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.
11 Comments