has thought differently. So when the Congress spokesperson pronounces “it’s simply not the job of the government”, it’s a strange, if not ludicrous, thing to say. And if this is what the government actually believes then, pray, what are its duties? And to whom devolves the task of protecting the citizenry? Or are we to protect ourselves and “sarkar jaye bhaad mein”?
But that’s not all. If you look carefully at that answer it also contains a bizarre interpretation of terror. The victimisation of M.F. Husain, the spokesperson suggests, is not part of this subject. But what then would you call the carefully planned vandalisation of his paintings, the attacks on his home, the public burning of his effigies and the orchestrated pressure on museums and galleries not to exhibit his work? Terror by another name is still terror. Indeed, even the deliberate attempt to ensnare him in a web of court cases is a form of terror.
However, beyond the foolishness of the answer, I’m also perplexed by the attitude to M.F. Husain that I suspect lies behind it. Politicians usually don’t wash their hands of people who need help. Even more so when they are members of a minority community and the politician is a Congress person. So why, then, was this spokesperson willing to appear insensitive and callous when it comes to protecting M.F. Husain? I’d really like to know.
Finally, the question I want to ask the Prime Minister and Mrs Gandhi is simple and direct: during the five years you’ve been in power what steps have you taken to enable Husain to return home with confidence?
I eagerly await their answer.
October 04, 2009
Silly spokespersons
Karan Thapar
October 04, 2009
I wonder how often our politicians think before they speak? I’m not talking of their long and tiresome speeches or the crafty answers they offer in formal interviews. I assume those must be thought out. Although when they’re not, it’s painfully obvious — it just cannot be hidden.
No, I’m referring to the ceaseless small comments they make on a vast assortment of subjects, which the rest of us accept as oracular pronouncements and television calls sound bytes. And, before I proceed further, let me add that television both entices and encourages them, as well as provides an easy and always available platform.
Not so long ago, on the occasion of M.F. Husain’s 94th birthday, a Congress spokesperson was asked what the government was doing about protecting the artist against the many ‘Hindutva’ threats he faces that have forced him to live in exile. This was the reply:
“I don’t think it’s the highest thing on our list of priorities at the moment given the act of terror against our country (and) given (the) particular situation we find ourselves (in). It’s simply not the job of the government in my view.”
When I heard that delivered on the nine o’clock news I almost fell out of my chair. I was dumbfounded. Why? Because, I can’t think of a more disastrous answer. It’s not only insensitive and callous, it’s ignorant of the duty of government and it fails to realise that what Husain faces is also a form of terror. To put it in a nutshell, it’s downright wrong.
I’d say the first duty of government is to protect the life and property of each citizen. From Plato to Hobbes and down to Dworkin — and let’s not forget our own Chanakya — there’s not a political philosopher who has thought differently. So when the Congress spokesperson pronounces “it’s simply not the job of the government”, it’s a strange, if not ludicrous, thing to say. And if this is what the government actually believes then, pray, what are its duties? And to whom devolves the task of protecting the citizenry? Or are we to protect ourselves and “sarkar jaye bhaad mein”?
But that’s not all. If you look carefully at that answer it also contains a bizarre interpretation of terror. The victimisation of M.F. Husain, the spokesperson suggests, is not part of this subject. But what then would you call the carefully planned vandalisation of his paintings, the attacks on his home, the public burning of his effigies and the orchestrated pressure on museums and galleries not to exhibit his work? Terror by another name is still terror. Indeed, even the deliberate attempt to ensnare him in a web of court cases is a form of terror.
However, beyond the foolishness of the answer, I’m also perplexed by the attitude to M.F. Husain that I suspect lies behind it. Politicians usually don’t wash their hands of people who need help. Even more so when they are members of a minority community and the politician is a Congress person. So why, then, was this spokesperson willing to appear insensitive and callous when it comes to protecting M.F. Husain? I’d really like to know.
Finally, the question I want to ask the Prime Minister and Mrs Gandhi is simple and direct: during the five years you’ve been in power what steps have you taken to enable Husain to return home with confidence?
I eagerly await their answer.
September 19, 2009
MF Hussain at 94 still in Exile: Artists in India Need Protection (CNN-IBN TV report)
Video 1
URLs to other parts of the above programme are:
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4
Video 5
Video 6
__________
URLs to other parts of the above programme are:
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4
Video 5
Video 6
__________
Artist MF Husain, who has been living in self exile for the past 13 years due to threats from Hindu fundamentalists for his works, turned 94 on Thursday. But the doyen of modern Indian art still cannot come back to his homeland because of the threat to his life.
The Government has so far done nothing to bring back the artist.
CNN-IBN show Face the Nation debated: MF Husain turns 94 – should the Government bring Husain home?
On the panel of experts to debate the issue were MF Husain's counsel Akhil Sibal, MP and Congress Spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan, artist Anjolie Ela Menon, and BJP member Sheshadri Chari.
Is the future for artists and the democratic expression of freedom bleak in India?
Noted artist Anjolie Ela Menon began the debate by saying, "I don’t think so because we have protested every time there is this self-appointed moral police. I remember when the incident took place I was in a television interview which had a large audience and I asked some 200 people that which of them had seen his painting. And not one hand went up. So what were they offended by? The propaganda by the VHP and Bajrang Dal?"
Not agreeing with Menon, BJP member Sheshadri Chari said, "It is not the question of propaganda. We all wish him well and many more years of painting. He is out of India on a self-imposed exile. There is nothing that the Government of India or BJP or RSS can do."
However, VHP and Bajrang Dal have reportedly said that Husain "has vilified our objects of worship"
To which Chari said, "Forget what the VHP and Bajrang Dal have said. What is the general perception? The perception is that he has painted certain Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude. So now it is for MF Husain to come and explain it. When he was asked why did he paint Hitler in the nude he had said those whom he hates and those whom he wants to humiliate he paints them in the nude. This is what he had said in an interview which was even publicised."
When an artist paints a God or Goddess in the nude does it convey disrespect or humiliation?
"Of course not. If you look back in the history of Indian art it was Ravi Varma who started dressing Gods in clothes of his own times. But there were times which preceded the advent of cloth," Menon explained.
So then why doesn’t the Government give police protection to Husain? When he wanted to come for the India Art Summit, the Government reportedly did not do anything.
"I don’t speak for the Government. I am not aware what the Maharashtra government has done. But as far as my party is concerned we are of the view that if Mr Husain would like to come back to the country of his birth then he should certainly do so. And if there is any threat to his life then the Government will provide him with protection," Congress Spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan said.
But the Government didn’t do that. During the recently-held India Art Summit the organisers went from pillar to post within the Home Ministry trying for police protection so that they could get Husain for the summit. But it is believed that protection was never given.
"As far as I am aware any citizen who is entitled for protection can ask for it," Natarajan said.
Regarding the Home Ministry taking up the issue, Natarajan said, "I don’t think it is the highest on our list of priorities at the moment given the acts of terror against the country. We have considerable respect for Mr Husain’s artistic oeuvre, as you put it. He has put contemporary Indian art on the world map. But it is simply not the job of the Government in my view."
Politicians vs the society
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the obscenity case. The court also said that nudity is part of contemporary art and plays a significant role in India’s cultural heritage.
In the light of this judgment why doesn’t Husain come back and face the charges?
To which Husain's counsel Akhil Sibal said, "I want to clarify that he is facing the charges. He represented in court, he filed a petition saying these cases are frivolous and legally unstable and he succeeded. So he is not running away. There is no legal impediment preventing him from returning. The more important question is not whether the Government should bring him back but whether the society should bring him back. There is a fringe element which has a very shrill voice but they are not representative of the majority."
"What Ms Natarajan said is absolutely shocking. This gives out a very strong message," Sibal added.
Strongly disagreeing with Sibal’s charges, Natarajan said, "No, my words have been taken out of context. I said terrorism is high on the Government’s priority and not an art summit. I did not say that the Government will not provide protection."
"I am sorry to say but even the clarification is shocking," said Sibal.
"You have to be careful about the messaging that you are sending out. What you said cannot be the view of the Government surely and if it is then that’s absolutely shocking," he added.
Freedom of expression
There has been a tradition of nudity and cultural expression in our heritage. Then how can the Hindu groups call Husain’s paintings an insult to Indian heritage?
"I wouldn’t say it is just a Hindu group. I would go back to an interview of Husain which was conducted by a very senior journalist. He was asked why did he paint Hindu Gods in the nude. Husain had replied saying ‘nudity is a metaphor for purity and strength.’ Then the next question that was asked was that would he paint all women characters like Mother Teresa and Fatima also in the nude? Husain had then said that he doesn’t want to answer that question," Chari said.
Unperturbed by the argument, Menon said, "Husain is today 94 and we really don’t care whether he is on this soil or not. We all go to meet him and I have had a nice ride in his red Ferrari. The world has shrunk so it doesn’t really matter whether he is here or there. If you think he is unhappy then you all are sadly mistaken. Husain is a true karmayogi. His life and his religion is his work. I think everyone is just whipping up an old dead controversy. As long as he is able to work it doesn’t matter where he is."
"The entire thing against Husain was politically motivated because some of his paintings were very old. They were taken out and made into a pamphlet by DP Sinha and party. It was done just to whip up sentiments amongst people who had never even seen his paintings," Menon added.
However, the panelists agreed that the issue here is that it is the artists’ freedom that needs to be protected.
Taking about the root of the controversy Chari said, "His painting of Bharat Mata was put up for sale and was going to be inaugurated by then Governor of Maharashtra SM Krishna. But he had then refused to go when he heard that it was a nude painting of Bharat Mata. So it was not about Bajrang Dal or VHP."
Sibal concluded the debate by saying, "This is completely misconceived argument for the simple reason that Hindu art has a tradition of eroticism mixed with religion and that is exactly what the High Court has also said."
August 13, 2009
It’s showtime for secularism
Herald, Panjim, 13 Aug 2009
Editorial
The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) is back to its usual tricks. It has once more targeted its favourite whipping boy, noted painter M F Husain. HJS convenor Jayesh Thali on Tuesday demanded that M F Husain’s painting titled ‘Standing Buddha’, on display at the state museum, should be removed.
Herald carried a photograph of the oil painting in its yesterday’s edition. It shows a white bull against a vividly coloured backdrop. There is nothing even remotely objectionable about the painting. Jayesh Thali admits this. He said that he had no basic objection to this particular painting.
But, he says, his outfit is determined to prevent Husain’s art from being displayed publicly throughout India. He has threatened that the HJS would be “forced to agitate” if the painting was not removed from public display
Goa Museum Director Radha Bhave refused to take any decision, and said that she will meet ‘higher officials’ first. So now Chief Minister Digambar Kamat – who holds the portfolio of Art and Culture and is therefore the ‘highest’ official – must decide whether he will order the removal of an admittedly unobjectionable painting and allow a Hindu fundamentalist organisation to openly pursue an admittedly political agenda, or whether he will stand up for the rule of law and the avowedly secular policy of his government and party.
Mr Thali says that M F Husain has hurt the religious feelings and national sentiments of millions of Hindus and Indians earlier, and that his paintings of Hindu deities and ‘Bharat Mata’ in the nude were thoroughly obscene and in bad taste. Over 1,600 criminal cases were filed all over India against Husain for ‘obscenity’ and ‘hurting religious sentiments’. Hundreds of them were filed in Goa, mainly by HJS and Sanatan Sanstha activists.
The Supreme Court asked the Delhi High Court to hear them. There were three main grounds for the complaints against Husain: ‘Obscenity’ (Sec 292 and 294), ‘causing offence to religious sensibilities’ (Sec 295 and 298), and ‘creating ill-will among communities on religious grounds’ (Sec 153), all under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 8 May 2008, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul delivered a reasoned judgment rejecting all three grounds and quashing all criminal charges against Husain. “There are many such pictures, paintings, and sculptures, and some of them are in temples also,” the Court said.
All the HJS allegations against Husain have already been examined and rejected by the Delhi High Court. Besides, M F Husain has himself long ago apologised in writing for any offence he may have unwittingly caused through his work. He has specifically clarified that the painting most vehemently objected to by the HJS and its ilk had never been titled by him as ‘Bharat Mata’.
It does seem that it is not Husain but the HJS that is ‘creating ill-will among communities on religious grounds’ by constantly bringing up non-issues like this that have long ago been settled, both by the courts and by the person in the centre of the storm. Especially so when they themselves admit that the painting they want removed is not objectionable.
The HJS complains that the Indian government was quick to ban Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and Hollywood film The da Vinci Code (not true), but takes Hindus for granted. They resent the amount of attention Muslims have commanded when they have been offended by images (like the Danish cartoon) that they consider blasphemous – a concept alien to Hinduism. What do they want really? That Hinduism should be more like Islam and Christianity? We are not at all sure that the majority of Hindus would agree with this.
But that is another issue. The point is that the Husain painting in the state museum is not objectionable – even the HJS says so. Therefore, it should under no circumstances be removed. The government of Goa is not here to advance the political agendas of fundamentalist organisations, no matter which religion’s cause they peddle. The museum should get the security it requires. Or, if it decides to succumb to the HJS’s irrational demand, the Digambar Kamat government should stop calling itself secular.
Editorial
The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) is back to its usual tricks. It has once more targeted its favourite whipping boy, noted painter M F Husain. HJS convenor Jayesh Thali on Tuesday demanded that M F Husain’s painting titled ‘Standing Buddha’, on display at the state museum, should be removed.
Herald carried a photograph of the oil painting in its yesterday’s edition. It shows a white bull against a vividly coloured backdrop. There is nothing even remotely objectionable about the painting. Jayesh Thali admits this. He said that he had no basic objection to this particular painting.
But, he says, his outfit is determined to prevent Husain’s art from being displayed publicly throughout India. He has threatened that the HJS would be “forced to agitate” if the painting was not removed from public display
Goa Museum Director Radha Bhave refused to take any decision, and said that she will meet ‘higher officials’ first. So now Chief Minister Digambar Kamat – who holds the portfolio of Art and Culture and is therefore the ‘highest’ official – must decide whether he will order the removal of an admittedly unobjectionable painting and allow a Hindu fundamentalist organisation to openly pursue an admittedly political agenda, or whether he will stand up for the rule of law and the avowedly secular policy of his government and party.
Mr Thali says that M F Husain has hurt the religious feelings and national sentiments of millions of Hindus and Indians earlier, and that his paintings of Hindu deities and ‘Bharat Mata’ in the nude were thoroughly obscene and in bad taste. Over 1,600 criminal cases were filed all over India against Husain for ‘obscenity’ and ‘hurting religious sentiments’. Hundreds of them were filed in Goa, mainly by HJS and Sanatan Sanstha activists.
The Supreme Court asked the Delhi High Court to hear them. There were three main grounds for the complaints against Husain: ‘Obscenity’ (Sec 292 and 294), ‘causing offence to religious sensibilities’ (Sec 295 and 298), and ‘creating ill-will among communities on religious grounds’ (Sec 153), all under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 8 May 2008, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul delivered a reasoned judgment rejecting all three grounds and quashing all criminal charges against Husain. “There are many such pictures, paintings, and sculptures, and some of them are in temples also,” the Court said.
All the HJS allegations against Husain have already been examined and rejected by the Delhi High Court. Besides, M F Husain has himself long ago apologised in writing for any offence he may have unwittingly caused through his work. He has specifically clarified that the painting most vehemently objected to by the HJS and its ilk had never been titled by him as ‘Bharat Mata’.
It does seem that it is not Husain but the HJS that is ‘creating ill-will among communities on religious grounds’ by constantly bringing up non-issues like this that have long ago been settled, both by the courts and by the person in the centre of the storm. Especially so when they themselves admit that the painting they want removed is not objectionable.
The HJS complains that the Indian government was quick to ban Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and Hollywood film The da Vinci Code (not true), but takes Hindus for granted. They resent the amount of attention Muslims have commanded when they have been offended by images (like the Danish cartoon) that they consider blasphemous – a concept alien to Hinduism. What do they want really? That Hinduism should be more like Islam and Christianity? We are not at all sure that the majority of Hindus would agree with this.
But that is another issue. The point is that the Husain painting in the state museum is not objectionable – even the HJS says so. Therefore, it should under no circumstances be removed. The government of Goa is not here to advance the political agendas of fundamentalist organisations, no matter which religion’s cause they peddle. The museum should get the security it requires. Or, if it decides to succumb to the HJS’s irrational demand, the Digambar Kamat government should stop calling itself secular.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
