By: Prafull Goradia
There has been a disproportionate hullabaloo over the paintings produced by Chandramohan of MS University, Baroda. Most newspapers have carried articles and the TV channels have held discussions on the subject. Heated arguments have been exchanged but, most of the time, without stating what precisely had been painted and, therefore, why it should be objectionable.
It was reminiscent of the Union Government’s ban on Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses without its officials having read the text. Sitting on her haunches, goddess Durga was shown giving birth to a full grown man. A portrait of Vishnu was stamped on a Shivling. A crucified Jesus was portrayed as urinating into a modern toilet painted below the Cross.
The exhibition of the prima facie outrageous subjects were reported to the police who took whatever action they deemed fit. Chandramohan was taken into custody. No one was killed or physically hurt and yet the Dean of the Art Centre, Prof Shivaji Panickar, chose to go underground. No one is lauding the quality of the art but many have defended the University Art Centre on grounds of freedom of expression. If restrictions are placed on artists how can they be creative?
The same set of people took an opposite stand over another issue only some weeks ago. The news reached the Indian shores several months after a cartoonist in Denmark had caricatured Prophet Mohammed in a newspaper. Then, they spread like wild fire leading to mass protests by Muslims in meetings, processions as well as the media. Not merely the Muslims but also secular luminaries across the country condemned the cartoons without even taking the opportunity to see their specimen.
The protests culminated in then Uttar Pradesh Minister Haji Yaqoob Qureshi, at a public meeting in Meerut, declaring that he would raise Rs 51 crore for whoever gives him the severed head of the cartoonist. There was no disapproval of such a barbaric proposal; nor was he dropped from the Samajwadi Party Cabinet.
On the contrary, a campaign was launched in the media to propagate that MF Husain had done no wrong. In fact, for his artistic achievements, he should be considered for the award of Bharat Ratna. ‘Bharat Mata in the nude was his only controversial painting’ was the secular thrust. Hardly any mention was made of his earlier outrageous efforts, like naked Sita swinging on the long tail of Hanuman, goddess Durga mating with her lion or Parvati copulating with the Nandi bull while Shankar watches on a Shivaratri night.
The secular arguments recalled the Ajanta frescoes and the Khajuraho temples. They conveniently overlooked the fact that neither Ajanta nor Khajuraho depicted deities. They only dealt with men and women. Surely, there is a distinction between the divine and the human. Painting a man or woman in any posture might offend the onlooker’s sensibility. But a similar depiction of the divine would outrage the devotee’s sentiments.
Then the argument is offered that in a democratic society there should pervade a complete freedom of expression. For such a view to be at all marketable, there should be the freedom to paint a picture of say Prophet Mohammed.
The most recent development has been over the freedom to dress. The head priest of Dera Sacha Sauda chose to demonstrate himself in a dress which offended the sensibilities of the Sikh community. Whether a man’s freedom to dress as he likes can be bracketed with the liberty of an artist to paint as he likes or not, needs a lawyer to opine. One expert opinion feels that if an ordinary citizen had dressed himself like a saint, he would have been treated as an aberration but a head priest doing the same thing has been interpreted as posing to compete with a highly revered Guru of the Sikhs. Fair enough. These perhaps are the wages of a high position and its occupation of public space.
The Baroda paintings also captured public space when the University Art Centre invited leading members of the media and had the paintings photographed. One set was published by the Gujarat Samachar on the morrow of the exhibition.
The point being made here is that when it came to Sikh sentiments, no secularist has taken sides. When it came to Muslim sensibility, a similar set of people condemned the cartoons. When it comes to Jesus the Christian feelings were ignored and when it has come to Hindu emotions, they are dismissed by the secularists with contempt. These add up to not double but quadruple standards. For the Muslims reverence, for the Sikhs silence, for the Christians indifference and for the Hindus contempt.
Source:http://www.dailypioneer.com
Related HJS sections
> M. F. Hussain Campaign
> Defamations
