MF Hussain: Redefining ‘freedom’

Has MF Hussain violated freedom of expression, enshrined in the Indian constitution? Who will decide this; the government, people or right wing Hindu parties? An open debate.

Eminent painter MF Hussain, at 95, was constrained to go into exile following a strident reaction by elements of the Sangh Parivar to his depiction of Hindu deities in the nude. While those who believe in freedom of expression at any cost have rued the Husain case, others not all of whom belong to the parivar have raised the counter question regarding the Prophet, and whether Husain, or any other artist, would be at liberty to portray him. There have hence sprung up numerous views and counterviews on the issue.

Does Husain’s departure raise questions about laws and state of democracy in India? Is Qatar more democratic than India? Isn’t the reaction to Hussain’s paintings a reversal of the tolerance of the plurality in India? Is Indian society, followers of Hindu religion in particular, dogmatic and unable to distinguish personal expressions from religious traditions?

Is it about the tolerance quotient in the land of diverse cultures?

India – through ages – has been a land where different ideologies, faiths and creeds have co-existed. But one wonders if things have begun to change in this land. For Nobel laureate Amartya Sen the issue is not simply about Hindu sensitivities. “Muslims protested the Danish cartoons, Hindus reacted to Husain’s depiction of Hindu gods; people of all religions have strongly fortified sensitivities today,” he says.”

Is the state of Indian politics to be condemned?

Be it Ambedkar’s Riddles of Rama and Krishna, Rushdie’s Satanic verses, movie Parzania, Da Vinci Code or Dogui Bodmas, it has been observed worldwide that creative outcomes are met with unethical aggression and violence by political parties, leading to banning of books and films. No matter how big or small the issue, no action is ever taken against the perpetrators of violence. Salman Rushdie wasn’t a supporter of the party in power when the British government came forward to support him in 1989. He admires the country’s principled stand. “It is strange that the Indian government has allowed this to happen to Husain,” says novelist Rushdie. Many more modernists and thinkers condemn political parties for adopting dual standards, taking on soft postures, giving a free hand to those who instigate violence, and for failing to implement the laws of the land firmly. Writer Shobha De opines, “The tragedy in Husain’s case is that his shrillest and most virulent critics are those who have never seen his work! These are the hired hands of political parties out to create mischief and propagate nasty, narrow- minded theories designed to spread hate, misinformation… and more. It is they who are far more dangerous to our society than any artist.”

How democratic is our democracy?

Management guru Arindam Choudhary opines, “Being a democratic country that India is, Indians have the right to offend and that a democracy should be large hearted enough to absorb such provocations. After all, did not B.R. Ambedkar ‘offend’ Hinduism so many times before and after he converted to Buddhism? Was not Periyar of Tamil Nadu, a leader and thinker who delighted in insulting symbols of Hinduism? How about the slogans of Bahujan Samaj Party sometime ago, which went like: “Tilak, Taraazu aur Talwaar; Inko Maro Joote Chaar”? What about the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M. Karunanidhi allegedly insulting Lord Ram during the Sethu Samudram controversy? The logic is: if so many have been ‘insulting’ Hinduism, why single out Husain and target him for the same?

The Hinduist views

As per Sangh Parivar and its allies, the protest is about respecting religious fundamentals and sentiments. Their concern is straight - Muslims can openly announce rewards of crores for the head of the Danish cartoonist without being condemned forget about being taken to court. Nonetheless, we Hindus cannot even condemn a genuine insult to our faith! Would Hussain, being a secularist that he is, go ahead painting the Prophet in the nude in Qatar? Would he be spared by muslims if he dared to do so?

The objection here is not about Hussain’s fondness for nudity in his paintings but about mentioning the nude females as Durga, Sita, Saraswati and Bharatmata. He could have mentioned them as Fatima or Uzma.

Speaking about freedom of speech, if Hussain has the right to portray what he wishes to, others have equal right to take offence for the same. The artists have full freedom to express views in the way they wish. But if against religious sentiments and masses in general, they should either be restricted to a private collection or for a niche audience with a taste for art.

The opposing groups do make a sensible point here.

Hindu art Vs Islamic. Is there a comparison?

Eminent media personality Jug Suraiya finds the question of painting the Prophet rhetorical. “Islam forbids any pictorial depiction of the Prophet. So the question has nothing to do with artistic freedom, or lack of it, but with that old bugaboo: 'weak' Hinduism as compared with 'strong' Islam,” he says, raising yet another question about the extremist might of the two religions.

Christianity has forever painted Christ in the nude and indeed at crucification often naked too. As have the Greeks and their Gods and Goddesses forever. Nudity has been a tradition in Indian and Hindu art, but never in Islamic art. So why the comparison? “It was just an artist’s exploration sans his religious identity,” adds Suraiya. Congress party leader Arun Shourie feels that by merely becoming a painter Hussain has taken on the repressive tenets of Islam that forbid its followers from pursuing any form of art. Therefore, since he is already a pariah in his own community, there is no need for Hindus to chastise him.

Degenerating the glorious past

On the above discussion, Hinduists make a point. Bharatiya Vichara Kendra director P. Parameswaran says, “In many Hindu temples, paintings have been showcased in the nude. But, it must be remembered that great Indian patriots like Swami Vivekananda have openly condemned such paintings and described such paintings as degenerate and not representing true Indian art. Nobody now admires them and no artist reproduces such paintings except Hussain.” It was against such paintings that the great Indian artists Raja Ravi Varma produced hundreds of portraits of Hindu gods and goddesses and won worldwide acclaim.

Segregating art from religion

It is against every principle of religious tolerance to persecute a man for a work of artistic merit that he has produced in response to a creative impulse. “There is nothing wrong in not liking Hussain’s art. You can easily opt out. A painting is a finite space of art. If it offends, don't enter that space. The worst thing is that artists are soft targets...we do not have armies portecting us," says Rushdie.

Candle in the Wind: Indian Judiciary

The Supreme Court ruled on the controversy two years ago. It said that Husain's paintings were not obscene and that nudity was common in Indian iconography and history. In its historic judgment in Husain’s ‘Bharatmata’ matter, the Delhi High Court while quashing the case against the premier Artist ruled that “sex and nudity in art, per se, cannot be deemed to be obscene and the merely vulgar does not equal the obscene”. In defining the standards of Art, the Court also observed that it will not use the "standard of a hypersensitive person" in defining what is obscene.

In another landmark judgment in the case of the Film Ore Oru Gramathile, the Madras High court laid down an extremely important principle that "freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account

of threats of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Freedom of expression which is

legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people".

Liberal Hindus Vs Extremist Muslims

When Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie or when Taslima Nasreen had to flee Bangladesh, Hindus clucked their tongues superiorly. In India, they said, Hindus would never use the power of the state to impose religious judgement on other people.

The common Hindu condemned the act of pulling down of the Babri Masjid by the BJP. “The Shiv Sena and the Sangh Parivar are now repeating that mistake. Hindus are not offended by the nation that their gods and goddesses might sometimes be portrayed nude and there are centuries of temple art to prove it,” says senior journalist Vir Sanghvi. The Rushdie and Nasreen affairs were seen by Muslims as intra-Islam matters. It wasn't much of a defence but the persecutors did nevertheless claim that they were acting within their own community. They were not forcing Hindus to accept some standard of Islamic correctness. “Even this defence is not available to the Shiv Sena. They are using an alleged offence to Hindu sensibilities to persecute a Muslim. What could be more medieval?” he questions.

Are these the forward thinkers?

They are so insecure about their identity that even a minor act offends them. Christian jumps on Davinci Code, Muslim jumps on Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen, Hindu mob rises against Hussain and vandalises his exhibitions. Is the problem with these countries, communities and people this that they have people like Hussain, Rushdie and Richard Dawkins who are hundreds of years ahead of their society consciousness. They will be thrashed when they are alive and will be praised by these scholars after their death as thinkers ahead of their time. 

While one can’t defend the right of M.F. Husain to offend and deny the equal right of some people to feel offended, is it high time we took to Gandhian ways of protesting? Have your speak at shukla.shilpi@gmail.com.