From: ANAND
This is a Letter to the Editor of The Hindu, from a practising Christian lady who was Professor in Stella Maris College, Chennai till recently; now settled at Baroda, regarding an Edit in The Hindu in favour of bringing back MF Hussain to India
http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=10539&SKIN=M
- for shadow warrior blog site
==============
Dear Ram,
I have taken time to write this to you Ram-for the simple reason that we have known you for so many years- you and The Hindu bring back happy memories Please take what I am putting down as those that come from an agonized soul. You know that I do not mince words and what I have to say I will-I call a spade a spade-now it is too late for me to learn the tricks of being called a 'secularist' if that means a bias for, one, and a bias against, another.
Hussain is now a citizen of Qatar-this has generated enough of heat and less of light. Qatar you know better than me is not a country which respects democracy or freedom of expression. Hussain says he has complete freedom-I challenge him to paint a picture of Mohammed fully clad.
There is no second opinion that artists have the Right of Freedom of expression. Is such a right restricted only to Hussain? Will that right not flow to Dan Brown-why was his film-Da Vinci Code not screened? Why was Satanic Verses banned-does Salman Rushdie not have that freedom of expression? Similarly why is Taslima hunted and hounded and why fatwas have been issued on both these writers? Why has Qatar not offered citizenship to Taslima? In the present rioting in Shimoga in Karnataka against the article Taslima wrote against the tradition of burqua which appeared in the Out Look in Jan 2007.No body protested then either in Delhi or in any other part of the country; now when it reappears in a Karnataka paper there is rioting. Is there a political agenda to create a problem in Karnataka by the intolerant goons? Why has the media not condemned this insensitivity and intolerance of the Muslims against Taslima's views? When it comes to the Sangh Parivar it is quick to call them goons and intolerant etc. Now who are the goons and where is this tolerance and sensitivity?
Regarding Hussain's artistic freedom it seems to run unfettered in an expression of sexual perversion only when he envisages the Hindu Gods and Goddesses. There is no quarrel had he painted a nude woman sitting on the tail of a monkey. The point is he captioned it as Sita. Nobody would have protested against the sexual perversion and his orientatation to sexual signs and symbols. But would he dare to caption it as 'Fatima enjoying in Jannat with animals'?
Next example-is the painting of Saraswati copulating with a lion. Here again his perversion is evident and so is his intent. Even that lets concede cannot be faulted-each one's sexual orientation is each one's business I suppose. But he captioned it as Saraswati. This is the problem. It is Hussain's business to enjoy in painting his sexual perversion. But why use Saraswati and Sita for his perverted expressions? Use Fatima and watch the consequence. Let the media people come to his rescue then. Now that he is in a country that gives him complete freedom let him go ahead and paint Fatima copulating with a lion or any other animal of his choice. And then turn around and prove to India-the Freedom of expression he enjoys in Qatar.
Talking about Freedom of Expression-this is the Hussain who supported Emergency-painted Indira Gandhi as Durga slaying Jayaprakas Narayan. He supported the jailing of artists and writers. Where did this Freedom of Expression go? And you call him secularist? Would you support the jailing of artists and writers Ram –would you support the abeyance of the Constitution and all that we held sacred in democracy and the excessiveness of Indira Gandhi to gag the media-writers- political opponents? Tell me honesty why does Hussain expect this Freedom when he himself did not support others with the same freedom he wants? And the media has rushed to his rescue. Had it been a Ram who painted such obnoxious, .degrading painting-the reactions of the media and the elite 'secularists' would have been different; because there is a different perception/and index of secularism when it comes to Ram-and a different perception/and index of secularism when it comes to Rahim/Hussain.
It brings back to my mind an episode that happened to The Hindu some years ago.[1991]. You had a separate weekly page for children with cartoons, quizzes, and with poems and articles of school children. In one such weekly page The Hindu printed a venerable bearded man-fully robed with head dress, mouthing some passages of the Koran-trying to teach children .It was done not only in good faith but as a part of inculcating values to children from the Koran. All hell broke loose. Your office witnessed goons who rushed in-demanded an apology-held out threats. In Ambur,Vaniambadi and Vellore the papers stands were burned-the copies of The Hindu were consigned to the fire. A threat to raise the issue in Parliament through a Private Members Bill was held out-Hectic activities went on-I am not sure of the nature and the machinations behind the scene. But The Hindu next day brought out a public apology in its front page. Where were you Ram? How secular and tolerant were the Muslims?
Well this is of the past-today it is worse because the communal temperature in this country is at a all high-even a small friction can ignite and demolition the country's peace and harmony. It is against this background that one should view Hussain who is bent on abusing and insulting the Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Respect for religious sentiments, need to maintain peace and harmony should also be part of the agenda of an artist-if he is great. If it is absent then he cannot say that he respects India and express his longing for India.
Let's face it-he is a fugitive of law. Age and religion are immaterial. What does the media want-that he be absolved by the courts? Even for that he has to appear in the courts-he cannot run away-After all this is the country where he lived and gave expression to his pervert sadist, erotic artistic mind under Freedom of Expression. I simply cannot jump into the bandwagon of the elite 'secularist' and uphold what he had done. With his brush he had committed jihad-bloodletting.
The issue is just not nudity-Yes the temples-the frescos in Konarak and Kajhuraho have nude figures-But does it say that they are Sita, Sarswati or any goddesses? We have the Yoni and the Phallus as sacred signs of Life-of Siva and Shakthi-take these icons to the streets, paint them -give it a caption it become vulgar. Times have changed. Even granted that our ancients sculptured and painted naked forms and figures, with a pervert mind to demean religion is no license to repeat that in today's changed political and social scenario and is not a sign of secularism and tolerance. I repeat there is no quarrel with nudity-painters have time and again found in it the perfection of God's hand craft.
Let me wish Hussain peace in Qatar-the totalitarian regime with zero tolerance May be he will convince the regime there to permit freedom of expression in word, writing and painting. For this he could start experimenting painting forms and figure of Mohamed the Prophet-and his family And may I fervently wish that the media-especially The Hindu does not discriminate goons-let it not substitute tolerance for intolerance when it comes to Rahim and Antony and another index for Ram.
I hope you will read this in the same spirit that I have written. All the best to you Ram.
Dr Mrs Hilda Raja, Vadodara
7 comments:
(I) In a recent Editorial in The Statesman, To Wear Or Not To Wear The Burqa, madhavi goradia divan says: ”... the notion of what is decent and moral, observes the Supreme Court in several rulings, must be determined on the basis of contemporary and national standards...” It has intrigued me why the Honorable Supreme Court did not apply this precept while absolving MF-Husain in one case.
(II) In my comment http://tinyurl.com/yftssux under your blog “mfhusain is now a qatari. can we get somebody to take shabana, teesta, genocide suzie, burqa, sagarika?”, I pointed out that the Shivalingam is not a representation of the phallus. I am a little upset that Dr Mrs Hilda Raja also repeats the popular but wrong notion. After I had posted my comment, I was pleasantly surprised to find out, from the Internet, that Swami Vivekananda had clearly explained that Shiva Lingam is not a phallus.
Well done, Mrs. Raja!
But......a thick skinned commie affected by an article? That'll be the day!
Every time I read Mrs. Raja, I am becoming more and more a fan of hers. Can't agree more with her. Fed up with these double standards.
Rajeev,
Here is the typical obfuscation by Salil Tripath in wsj
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109123398542944.html?mod=WSJINDIA_hpp_MIDDLETopNews#articleTabs%3Darticle
In India we do not understand Art as they do in the West. To us any beautiful creation is art. Well clothed, beautifully made idols of Ganesh and Durga please us. Why Mr Hussain loves to show them in the nude though he is our very desi painter from Hindu pilgrimage town of Pandharpur, Maharashtra is puzzling.
Today I read a piece by Gautam Adhikari in TOI, which tempted me to read your original article. He has, as a secularist and a liberal,declined to refute most of what you have said. He has said that illiberal attitude of Quatar is not the point at issue, it is the freedom of artistic expression. He and others like him would like to forget that Hussain is a Muslim and, in a country populated largely by Hindus he has shown Hindu deities unclothed. There is the painting of the Judgment Day in the Cistine Chapel. Young and vigorous Christ in it was originally painted in the nude. Pope had to have another artist to cover the figure appropriately. This was during the renaissance in Europe.
In the end he has referred to the peaceful protest in the USA against the Martin Scorcese's movie 'The Last Temptation of Christ. I believe that Martin Scoecese is/was a Christian and USA is a Christian country. Therefore, there was no religious conflict involved. Also, in India, religious war is still in progress as we see it every day on the TV and read in the newspaper columns. Therefore, the two situations are completely different and cannot be be compared. It is high time that, if not the Great Painter Hussain himself, at least his admirers and art critics who extol him as Indian Picasso should explain to lay public why his art so great.
Dali has painted fantastic paintings such as piano fornicating with sky, etc. But to paint goddess with lion needs not a genius; it needs a devious mind that will not differentiate between fame and notoriety and artistic freedom and slavish tethering to the election winning formula of the secular rulers at the center.
MF should take a page out of sixteenth century artist Shahabuddin who illustrated a manuscript of Bhagwat. It can be seen at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. All the gods in it are modestly clothed. Of course, Shahabuddin did not gain the wealth and notoriety that MF Hussain has. That is the nub of the thing. It is not artistic freedom that he has desired, it is the economic freedom and notoriety. He has got the full measure of both, so why should he and his supporters complain. He has come a long way from assaulting in bare feet and pajamas the dogma of formal dress at a highbrow Mumbai club to citizenship offered by the Sultanate of Oman. Congrats to him. May he paint in peace now and may his cohorts in India shed tears for separation from him
@Neville, I too stumbled upon this post after reading Gautam Adhikari's piece in today's ToI.
I am an Indian art enthusiast and for long have I admired many of the works of Hussain and his contemporaries. And frankly, I don’t have a problem with him painting whatever he desires to paint. Souza has created works that could easily hurt the sentiments of Christians and while I do appreciate a lot of his works, I cannot understand many of them that demean Christianity. But, hey, I don’t have to. Given this relatively laissez faire outlook I did not think too much about Hussain’s controversial pieces – each one to their own and if I don't like a piece, I just move on. There are so many more disturbing things in the world to worry about.
Coming to the Qatar episode, I am disappointed in the way the Indian government handed it – with typical nonchalance. That said, Mrs. Raja’s statement, “I challenge him to paint a picture of Mohammed fully clad”, has really gotten me thinking. This is the key point. And Hussain’s response to Mrs. Raja’s challenge will really give the world an insight into the artist’s true respect for artistic freedom. As well, it will test the world’s reaction – from religious bodies, to the Qatar government to collectors and to you and I. If Hussain does nothing, he would, at least in my eyes, just playing the media and controversy game to enhance his cache in the international and Indian art markets. I will still continue to admire many of his works, but I would know at the back of my mind that he’s merely doing what Shah Rukh Khan does before any movie release: create a controversy to get free publicity. However, on the other hand, in the remote chance that Hussain actually responds to Mrs. Raja’s challenge, it would communicate to the world that he is indeed a true artist and is merely expressing his thoughts on a canvas.
Meanwhile, I remain a sceptic and the best possible explanation that I have read about why Hussain took up the Qatar citizenship has been made by Kishore Singh in BS: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/thinkthis-as-husain/s-ipo/387277/ Enjoy.
If only Gautam Adhikari could communicate as clearly as Mr. Singh.
Dear Dr Mrs Hilda Raja,I fully concord to your unbiased opinion.Actually I read about your article indirectly-thanks to Adhikari.There should not be even a little iota of pseudosecularism,but in our Matribhumi there are different prespectives.Regards Mana
Post a Comment