Seriously Sandeep

This is not the first time that the Islamomafia has raised its usual shriek of Islam is in danger, and it won’t be the last, I’m sure. Although the present stink is pretty mild by earlier standards–the Indian Ripple Effect over Rushdie’s fatwa, for example–it has a nice and welcome twist to it.

How?

First of all, the present squall is directed against that most eminent, creative artist, M.F. Hussain. The issue has come a full circle. Hussain is famous for continuously portraying Hindu Gods and Goddesses in all kinds of “artistically creative” ways: now in the nude, and sometimes copulating. Of course, all in the name of creative freedom: so what if it hurts the sentiments of millions, creativity should not be suppressed. And of course, our eminent secularists were always available to take cudgels on his behalf.

Hussain as far as my knowledge goes, has never portrayed Mohammed the Prophet, or any of Islam’s heroes creatively. For example, he has never painted the Prophet’s…well, face, to say the least. Why? As a devout Muslim, he adheres to the Prophet’s Prohibition of painting and art. The Prophet, it is widely known, apparently was told by angel Gabriel that he wouldn’t enter his house if there was a dog or a painting. And therefore Mohammed ordered all paintings to be destroyed and all dogs, driven out of the house/killed.

But doesn’t the above present a contradiction? After all, Hussain paints for a living and Hussain is a Muslim: but then the Prophet has forbidden paintings. Poor Hussain miyaan has no recourse to vent his creative urges. I suppose that’s why he has chosen to inflict express his creativity by painting Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude. But Hussain could have as well chosen to depict Gods/Angels/human figures of other religions, Christianity, for example. Wouldn’t the portrait of a naked, bleeding Jesus Christ moved art connoisseurs and laymen alike?

This time around, Hussain’s eminently forgettable film, Meenaxi, a Tale of Three Cities has been the target of the Ulema’s ire. Hussain’s crime?

In our holy scriptures, the words are used to define the persona of the Prophet Mohammed. But in the film it has been used to describe the physical beauty of the heroine,” he said. Stating that the misuse of the words have hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the country, the council has asked Mr Roy to take the necessary steps to ban the song. (Maulana Abdul Quddus Kashmiri, the Ulema spokesman)

But that’s of course a gross insult to Prophet Mohammad! And naturally, they want the song banned. The portrait of Radha and Krishna copulating generated the inevitable reaction from Hindus. However, our secularists were quick in fishing out their usual labels of “fundamentalist,” “saffron-fascists,” “hindu bigots,” and the rest. Compared to that, a mere song with no sexual, or demeaning suggestion generates a demand for a ban!

But wait! Maulana Abdul Quddus Kashmiri ever-so-subtly warns us of the consequences if a ban is not forthcoming:

…The song should be banned so that peace can be maintained,” he said.

Another worthy has this to say,

…”This is cannot be used to describe the beauty of a woman. Using Quranic verses in Hindi film songs is a deliberate attempt to provoke Muslims. We have complained to the Mumbai police commissioner. If action is not initiated, we will stage a protest against the film and the song…”

We all know the meaning of “protest,” “peace can be maintained,” don’t we? It reads more like, “ban the song, or else….” heheh!

Now I’m waiting for the secularists to shed their wisdom. Can we expect a similar reaction as we witnessed during the Saraswati/Radha-Krishna paintings? Will they, this time around, come forward and roundly defend Hussain’s right to express his artistic creativity.

I foresee (forehear?) a deafening silence.