MF Husain, “Artistic Freedom” and a sense of deja vu
Earlier this month (May ’06), the Indian High Commissioner to UK, H.E. Kamalesh Sharma inaugurated an exhibition of paintings by MF Husain in London and remarked that the painter was the greatest modern Indian artist[i].
Although I do not personally understand Husain’s art, I can imagine that he has some admirers. But to call this artist – who has over the years (for more than 2 decades) systematically attempted to denigrate a multitude of Hindu deities, symbols and images as the “greatest modern Indian artist” is a little over the top.
This is the same painter against whom a notice has been issued by the High Court in Mumbai, against whom a case is pending in Indore and whose paintings are the subject of a Law Ministry advisory which is so detailed that state governments can (if they so wish) treat it as a complaint and take action against Husain[ii].
But then why blame the High Commissioner when our entire intelligentsia considers Husain’s work as high-quality art and something to be proud of?
When I raised the issue of Husain’s apparent contempt for the feelings and sensitivities of Hindus in the practise of his “art”[iii] with some “liberal” friends, the comments I got were similar and usually along the lines of:
“Hindus have become very intolerant in the recent past”
“Nude gods and goddesses have been routinely depicted in Indian art and architecture e.g. Khajuraho and
Hindu reaction is partly because of the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons
We have to defend an artist’s freedom to depict the world (and express it) the way he/she sees it
Let us analyze these points one-by-one.
The first argument, viz. “Hindus have become very intolerant in the recent past” is in the best traditions of the pseudo-liberal intelligentsia that dominate our national media. To these commentators, no insult is provocation enough and since the essence of Hinduism is “tolerance”, we should forgive (and forget) such insults because hasn’t Hinduism survived many such onslaughts in the past?
Oddly, none of these commentators talk about the rising “intolerance” around us (witness the Danish cartoon controversy) and none of them have any alternative sugg”estions for how else to deal with such gratuitous acts of contempt. For them, the solution is simple – tolerate and forget.
The second line of defense appears slightly more sophisticated but is equally specious. Hindu Gods and Goddesses have not routinely been painted in the nude in the past. The Khajuraho sculptures that these sophists refer to are not those of Gods and Goddesses but of courtiers, courtesans, royals and ordinary mortals.
The third point is really not a counter-point at all but is a weak attempt at explaining away the reaction to Husain’s art as an “aberration” on the part of the “tolerant” Hindu who has been led astray because of the rising tide of intolerance around him/her.
Note the subtle connection between points 1 and 3 – both make a virtue of “tolerance” and both elevate it to the “essence” of Hinduism. Whether Hindus have become “more” intolerant than before or not is open to debate but one must bear in mind that we do not live in a vacuum and what we see around us, does affect us.
Of course, Shri Husain is not unaware of these developments and earlier this year, he apologised for painting “Bharatmata” in the nude and also promised the painting from a charity auction (but stopped short of saying that he will destroy it)[iv]
As regards the fourth point regarding “artistic freedom”, I would simply reproduce an excerpt from “Encirclement From Within” by N S Rajaram in Mar ’03[v]
“Here is another example. When some Hindu groups objected to M.F. Husain for painting Hindu goddesses in the nude, the secular intellectuals including the media defended his “artistic freedom” do as he wished. But in 2002, a newspaper office in Bangalore was vandalized by a Muslim mob for publishing a perfectly innocent cartoon of Prophet Muhammad in its children’s section. And the newspaper apologized to the attackers. Imagine the victim apologizing to the assailants! Other papers in Bangalore – and at other places – have also apologized on similar occasions. So “artistic freedom” means freedom to offend Hindu sensibilities only!”
The most amazing thing is that Husain has been doing the “I am sorry, I was wrong” act for more than ten years – while continuing to add to his repertoire of nude images and paintings.
In Jan’97 (yes, that is more than 9 years ago), Husain was interrogated by the police in connection with the controversy over his nude painting of Goddess Saraswati. Earlier in ’96, the Mumbai city branch of CID had actually registered cases against Shri Husain under Section 295 A and 153 A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was that Shri Husain had outraged religious feelings and hurt public sensitivities.
And what did Husain do? He issued a written statement denying any “intention” to hurt religious feelings (of course) and apologised if he had hurt anyone’s sentiments – Oops, I am sorry, I was wrong.
Fast forward to Feb 2006 – and the BBC online story, “Indian painter sorry for nude art” – Deja vu, anyone?
Now, as “tolerant” and “forgiving” Hindus, we will of course forget this apology too and move on – until the next affront hits us in the face – and there will another round of apologies, protests and withdrawals.
Until then, please read a brilliant and biting piece on Shri Husain by RBL Nigam, “MF Husain: The Hindu Hater[vi]” (May 13 ’06) and to really make a difference, join the protest online at http://www.sanatan.org/hussaincampaign/
B Shantanu
P.S. As I write this, breaking news from London: The Husain exhibition is being cancelled by the organisers for “security reasons”.
References
[i] See http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/may/10husain.htm
[ii] See “Red Alert on MF Husain”, Hindustan Times, Aloke Tikku, May 5, ’06 (excerpts below) “The Home Ministry’s advisory follows concerns – backed by intelligence reports - that Husain’s Bharatmata and other controversial paintings of Hindu goddesses can spark communal trouble. A case against him is already pending in an Indore court.The state police can treat the Home Ministry’s report as a complaint – the accompanying documents are said to be quite detailed – and proceed against Husain. But it is a call the state governments will have to take.
[iii] See my blog entry at http://hindu_dharma.blogspot.com/2006/02/mf-husain-apologises.html
[iv] http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4694272.stm
[v] Original article at http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/03/3544.shtml and also at http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2005_06.php
[vi] Online at http://nigamrajendra.blogspot.com/2006/05/mfhusain-hindu-hater.html
Here is a YouTube video showing some of the controversial paintings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25zh8i9_VAM
YES I agree that there are erotic sculptures in Khajurao but they are not ‘VULGUR DEPICATION OF HINDU GODDS AND GODDESS”
Hussain’s intentions are different, He has no courage of painting, Jewish, Christian, or of his own faith, He considers nudity is innosence, if it is so, why not painting of his own mother or wife?.
Ambekar
art is nothing but literatuer.
artists act is just expression of his nature’s core.
he reflects what he got from the society,in his medium.
And no one can say that ” is fida faces that type of situstions from any one” or not.(that time )
pantintig is a very polite medium to express.
he is dooing his job only,what is going on is matter of societ.
think about social condition,,,annnnjoy Art
Interesting observation by Justice Markandeya Katju:
Should writers in India follow the school of ‘art for art’s sake’ or ‘art for social purpose’? Which school would benefit us more today?
In my opinion, the ‘art for social purpose’ school alone is acceptable in India. Our country faces the tremendous challenge of abolishing poverty, unemployment, ignorance, casteism, communalism and other social evils, and writers must join the ranks of those fighting against oppression and injustice for a better India and inspire people by their art.
=>
Should writers in India follow the school of ‘art for art’s sake’ or ‘art for social purpose’? Which school would benefit us more today?
=>
And whichever path they follow, they need to make sure that they have one standard for all Indians; instead of having different standards based on religion, thus making it communal.
Excerpt from Cases Booked Against Kannada and Urdu Daily : CM
From Our Special Correspondent
Daijiworld Media Network
…Making a suo-motu statement in the state assembly, the chief minister said cases had been booked against a prominent Kannada daily published from Bangalore and also an Urdu daily
…
`It has come to our knowledge that a derogatory article has been published against the holy preachings and traditions of Islam. On behalf of the state government, I assure the Muslim brothers that we will immediately take legal action,†he (CM) said appealing to the Muslims in particular and people of Karnataka in general not to get swayed by the rumours.
***
Question for all readers: Has any state government initiated any case against Sh M F Husain?
If you are aware of any such move, please post a link here. Thanks.
A brief excerpt from MF Hussain, his surrender of the Indian citizenship and the attacks on him:
As to what all he has done, that is more controversial. It is difficult to not support freedom of art, but then the artist needs to have displayed this freedom on all occasions, not only in one case. MF Hussain faces a lot of flak for having painted Hindu goddesses in the nude, offending many people. Many times, he has been challenged to do the same sort of artistic freedom for other religions, but the only time when he faced a threat, he caved in very quickly.
MF Hussain had made many movies, and of them was called ‘Meenaxi: A Tale of Three Cities’, released in 2004. When it was released, there were objections by some Muslim activists, and Hussain quickly withdrew the movie, and has never really commented on why he caved in. And that was the day that any support that I had for him quickly disappeared. It was like a statue of artistic freedom was very fallible. MF Hussain is a great artist, one that many people cannot even think of coming close to, but defending him as an icon of artistic freedom no longer makes sense to me.
@ Shantanu,
No Govt according to my knowledge has filed an FIR on the artistic creativity.
There is such a moral bankruptancy with the left leaning intellectuals that freedom of express in one case is less meriterious when compared to the other.
The examples of MF Hussain and Taslima’s article republished in a Kannada newspaper on the first hand seem to have a common sense thread re freedom of expression. On the question why they should be treated seperately, though i can see one making a case for the difference, but it is best left to the interpreter to make the judgement.
If you assume on one hand those whose protested against MF Hussain made sense, then there one can possibly expand the same logic re the Taslima article, but frankly speaking Taslima is neither a authority in Islamic studies nor is she a critically aclaimed commentator on the Islamic faith (it is seperate issue she is critical about islamic faith, we can find many such in hindu faith as well). Hence i woudl agrue that both the cases need to be seen based on their own merits (negative impact) it has on the society!!!
Now one can say Taslima article should be looked as a social genere based article, in that case she should not have taken an example of any faith, she woudl have written at lengths on the problems being faced, which might have got her more sympathy and also impreoved her stock!!
@ Ashwin: will respond in detail later…somewhat manic morning..
but this news item caught my eye:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8524043.stm
Indian state confiscates ‘blasphemous’ Jesus textbooks
By Subir Bhaumik
BBC News, Calcutta
The government in the Indian state of Meghalaya has confiscated textbooks showing pictures of Jesus Christ holding a cigarette and a can of beer.
The book has been used for primary classes and has caused a furore in the north-eastern state, where more than 70% of the population are Christians.
…”We are now considering legal action against the Skyline Publications of New Delhi who published the controversial textbooks,” (State Education Minister Ampareen Lyngdoh) said..
A fairly succinct illustrated narrative of the Husain hypocrisy – http://hvk.org/specialarts/mfhussain/index.html (though Dinesh Agarwal’s caption for the Ganesh-Lakshmi could note too that Husain has made Ganesh’s tilak Lakshmi’s vagina).
http://www.prafullgoradia.com/anti-hindu/about-the-book.html reproduces paintings from “Husain” by Daniel Herwitz (with a foreword by Russi Mody), published by Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, 1988. These include one of a naked male pressing his genitals against the buttocks of a naked female, both before a naked Hanuman; a naked Shiva beside a naked cow astride which is a headless naked female being fisted vaginally by a naked male; a naked Krishna; and bestiality (horse and naked female, elephant and naked female).
At http://www.indianexpress.com/news/what-am-i-facing-nothing.-the-cases-and-all-are-just-minor-things.-after-all-we-are-a-democratic-country./19302/0 Husain says something very different to what our judiciary and seculariat protest for him. In it, note the following –
Hussain – “”Where there is a figure of a woman I paint, it is nude but that figure is not realistic. I am not painting every part of the body in detail. Which is even there in our temples. The nudity is a metaphor for purity and strength!”
Dinesh Agarwal illustrates the hypocrisy of Husain’s claim. Note too that Husain painted Indira Gandhi (as Durga) – and didn’t dare paint her in the nude. Husain explicitly identified nudity with evil – that he’d painted Hitler in the nude because Hitler was a “shaitan” ((Rajat Sharma’s Aap ki Adalat, Sept 8, 2004).
As for nudity in temple carvings, of which much is made by our judiciary and seculariat, the context is totally different. G Anil Kumar has pointed out that these nude figures are “madanikas”, not deities. SV Badri clarifies that “even in the gopurams, the carvings are NOT worshipped. It is the kalasams on the top that are worshipful and to which the kumbabhishekam is performed. The vigrahas are always adorned with vastram……
Link to Hilda Raja’s letter to N Ram, Editor, The Hindu. Good read.
A telling excerpt from an interview of MF Husain by Shekhar Gupta, published 10th Jun ’11:
Q: Are you a devout person in your personal life?
A: I am a believer and not a non-believer.
….
Q: The question that people would like to throw at you is — if you can paint Hindu gods and godesses like this, why don’t you paint the Prophet?
A: I don’t want to say anything.
Says a lot, doesn’t it?
Shantanuji,
A great thing you discovered. I’m writing micro post with these four lines in bold to record. I’m not at all shocked/surprised but relieved that a communal artist is bare naked now who took hid of artistic freedom.
Jai Bharat!
also he said somewhere in this or other interviiew that there is no threat to his life and has not been threatened, its only he who dont want to return because of legal cases against him in India. But whole matter got ugly by media saying there is threat to his life by so and so people.
Do read: Arvind Kumar on Freedom, equality and Husain
I didn’t understood one thing. Leave aside the Hindu or religious sentiments. What bothers me is as mentioned below.
If a person collects the porn videos, pictures of the persons which were taken without their permission, then the person is considered as a obscenely deviant. He is a sexual criminal. If a person displays any obscene material in public places is considered as crime. Why MFH (the porn artist) didn’t faced any trial is a big Q?
In the United States, distribution of “obscene” materials is a federal crime.
Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity): An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious. The term is also applied to an object that incorporates such a statement or displays such an act.
||namO Bhaatam, namO Sanskritam||
Can somebody tell me if IPC Section 292 is relevant in this case.
@Aaryan,
“If a person collects the porn videos, pictures of the persons which were taken without their permission, then the person is considered as a obscenely deviant. He is a sexual criminal. If a person displays any obscene material in public places is considered as crime. Why MFH (the porn artist) didn’t faced any trial is a big Q?”
Exactly, Free speech # pron or bestiality
Our page 3 waalas and pseudo intellectuals try to equate these two. MF Perverts third rate cheesy porno flicks became ‘High art’ for these page 3 wallas.
Artistic freedom does not include vandalism. Nor does it include porn or bestiality. Porn, bestiality do not have have free speech rights.
@AAryan
There were all sort of legal cases against him. Thats the reason he was afraid of coming to India. He was Irresponsible painter and knew he will be guilty for his act. And now he is no more so most of the cases will disslove automaticaly.
@AAryan
But I liked your points and pointing out laws on pornography one, can be used in future if another MFH is reborn! Instead of wasting time on hurting religious sentiment, directly sue the person under pornography law will be very effective.
A remarkable and fresh perspective on M F Husain by à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¥‡à¤¨à¥à¤¦à¥ http://bit.ly/jWBuzw Easily a *must read*
Response to #20: Nice try but not impressed. He missed the pervert side of the paintings, and somebody raised the question too.
My take: On one hand we say “Rule of Law” on the other “freedom of expression” . We need to strike balance to ensure the progress of social culture and the civilisation.
Lastly, I request the fanatic liberals to challenge the Cyber-law and the rating agencies for obscenity.
||namO Bhaartam, namO Sanskritam ||
That desi mainstream media is pliant and unthinking is again demonstrated by the coverage of the death of India’s ‘Picasso” (the metaphor being another example of such thinking!). Needless to say, the following will rarely be mentioned in any coverage:
a) “http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/full-transcript-mf-husains-interview-17164.php
From a March 3rd 2010 Barkha Dutt interview of MF Hussain: “First there is also the question of finding a sponsor. So, I was waiting, this I decided in 2004 when I came to Dubai to find some sponsor. So, in London I found a sponsor for history of Indian civilization and in Qatar, Sheikha Mozah invited me to do a history of other civilizations and Abu Dhabi will sponsor the project on Indian Cinema, I think in a big way next year. So, to do all these works I have to become an NRI because of the tax structure there (you can ask any corporate and you will know). It’s not only here, it’s all over the world. What’s happening to Polanski, Bergmann in Sweden, he had to leave because he was hounded by tax people.”
b) http://www.asianwindow.com/art/sobhaa-de-meets-m-f-husain-at-his-home-in-dubai/
March 30th 2010 interview with Shobhaa De
“Dressed in traditional Emirati gear, the painter is wearing socks, but no shoes. Mustafa, his handsome third son, explains that this is in deference to local sensibilities with regard to bare feet. Even the mighty Maqbool (used to going shoeless for decades) has had to compromise and make a few concessions.â€
Email exchange with Ram Puniyani following his article in Tehelka
QUOTE
Re: Your Tehelka article on MF HusainMonday, June 20, 2011 8:32 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified”Jay Vachani” Add sender to Contacts
To: “ram puniyani”
Dear Mr Puniyani,
Clearly, there are serious contradictions in MF Husain’s statements. Even more clearly, people choose the statements from Husain that support their biases. What is missing, as usual, is a balanced commentary that exposes all sides of the matter. A case in point is your pardon me, illogical, response “Wearing socks to respect local sensibilities and giving up one’s art are not the same” – of course they aren’t the same. I don’t think anyone’s making the case that Husain should give up his art, are they? Unless his art ONLY involves painting Hindu deities in the nude which it clearly doesn’t. He’s demonstrated that by his amazing variety of output. One is only wondering whether some deference to local sensibilities would’ve been out of order in his home land, India!
Re: your views that Islam forbids iconography, pls review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad and a cursory search on Google will show how the Prophet Muhammad was depicted over the ages. So how come Husain didn’t exercise his freedom of expression when there’s no explicit ban?
You have not responded to Husain’s claim that he’s a believer. If he’s a believer, there are all kinds of ramifications, aren’t there?
Mr Puniyani, as a commentator who gets much print space to air your views, I hope you’ll be a lot more balanced, nuanced, knowledgeable and honest. Being a biased secularist and liberal is as dangerous for our country as being an extremist!
Thanks for your attention
Jay
— On Sat, 6/18/11, ram puniyani wrote:
From: ram puniyani
Subject: Re: Your Tehelka article on MF Husain
To: “Jay Vachani”
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 4:33 AM
Thanks Mr. Vachani
The first point- MFH in another interview said that he did not want to live in the security cordon, and he feared a physical attack on him. This angle cannot be ignored. Tax angle may be there.
2. Wearing socks to respect local sensibilities and giving up one’s art are not the same.
3. Islam does no have the iconography, it just has calligraphy. This is my understanding of his work, the way it is.
best wishes
rp
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jay Vachani wrote:
Dear Mr Ram Puniyani,
I write in response to your article “The Hindu in MF Husain” published in the June 14th issue of Tehelka magazine. How do you rationalise/reconcile these observations of MF Husain? I look forward to your response Mr Puniyani.
Thank you
Jay
1) ) “http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/full-transcript-mf-husains-interview-17164.php
From a March 3rd 2010 Barkha Dutt interview of MF Hussain: “First there is also the question of finding a sponsor. So, I was waiting, this I decided in 2004 when I came to Dubai to find some sponsor. So, in London I found a sponsor for history of Indian civilization and in Qatar, Sheikha Mozah invited me to do a history of other civilizations and Abu Dhabi will sponsor the project on Indian Cinema, I think in a big way next year. So, to do all these works I have to become an NRI because of the tax structure there (you can ask any corporate and you will know). It’s not only here, it’s all over the world. What’s happening to Polanski, Bergmann in Sweden, he had to leave because he was hounded by tax people.”
The hype about his being hounded out by right wing groups carries on in spite of the Supreme Court quashing the cases against him, in spite of Home Minister PC Chidambaram assuring him of security. Could it be that there were other reasons for MF Husain’s departure – as detailed above? Vinod Mehta in Outlook talks of the fabulous life style of Husain in Qatar with his Benzs, Ferraris and Bentleys – could this tax free be the real reason?
2) http://www.asianwindow.com/art/sobhaa-de-meets-m-f-husain-at-his-home-in-dubai/
March 30th 2010 interview with Shobhaa De
“Dressed in traditional Emirati gear, the painter is wearing socks, but no shoes. Mustafa, his handsome third son, explains that this is in deference to local sensibilities with regard to bare feet. Even the mighty Maqbool (used to going shoeless for decades) has had to compromise and make a few concessions.â€
His deference to such local sensibilities is perfectly acceptable except when it happens in India?!
3) From an article by Shekhar Gupta in The Indian Express June 10th 2011 where he quoted from his interview with MF Husain (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/mother-died-when-i-was-oneandahalf-years-old…if-you-miss-the-lap-of-the-mother-there-is-no-place-called-home/801650/0)
QUOTE
a) Q: Are you a devout person in your personal life?
A: I am a believer and not a non-believer.
….
Q: The question that people would like to throw at you is — if you can paint Hindu gods and godesses like this, why don’t you paint the Prophet?
A: I don’t want to say anything.
UNQUOTE
@Shantanu: When I was in High-school, I use to read that Devdasi’s were the next most influential sect in India.
I also did read somewhere, long back, that Devdasi’s use to supervise the building of the temples and selection of the Shilpis.
History also supports that there were many scandals of Devdasi’s and Shilpis and their scandulous affair.
A question came to my mind today: Were these Devdasi’s using these sculptures for the purpose of marketing?
If so then, the whole thing about this (nude) art need to be analysed with a different perspective.
|| namo bhArataM, namo sanskR^itaM ||
‎”The minister (Sh Kapil Sibal) in a hurriedly convened briefing told reporters that the government would look at ways of curbing “blasphemous” content which could hurt the religious sentiments of a large section of communities in India.”
http://bit.ly/tmwGzC
“I fought almost all of his (MF Husain’s) legal battles while I was a lawyer.
There is nothing ugly about his paintings”
http://bit.ly/sHrdur
…
हम करें तो बà¥à¤²à¤¾à¤¸à¤«à¥‡à¤®à¥€, तà¥à¤® करो तो xxx…
***
Here’s Sh Sibal’s double-speak:
““What do you think about these derogatory pictures of the Prophet Mohammed..
Anybody will feel outraged. The government of India does not believe in censorship. But sensitivity and feelings of different communities cannot be allowed to be hurt” http://bit.ly/skQwxj
Interesting…
From a news-item dat April 17. 2004 Husain pulls Meenaxi out of theatres by Shiv Kumar, Tribune News Service, some excerpts (emphasis added):
Painter Maqbool Fida Husain has pulled out his movie, Meenaxi — A Tale of Three Cities, out of movie theatres a day after some Muslim organisations here raised objections to one of the songs in it.
“I have told my sole distributor Yash Chopra to withdraw the film from public shows with immediate effect,†Husain said in a statement today.
…
Yesterday, the All-India Ulema Council kicked up a row by terming the qawwali number in the film, ‘Noor-un-Ala-Noor’ as blasphemous. The council claimed that the song featuring the film’s main protagonist, Tabu, contained words directly lifted from the Quran. The council’s statement was supported by Muslim organisations like the Milli Council, All-India Muslim Council, Raza Academy, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind and Jamat-e-Islami.
The organisations had demanded that Husain change the words of the song. The organisations had even filed a complaint with the Mumbai Police Commissioner A.N. Roy.
“For us, the term Noor-un-Ala-Noor is very sacred. It shouldn’t be used to describe the physical beauty of a heroine,†Maulana Abdul Quddus Kashmiri, general secretary of the All-India Ulema Council said in his statement.
^ Shantanu, this was common knowledge, and puts into perspective the hypocrisy of M.F. Husain as well as of those who claim to fight for “freedom of speech/art,” but do so selectively, that is, free speech as long as it doesn’t offend Muslims.
Some excerpts from “Were Hindus right to oppose M. F. Husain’s art, or is legitimate artistic freedom being trodden upon?” by Koenraad Elst (from Hindu Voice UK’s July 2009 issue; emphasis added):
…In this article I have no intention of giving a full account of all this commotion, merely to develop my view on the basic question: are these nude depictions of deities justifiable under modern principles of artistic freedom?
…Hindus protested against the Asia House gallery because they objected to its decision to exhibit paintings of Hindu goddesses engaged in what looked like acts of bestiality. While the Hindu groups had agreed to meet the organizers for discussion, they were beaten to it by unknown individuals who entered the exhibition hall and destroyed some offended paintings. No further talks took place, and exhibition was closed.
…When Lord Meghnad Desai, a prominent Nehruvian secularist, heard of the affair, he issued a comment putting forth three arguments. Firstly, the exhibition is being attacked because M. F. Husain is a Muslim. Secondly, Hindu Right groups have attempted to undermine artistic freedom. Thirdly, Hindu goddesses can be seen in a variety of poses which many may find erotic in the temples of Khajuraho, Tirupati and others. Let’s look into these claims.
…it is simply untrue that goddesses are ever depicted while satisfying themselves with the help of a tiger’s tail, the way Husain depicts Durga. As for the more modest nudes, even these are far from the rule in Hindu iconography.
In the Hindu worldview, kama or eroticism has a place among the finalities of human life. This may well be the idea behind the depiction of some sexual scenes on the outside walls of Khajuraho temples. However, it is not because the Khajuraho buildings are temples that they depict sex between deities. These sculptures are only on the outside, not inside the abode of the deity, and they depict scenes from all aspects of human life. They send the message that one should always have the deity as the central point in one’s life even though one is engaged in worldly activities. About one tenth of them are of a sexual nature,a and none of these involves characters recognizable as Saraswati, Lakshmi or other deities. Inside the Khajuraho temples, the idols of Shiva, Nandi, Durga, the incarnation of Vishnu and Lakshmi etc. are clothed normally. All over India, deities have been shown in temples as described in the scriptures and normally no idols of deities are shown nude or in sexual positions.
There are arguable exceptions. One is the Tantric deity-couples, frequent in Tibet but rare in India, who may be shown in a dignified copulation posture, not doggie-style or lying down missionary-style as pornographers would prefer, but the god sitting in lotus posture with the goddesses sitting on his lap embracing him. I am the happy owner of a statue of Ganesha in copulation with a female partner, which incidentally gives the lie to Paul Courtright’s thesis of Ganesha as a symbol of phallic limpness. None of Husain’s contested paintings even dimly resembles these icons.
The second exception is the icons of naked saints, not gods, who observed a vow of nudity as part of their ascetic discipline. This chiefly concerns Mahavirs Jina and some of his followers. But obviously there cannot be a trace of sensuality, let alone Husain’s perversity, in those depictions of celibate saints.
In an open letter to Lord Desai, Hindu Human Rights also explained that Hindus were “offended at his depiction of Draupadi as naked, as in Hindu tradition it is Lord Krishna who saves her modesty in the Maharabhataâ€. Effectively, in a central episode of the most influential text of Hinduism, the Mahabharata¸ Draupadi is threatened with nudity as an act of humiliation, and the deified hero Krishna is credited with saving her from this shame. Husain identifies with the Kaurava rascals by taking her clothes off after all. The very least that the epic story teaches is that ancient Hindus were not so carefree about nudity after all.
At this point I have to correct a position I had taken in an internet discussion after a naked depiction of goddess Saraswati by Husian had caused some commotion. I had pointed out that Saraswati had been introduced in Japan by the Buddhists under the name Benzai-ten, and that this goddess does get depicted naked. Indeed, a naked sculpture of Benzai-ten is shown in many books of Buddhist or Japanese art history (e.g Louis Frederic: Les Dieux du Bouddhisme, Flammarion, Paris 1992, p.223 ff.). However, that sculpture is not functioning idol in a temple but located in a museum. In a temple, such a naked sculpture is clothed every morning, and worshippers only see her clothed. This practice of clothing a sculpture is not uncommon in Hindu-Buddhist devotionalism, e.g even the giant Bamian Buddhas in Afghanistan used to be clothed. The Japanese are less prudish than the Indians, but even they worship their deities in clothed form. Likewise, even the impudent Greeks depicted only Aphrodite, the goddess of erotic love, in the nude; but Artemis, Athena, Demeter and other goddesses are always shown covered.
…“Nudity is a form of innocenceâ€, say Husain (Sify.com 13th May 2006), who describes himself as a “a humble and ardent contributor in creating a great Indian ‘Composite’ cultureâ€. Yet, the pattern emerging from a survey of his paintings suggests nudity isn’t all that innocent to his own mind. Husain shows the Prophet’s daughter Fatima fully clothed; his own mother fully clothed; Mother Teresa fully clothed; Muslim poets Faiz and Ghalib fully clothed; an unnamed Muslim lady fully clothed; but goddess Durga naked and in compromising position; goddess Lakshmi naked on Ganesha’s head; goddess Saraswati naked; Draupadi naked; Hanuman naked with Sita sitting on Ravan’s thigh; Bharat Mata naked, with names of India’s provinces written on her flesh. Even more telling is a painting showing a fully clad Muslim king with a naked Brahmin, and one showing four 20 th-century leaders, among them Gandhi decapitated and Hitler naked.
*********
P.S. One important point raised by Sandhya Jain-ji:
Adding this link here: M.F. Hussain: Unravelling Vulgarity Disguised as Art by Sandeep Balakrishnan