06-08-2008, 07:45 PM
Media Watch - Organiser
Taking liberties with Hindu beliefs
How one wishes one could put the issue of M.F. Husainâs assault on artistic decency on the back-burner and go ahead with life when there are so many vital issues waiting to be dealt with! But our secular press will not allow it. It must defend Husain to the last. Not one English newspaper has so much as touched the core issue of Husainâs painting depicting Hindu goddesses inâto be low keyâdespicable light.
According to Goaâs Gomantak Times (May 12), the Delhi High Court âhas shown the way by dismissing the allegations of obscenity against Husain as âbaselessâ and stating that nudity in art is an integral part of Indian cultureâ. Gomantak Times also supports the remark of the one-man Bench that âa painter at 90 deserves to be at his home, painting on his canvasâ. Two points can be made in this connection. One, a painter at 90 (which Husain is) certainly deserves to be at his home. Two, nudity indeed is (more or less) an integral part of Indian culture. What is questioned isâand what our secular press refuses to faceâdepiction of Hindu goddesses, not just in the nude (which is enough in bad taste) but in total vulgarity. According to Prafull Goradia and K.R. Phanda, the former and M.P. and the latter, a retired Additional Economic Adviser in the Ministry of Finance, neither of whom can be described as members of âthe rabid fringe of the Hindutva Brigadeâ, Husainâs paintings are âthe ultimate in blasphemyâ. What did they depict? One painting âhas Sita masturbating on the tail of Hanumanâ. âAnother picture shows her sitting naked on the thigh of Ravana, while Hanuman is looking on.â âThen there is a bull copulating with Parvati in the presence of Shankar. Goddess Durga, with her name written in Devnagari by the painter is shown in union with her lionâ.
One wants to know from Gomantak Times whether it really believes such paintings are examples of great art. This columnist long ago pointed out that a certain industrial house had published a collection of such paintings in the form of a book. In their book Goradia and Phanda have identified the House and have even noted that the chief of the industrial house had even provided a preface to the art book published by it. One wonders whether the gentleman ever consulted the companyâs Board of Directors. An explanation must be sought from them. Why was the book withdrawn if the company felt that Husainâs art was legitimate? The right persons to pass judgment on Husainâs paintings should have been not a one-man Bench of the Delhi High Court, but an archbishop of the Catholic church, the head priest of the Parsi community and possibly a couple of leading imams from the Islamic community.
In their book, Profiles of Islam, Goradia and Phanda ask a legitimate question: âWhy has no government considered banning Husainâs book?â Why? We donât have an answer. We have a pathetic sense of understanding of secularism. Writing in Media Mimansa published by Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarika Vishwavidyalaya of Bhopal, Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge of Supreme Court of India and presently Chairman M.P. Human Rights Commission has an important point to make. According to him âif media indulges in showing obscenity, corrupting the society, depraving and misleading our young generation, reasonable restrictions under Clause (2) or (6) of Article 19 can, and should be imposed on itâ. In that same article, Justice Dharmadhikari notes that âhuman body of men and women are being regularly exposed as objects for advertisement, entertainment and recreationâ and âit is definitely corrupting our youth and causing serious harm to morals of our societyâ.
Would Gomantak Times dismiss Justice Dharmadhikari as belonging to âthe rabid fringe of the Hindutva Brigadeâ¦. which value neither art nor good tasteâ and âplay moral police and resort to brazen vandalismâ? What sort of values is Gomantak Times talking about? It says: âArtistic freedom is too precious an asset to be frittered awayâ. Gomantak Times of course is defending Husainâs right to denigrate Hindu goddesses which it is free to do so, but in saying that artistic freedom is too precious an asset to be frittered away, its editor probably does not realise that that is precisely what Husain had done. He has frittered away artistic freedom.
It is the fashion among many of our editors who know little about art and less about artistic evaluation (how many newspapers have columns judging theatre, dance, drama, music, art and culture?) to sound profound. Nobody would question Husain if he drew nudes. What Husain has done is to debase an entire religion. And that is one point which our secular editors refuse to acknowledge. Husain has indulged not just in obscenityâsomething that can be laughed awayâbut in insulting an entire religion. Is one to take it lightly? All of Islam rises in arms at a picture (more precisely a cartoon) depicting the Prophet. Islamic feeling has been rightly hurt. If just a cartoon of the Prophet can incense Muslims, surely âthe rabid fringe of the Hindutva Brigadeâ has a right to get angry at the depiction of Sita, Parvati and Durga in the most vulgar way? Defending Husainâs dirty work is no secularism.
It is defeatism, it is moral cowardice for which many secularists are rightly famous. Many Hindusâand not necessarily just the ârabid fringe of the Hindutva Brigadeâ âhave felt deeply hurt but they are scared to speak out their minds lest our sick secular editors dismiss them as fascists, communalists, hate-mongers bereft of âgood tasteâ, and similar abuse. What the one-man Bench of the Delhi High Court has said cannot possibly be the last word. Nobody in his right mind would question Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaulâs upholding the primacy of artistic freedom, but artistic freedom, too, has its limits and these Lakshman rekhas should never be crossed. Husain is welcome to return to Mumbai and back to his home. If he has any sense of right and wrong, he would apologise to Hindus for hurting their feelings, so that the matter is finally closed and normalcy returns. But one thing needs to be said, and said loudly: the worst enemies of Hindus that Hinduism are not non-Hindus, but our so-called secular Hindus. The more one kicks them, the more they would like to be kicked even harder. They are a disgrace of any society considering that they have no self-respect. What understanding of art can one expect of such people?
Taking liberties with Hindu beliefs
How one wishes one could put the issue of M.F. Husainâs assault on artistic decency on the back-burner and go ahead with life when there are so many vital issues waiting to be dealt with! But our secular press will not allow it. It must defend Husain to the last. Not one English newspaper has so much as touched the core issue of Husainâs painting depicting Hindu goddesses inâto be low keyâdespicable light.
According to Goaâs Gomantak Times (May 12), the Delhi High Court âhas shown the way by dismissing the allegations of obscenity against Husain as âbaselessâ and stating that nudity in art is an integral part of Indian cultureâ. Gomantak Times also supports the remark of the one-man Bench that âa painter at 90 deserves to be at his home, painting on his canvasâ. Two points can be made in this connection. One, a painter at 90 (which Husain is) certainly deserves to be at his home. Two, nudity indeed is (more or less) an integral part of Indian culture. What is questioned isâand what our secular press refuses to faceâdepiction of Hindu goddesses, not just in the nude (which is enough in bad taste) but in total vulgarity. According to Prafull Goradia and K.R. Phanda, the former and M.P. and the latter, a retired Additional Economic Adviser in the Ministry of Finance, neither of whom can be described as members of âthe rabid fringe of the Hindutva Brigadeâ, Husainâs paintings are âthe ultimate in blasphemyâ. What did they depict? One painting âhas Sita masturbating on the tail of Hanumanâ. âAnother picture shows her sitting naked on the thigh of Ravana, while Hanuman is looking on.â âThen there is a bull copulating with Parvati in the presence of Shankar. Goddess Durga, with her name written in Devnagari by the painter is shown in union with her lionâ.
One wants to know from Gomantak Times whether it really believes such paintings are examples of great art. This columnist long ago pointed out that a certain industrial house had published a collection of such paintings in the form of a book. In their book Goradia and Phanda have identified the House and have even noted that the chief of the industrial house had even provided a preface to the art book published by it. One wonders whether the gentleman ever consulted the companyâs Board of Directors. An explanation must be sought from them. Why was the book withdrawn if the company felt that Husainâs art was legitimate? The right persons to pass judgment on Husainâs paintings should have been not a one-man Bench of the Delhi High Court, but an archbishop of the Catholic church, the head priest of the Parsi community and possibly a couple of leading imams from the Islamic community.
In their book, Profiles of Islam, Goradia and Phanda ask a legitimate question: âWhy has no government considered banning Husainâs book?â Why? We donât have an answer. We have a pathetic sense of understanding of secularism. Writing in Media Mimansa published by Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarika Vishwavidyalaya of Bhopal, Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge of Supreme Court of India and presently Chairman M.P. Human Rights Commission has an important point to make. According to him âif media indulges in showing obscenity, corrupting the society, depraving and misleading our young generation, reasonable restrictions under Clause (2) or (6) of Article 19 can, and should be imposed on itâ. In that same article, Justice Dharmadhikari notes that âhuman body of men and women are being regularly exposed as objects for advertisement, entertainment and recreationâ and âit is definitely corrupting our youth and causing serious harm to morals of our societyâ.
Would Gomantak Times dismiss Justice Dharmadhikari as belonging to âthe rabid fringe of the Hindutva Brigadeâ¦. which value neither art nor good tasteâ and âplay moral police and resort to brazen vandalismâ? What sort of values is Gomantak Times talking about? It says: âArtistic freedom is too precious an asset to be frittered awayâ. Gomantak Times of course is defending Husainâs right to denigrate Hindu goddesses which it is free to do so, but in saying that artistic freedom is too precious an asset to be frittered away, its editor probably does not realise that that is precisely what Husain had done. He has frittered away artistic freedom.
It is the fashion among many of our editors who know little about art and less about artistic evaluation (how many newspapers have columns judging theatre, dance, drama, music, art and culture?) to sound profound. Nobody would question Husain if he drew nudes. What Husain has done is to debase an entire religion. And that is one point which our secular editors refuse to acknowledge. Husain has indulged not just in obscenityâsomething that can be laughed awayâbut in insulting an entire religion. Is one to take it lightly? All of Islam rises in arms at a picture (more precisely a cartoon) depicting the Prophet. Islamic feeling has been rightly hurt. If just a cartoon of the Prophet can incense Muslims, surely âthe rabid fringe of the Hindutva Brigadeâ has a right to get angry at the depiction of Sita, Parvati and Durga in the most vulgar way? Defending Husainâs dirty work is no secularism.
It is defeatism, it is moral cowardice for which many secularists are rightly famous. Many Hindusâand not necessarily just the ârabid fringe of the Hindutva Brigadeâ âhave felt deeply hurt but they are scared to speak out their minds lest our sick secular editors dismiss them as fascists, communalists, hate-mongers bereft of âgood tasteâ, and similar abuse. What the one-man Bench of the Delhi High Court has said cannot possibly be the last word. Nobody in his right mind would question Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaulâs upholding the primacy of artistic freedom, but artistic freedom, too, has its limits and these Lakshman rekhas should never be crossed. Husain is welcome to return to Mumbai and back to his home. If he has any sense of right and wrong, he would apologise to Hindus for hurting their feelings, so that the matter is finally closed and normalcy returns. But one thing needs to be said, and said loudly: the worst enemies of Hindus that Hinduism are not non-Hindus, but our so-called secular Hindus. The more one kicks them, the more they would like to be kicked even harder. They are a disgrace of any society considering that they have no self-respect. What understanding of art can one expect of such people?