Seriously Sandeep

Legal Breather for Hussain

The Delhi High court has cleared M.F. Hussain. Expectedly, the entire secular crowd of artists and SAHAMATites is jubilant.

Coming down heavily on the “new puritanism” being carried out by “ignorant people”, the Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed criminal proceedings against eminent painter MF Husain, overruling the charges of obscenity against his paintings.

I have read only portions of the judgement as I’m yet to obtain the full text. At best, my reaction is mixed. The judgement is welcome in upholding the principle of free speech and other good things but treads into unchartered territories with little or no understanding of tradition.

I agree with the judge’s remark about the new strain of puritanism but there’s an important reason for it. That the reason exists is not its justification but more importantly, is an indication of worse things to follow if the phenomenon grows unchecked. Among others, these “new puritans” will come to be seen as the representatives of the religion and culture they represent and saner voices will be regarded as aberrations.

“In a free and democratic society, tolerance is vital. This is true especially in large and complex societies like ours where people with varied beliefs and interests mingle,” said the single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. “It is very unfortunate that the works of any artist today who have tried to play around with nudity have come under scrutiny.

The learned judge completely misses the point. Hussain’s paintings do not merely contain nudity. Thousands of nude paintings are routinely exhibited across the nation, so why do the Hindus feel offended with just Hussain’s paintings? The judgement overlooks this crucial point. I’ve written earlier about the exact cause(s) of the provocative nature of Hussain’s paintings. The judgement further says,

“We have been called the land of Kamasutra,” the judge said, “then why is it that in the land of Kamasutra, we shy away from its very name? Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and so does obscenity.”

I would rather if the learned judge had not trodden into this territory. Hussain’s paintings–even his nude Goddess paintings–have not the slightest link to the Kama (love/sex/desire/passion) in the Kama Sutra. Each Goddess he has desecrated stands for symbolism, which the Hindus hold dear and sacred. In his own words, the judge says:

Art to every artist is a vehicle for personal expression. An aesthetic work of art has the vigour to connect to an individual sensually, emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

If a painting or work of art has this power, what does one say about a symbolism, which gave birth to an unbroken tradition sustained to this day over a few thousand years? I would really like to know whether the learned judge didn’t care about at least understanding this symbolism before I can comment further. Also,

Art and artists were once patronised by kings and elite classes, the court explained from history. “Art and authority never had a difficult relationship, until recently…Our greatest problem today is fundamentalism, the triumph of the letter over the spirit.”

I’m unclear which country’s history he refers to. If it is Indian history, he is right about royal patronage to art and artists. A secular republic at best promotes its artists so to that extent he is right. If it is European history, he errs. We have ample evidence to show how “bold” painters were often punished for blasphemous works portraying Christian figures in naked light. However, Hussain’s art poses a problem: it abuses the symbolism of another religion and gets academic, media, and now, judicial support. Besides, I’m not really knowledgeable as to what the power of the state (authority, in the learned judge’s words) is over art.

The judgement apart, I personally think the fault to a great extent, lies with the plaintiffs for filing the suit. In a nation where public discourse is perverted beyond repair, Hussain’s paintings need to be dealt with a little differently. Hussain’s “art” needs to be challenged by a deep scholarship of the Indian tradition of art, and sufficiently made public. In my readings, Hussain’s “art” is bought merely as investment. In true free market style, if enough is done to show that these are worthless investments, we would need to stop worrying about Hussain’s “art.”

The learned judge is merely looking at the symptom not the disease.

Well I do hope the “learned” judge will uphold the same principle if I paint madmo shagging a camel instead of wetting his pants as is the case in India when it comes to dealing with the religion of “peace”.

dhimmitude on display by kaul.

Well said Sandeep.
Here chandan mitra has clarified some points and related with the theme of your post, I am quoting few lines,

On the exoneration of Hussain Chandan says, “…The three cases against him that have been dismissed by the single-member Bench of the Delhi High Court pertained only to one particular painting — that of a nude apparition, which looks suspiciously like calendar art depictions of Bharat Mata. Two points needs to be stated at the outset. First, Bharat Mata is not a recognised member of the Hindu pantheon comprising some 330 million deities. The worship of the nation as mother came to be propagated in the late 19th Century primarily through the writings of early nationalists like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee whose Vande Mataram remains the most evocative ode to India as Mother. The first Bharat Mata temple was established in Varanasi through the efforts of the Raja of Kashi in the 1930s and inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi. Second, although Husain’s latest controversial painting does resemble similar depictions, it is not titled Bharat Mata. That enables him to benefit of the doubt if he insists that the nude woman in the painting is not intended to be a portrayal of Mother India as commonly depicted. In fact, he had painted Bharat Mata earlier in a fully clothed version and thus could, perhaps, be excused for this borderline case of transgression. So, in this particular matter the issue was purely one of nudity and to that extent Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul cannot be faulted for exonerating Husain.”

Link to this editorial
http://www.dailypioneer.com/foray1.asp?main_variable=SUNDAYPIONEER%2FBACKBONE&file_name=bkbone1%2Etxt&counter_img=1

San,as far as I am concerned, would love to hang this Husain and his cheer leaders, upside down, on the nearest most tree or lamp post I find.

>>> Harish, I agree with you You would love to see some really interesting links on my blog .

PI.

Shekhar Gupta has reported that hussain went in spasms of rage and had to be physically restrained when shekhar asked hussain whether he would take the same liberties with his prophet.

I agree there have been artistic nude portrayals of hindu goddesses.The hindu artists who did these paintings had reverence for the female deities.The ancient Hindus,at least those who created them, had admiration for the full breasts of the feminine form.Beauty or idealised form is considered a divine attribute by Hindus.They were not prudes.

What right does this muslim have to paint hindu goddesses in the nude when there has been no nude paintings of goddesses for centuries in the public domain.

What is your defence for portraying Bharat Mata an iconic symbol of indian nationalism.

Hi Guys,
Nude Gods in Hindu temples are not meant to be nude. They were always dressed and attired with silk and jewellery. If you recollect from your last visit to Temples you would find the priests closing the altar with a screen while they dress up the Gods before darshan. So this myth about nude statues in actually not nude. Only after the Mughal invasion these deities haven’t received the attention they used due to financial and political reasons.

So it is incorrect to suggest Hindus likened statues of Gods to appreciation of nudity.

This is another example of those usual misunderstandings of Hindu culture.

Shanth,
Come on.Surely every hindu knows that.We are talking about representations in niches in outer prakaras.(circumbalating passages and outside garbagriha)

No Hindu represents Sita as mating with Hanuman. Nudity is not the issue, but rather the narrative of Hindu humiliation present throughout Hussein mian’s “work”. When Hindus object to their narratives and experiences being distorted, the Secularists respond with the false issues of nudity, temple art, kama sutra, etc. Now westerners are saying things about Jhansi of Rani. There barbs will continue along these lines because they are not interested in pursuing truth but only in humiliating their opponents.

These are part of psychological games played by 4M. They are stating their fundamental possession and the exclusive legitimacy of their own (fallacious) interpretations of the Hindu experience. These are simply their convoluted ways of saying that they own Hindu culture; thus rendering Hindus as “imbeciles”. Along will come some innocent Hindus who will buy their arguments about nudity, free speech, etc, and they can create more hate against Hindus as oppressors, close-minded, etc.

OT:

Sandeep, Anything coming on the K’taka polls? When is the result coming out?

[…] Quashing the criminal proceedings against M.F.Hussain, the Delhi High Court asked people to move from a culture of competitive intolerance to a culture of tolerance. Sandeep has mixed feelings about the judgement and says that the judgement “treads into uncharted territories with little or no understanding of tradition.” The learned judge completely misses the point. Hussain’s paintings do not merely contain nudity. Thousands of nude paintings are routinely exhibited across the nation, so why do the Hindus feel offended with just Hussain’s paintings? The judgement overlooks this crucial point. I’ve written earlier about the exact cause(s) of the provocative nature of Hussain’s paintings. […]

Sandeep, so you’d have the old bastard thrown in jail because we all know that is what would have happened to someone who portrayed Mohammed (in any manner). You sure are choosing easy targets.