MF Hussain II: India's values on trial, not Qatar's!

"MF Hussain should have painted the prophet. Would Qatar have allowed him in? They would have instead declared a reward for his head"

That is the crux of the major comments I got in my previous post. One of the major arguments that comes when discussing MF Hussain's alleged blasphemous paintings is about how he never attempted to take the liberties in relation to revered figures in Islam or Christianity. The argument stems from a belief that Hindu culture is tolerant and hence Hussain is taking too much liberty (some right-wing elements go to the extent of saying that Hussain has a 'secret agenda' and hence he is 'insulting' Hinduism and embarrassing Hindus).

The irony here is that even as those arguing declare that Hinduism is inclusive and liberal, they will end up comparing with other religions and almost express a wish of being 'less liberal' like them! On one hand, they argue how Hinduism is the oldest of world religions and how far its philosophy and teachings went through voluntary disciples and on the other they almost express a wish of how it should learn a thing or two from other organized religions like Islam and Christianity!

A second major argument against Hussain is that if at all he took those liberties with other religions, no other country would have hosted him. On one hand, we trumpet how we are the world's largest democracy and how fast we are 'developing'. On the other hand, we want to compare and compete with the Afghanistans, Libyas and Qatars and agonise how 'too democratic or too secular' we have become. Even as we argue for a chair at the high table of UN security council, we are in a self-doubt over our own power to withstand the missiles of artists. We fear our culture is insulted by few paintings, our nation's democracy is hijacked by some one's 'secret agenda'. And yet we argue we are tomorrow's superpower.

The question we need to ask is whether we are poised to stride ahead with the self-assurance with which we started as a free nation 6 decades ago. We have embraced the democratic, secular values and we have to stick to those values. If need be, we should even fight for them in our spheres of influence. No point comparing ourselves with the worst in the world and conveniently excusing our hypocrisies unless we are ready to declare ours as a third-class country for the next century. Robert Kennedy said "Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence..". We Indians should ask ourselves if we have the will and moral courage to follow the values we embraced, in letter and spirit? Do we seriously believe what we claim ourselves to be - secular, democratic, big power? If so, we should realise that values on trial in Hussain's case are those of India and not Qatar's.

MF Hussain I: Controversy, in all its nakedness

"Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art." — Pablo Picasso

Pablo Picasso and MF Hussain were the 2 artists specially invited for the famous Sao Paulo Biennial art exhibition in Brazil way back in 1971. Picasso's above quote fits just right in the present context when a stupid controversy (and a few physical attacks) over Hussain's paintings forced the esteemed and gifted artist into self-exile out of India and to hop around the world - Dubai, London and now into Qatar! Now that he took the citizenship of Qatar, the decade old controversy resurfaced. And the debate is on the lines of Free expression Vs Hurting Hindu sentiments. Arguments in favour of 'respecting Hindu sentiments' say Hussain is 'crossing the limits'. Some even go to the extent of accusing him 'sexually depraved'! Those who support Hussain argue that Hindu culture has a rich tradition of nudity and refer Khajurahos and Kumarasambhavas. Before debating, let us have a look at what the issue is in the first place.

What are the 'nudes' we are talking about and what is so 'depraving' about them? Here are some paintings being interpreted.

All the paintings depict Saraswati, Durga and Sita in only contours, not with detailed physical features. The intent seem to be to convey an idea through the outlines rather than to be sexually explicit with physical details. If the intent were to do sexual paintings of Hindu goddesses (which the Hussian critics argue as blasphemous - this is a different debate altogether), there would have been far more distinguishing features rather than dark outlines. You don't need to be an art expert to know that.

Let us briefly examine the contribution of these outlines to the content here. The painting depicting Sita and Hanuman, we are told is blasphemy as it implies a sexual relation between the two. The painting, if seen for what it is, instead conveys Vayuputra Hanuman's loyalty and tremendous strength through his flight across the skies and over the seas (see how his feet disappear into Vayu). The painting of Durga similarly conveys an idea of shakti (ferocity) and roudram (wrath) by using the image of tiger which is incidentally her vahana. The painting of Saraswati illustrates the goddess of arts and consciousness in the aura she exudes - the veena, the peacock, the fish, the lotus and her flowing hair. Where is 'nudity' here and what is 'depraving'? In each of these paintings, MF Hussain is conveying the very essence of these deities because he is an artist and not a lithographer or printer who reproduces old photographs!

Coming back to the discussion of nudity, I wouldn't get into the discussion of how Hindu deities themselves are represented in our temples and historic places or if there is this concept of nudity in ancient Hindu culture. This would be a diversionary and unrelated discussion and is a huge injustice to MF Hussain's own contribution to representing Hindu iconography with such a deep understanding and affection. Far from being obscene, I see MF Hussain as the vital connect in transferring the Hindu iconography from a traditional, unimaginative one dimensional form to an abstract and stylistic expression, fully tapping into the mythology. So the big debate in MF Hussain issue is not about freedom of expression but about the truth in the accusations that he 'insulted' the Hindu culture. Did he indeed insult Hindu culture or at least have an intent to do so? We can only answer that if we follow Picasso by being neither innocent nor ignorant.

Telangana VII: Grossly discriminated against: Mungekar

Even as the spin doctors are out to prove how Telangana developed 'much more' than other parts of AP and are asking for 'outside experts' to evaluate the 'manufactured backwardness' of Telangana, scholar, economist and a former member of the Planning Commission Prof Bhalchandra Mungekar has nailed their lies by reeling stats about how Telangana is grossly discriminated against. How could there be equitable growth when out of 433 decision-making departmental heads in the Secretariat, hardly 7-8 from Telangana find a place, wondered Prof Mungekar, who in 2004, was handpicked by the Prime Minister to look after education, labour and employment, social justice, and tribal affairs for the 11th Five year plan. Mungekar is also one of the chief architects of NREGA.

Delivering the 14th Prof G Ram Reddy Memorial Lecture at the Centre for Economics and Social Studies (CESS) on `Regional dimensions of new economic paradigm: The case for Telangana’ in Hyderabad on 6 March, Prof Mungekar went on to say that attaining separate statehood is the only way out for Telangana now that all agreements/accords to safeguard its interests have been violated. This statement is all the more significant, coming as it is from Prof Mungekar. He was heading a committee overlooking development in Naxal-prone areas, with other members of the committee being the PM's then internal security adviser M.K. Narayanan and the union home secretary.

Mungekar made the following observations in his hour long lecture:

1. Even SCs of a region, who do not believe in caste, would be forced to demand a state 10 years from now, if they are pushed against the wall by ignoring their just aspirations for bettering their lives. That is how social and economical aspirations manifest in a democracy.



2. For those who turns up phobia and propaganda on 'viability, sustainability' of new states, it would serve well to see whether India satisfied those very parameters while it was demanding independence! It is people's aspirations and resolutions that matter.



3. The Prof. reminded that SRC clearly mentioned that 'One language, One state' rule is neither justifiable nor practicable.



4. Regional disparities arise from lack of secular process of economic development. Leon Trotsky's 'Uneven and combined development' was frequently referred to.



5. How prophetic Fazal Ali sounded 5 decades before as those very reasons for which he recommended Telangana remain a separate state have now become the foundation for the demand for demerger!



6. Fazal Ali's usage of word 'Colony' in the SRC report while reporting Telanganites fears about merger was considered a little over-the-top considering the decade the report was written in, but looking at what Telangana turned out to be, the word now looks prophetic and very apt! The Prof. further extended analogies of Telangana, Andhra with the situation in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Examples of 'internal colonies'.



7. The professor ended his lecture quoting Marx about how those in power in society would never voluntarily relinquish power and so the Telangana peoples' movement hence should persevere and stick to the present non-violent way it is moving in. He advised caution with the anti-Telangana forces which would look at every opportunity to impose violence on the movement and suppress it then with brute force.



8. More importantly, Prof Bhalchandra Mungekar stressed Telangana movement is more about attaining justice than statehood and that once the statehood is attained, no sections within it should replicate the same discrimination now Telanganites on the whole are complaining about. If that indeed happens, the Prof said in no equivocal terms that he would be back in the same spirit for fighting on behalf of those fighting for justice.

The Professor said his lecture copy would be submitted to the Shree Krishna Committee in support of the cause of Telangana.

My posts on Telangana:

TELANGANA VIII: My letter to Sri Krishna Committee (SKC) - A case for demerger of Telangana

TELANGANA VII: Grossly discriminated against: Prof Bhalchandra Mungekar

TELANGANA VI: Why Telugu news channels bar coverage?

TELANGANA V: Plutocrats unleash terror over OU students

TELANGANA IV: Shri Krishna committee a crude joke

TELANGANA III: A case of Tyranny of Majority

TELANGANA II: Statehood at Midnight

TELANGANA I: Telangana Movement and the Plutocracy: The Gathering Storm