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.â€
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.â€
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. [...]
[...] Read Sandeep’s view, because it’s different. Permalink | « Just how callous can governments be? | Home | Parties,interests, leaders and legacy » [...]
I have had just glimpses of his paintings and always wonder what has made him so well known figure? I do not understand art and may be there is something art-lover can explain. But I have always heard about him through these controversies with so called open minded supporting him in the name of creative freedom. Fine. But freedom has to be used in an unbiased manner. Can he paint christ or his own GOD the way he does hindu gods? argument given is that there is no “murti puja” in his religion hence no images for his GOD. Then there is an opportunity to showcase an artist’s imagination. Can he? Will he ever?
It is with some disappointment that I observe that the author could not rid himself of his own puritanism and view the whole event in a more balanced way…
After paying his homage to the tradition of free speech etc., the author returns to his own puritanism with “Each Goddess he has desecrated stands for symbolism, which the Hindus hold dear and sacred” and then with “However, Hussain’s art poses a problem: it abuses the symbolism of another religion and gets academic…”. This is a traditionalist approach towards art… to hold a tradition sacred and frown at everything that seems to defy, “desecrate” and mock at the tradition.
So far as “abusing the symbolism of another religion” is concerned, the very purpose of any art is to play with symbolism and that includes “abusing” the symbolism. What is really important is what does such an art convey to us?
Any person of deeper sensitivities and more than a casual interest in art will not be interested in a piece of art if it is merely created to abuse, mock or “desecrate” a religion or a tradition. In its breaking away with tradition, does this art resonate with some deeply felt emotion/experience/truth which I vaguely felt, but never able to concretize? Coming back to Hussain’s work, if his art, in its “abuse” of Hindu symbolism, can not make me connect to some deeper experience, it will smell of falsehood and would be rejected outright. Rather than doing any harm to Hindu tradition, such false smelling art would rather validate the claim that Hinduism has something profound to offer. I wonder why should someone who is confident enough that Hinduism has something profound to offer should bother about how Hussain uses/abuses Hindu symbolism.
On a second note, I would like to add that a more subtle reading of the judgment will show that more than giving a breather to Hussain, it gives legal ammunition to all those who want to fight Islamic/Christean (or any other religion for that matter) muscle-flexing when a work critical to their religious tenets appears. Thus the very judgment can be used to argue against ban on “Satanic Verses”, or for that matter Ram Swarup’s “Understanding Islam through Hadis”. The very judgment can be used to defend Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb. In short it can be used to fight against any vandalism on the name of “hurting religious sentiments”. I think in our age of “competitive intolerance” this should prove an important ammunition.
Hussain should have been conscious of his pan india status and should have refrained from exhibiting these paintings even if he wanted to paint them for private viewing. We can only hope that the muslim clergy will issue a fatwa against him for publicly exhibiting nude paintings- goddesses or otherwise.
Hussain’s paintings are a work of art. They are a national treasure.
One of the biggest problems with our country is that we do not have an appreciation of the rights of others. If you do not like his paintings, you are free not to buy it or promote it in any way.
You are also free to write about it asking others not to look at it or buy it.
What you are NOT free to do is to stop anybody from displaying the painting, or ask Mr Hussain to stop painting such items in the future.
One more thing. The Hindu religion is one of the oldest and biggest in the world. Is your faith so poor that a simple painting would cause you to loose that faith.
What are you afraid of?
What about Meenaxi? Remember Hussain stopped the screening of the film through out the country…
Here is a old report to refresh our memories…
The problem erupted when the All-India Ulema Council demanded an immediate ban on the current chartbuster qawalli track �Noor-un-ala-noor� from Hussain’s film penned by Hussain himself. The council secretary grudged that the phrase Noor-un-ala-noor meaning ‘light and more light’ is used in the holy Quran to praise the Prophet Mohammed. But Hussain has used the phrase to illustrate the beauty of women in his film, which has hurt the religious sentiments of the community. They had even filed a complaint with the Mumbai police and had asked them to take stringent action failing which they will protest against the song and the film.
Hussain who seems to be quite disturbed by all this claimed that since he didn’t make the artistic film to earn moolah, he has withdrawn it from the cinema halls.
….
So based on his statement we can infer that his painting of hindu goddesses were for earning moolah. When people from his own religion turned against him (for a single line in a song) he was very quick in taking the film off theatres (no snipping of the offending line sir…no,no…the whole film goes) ….why this double standards? And I am surprised that this issue seems to have been forgotten by many…at least i have not seen it being discussed in blogs or the papers….
link to the full text of Justice Kaul’s judgement: http://im.rediff.com/news/2008/may/Judgment.pdf
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.
[...] please define “worthless investments”. Is there a hurdle IRR (internal rate of return) you demand as a learned investor of the arts? If that’s so, let’s play an experiment:
You quote a price for the painting and let me tell you if that’s acceptable to Husain.
Here’s a hint: you have to pay him what he thinks his painting is worth having destroyed. I have a feeling you are not going to hang it up in your living room. [...]
(Not to be confused with other Kumar earlier in thread here)
Rejoice folks. This verdict gives all license to draw cartoons of the Danish variety.
Loud and Wide Mouth AKHIL SIBAL ….THE SON OF THE COPIOUS Kapil Sibal was on Times Now, the day HC ruled in favor of Majboor Faggot Hussian. His argument was that HINDU gods/goddess have been painted for centuries and it is a tradition to do so, on the other hand please find out if any painting/picture depicting the Prophet of Islam was available, barring the Danish Cartoon controversy.
Akhil what is worse the SHIT IN YOUR MIND OR THE LEAD IN YOUR ASS????
Majboor Faggot Hussian must be taught the meaning of the word equality….I don’t know if the guy is educated, but if he has common sense then he should have known that his depiction of Nude goddess and Bharat Mata, hurt hindu sensibilities, so he should have refrained from such acitvities. Which he won’t and yes the Shekhar Gupta tit bit is accurate, when posed the question he did RADICAL ISLAMIC act….
Regarding the judgement, WELCOME TO THE SECULAR REPUBLIC OF INDIA?????
I hope the court will remove ban on Rangeela Rasool and will let the book be published. I hope the islamists won’t kill the judge if he does so, as they killed Raj Pal.
Here’s a different perspective on this issue,