Vaishakh Shuddha Shashthi
By Chandan Mitra
A wave of jubilation is sweeping across the throng of pseudo-secularists as they rejoice at the exoneration of self-exiled, multi-billionaire Maqbool Fida Hussain in three of six cases lodged against him on various counts, ranging from obscenity to inciting communities against one another. The controversial term "pseudo-secularist" is most appropriate because it is not in its political connotation that I apply it here. The same people who retained a studied silence when Taslima Nasreen was turfed out of India in violation of our cultural values that enjoins one to protect every ‘atithi’, a guest being equivalent to God, are exulting over the perceived judicial reprimand to "right-wing, Hindutva forces".
On the other hand, Idris Ali, a small-time communalist muscleman aided and abetted by the CPM, who engineered a feigned violent outburst in Kolkata against Nasreen, has been conveniently forgotten. No standard bearer of artistic freedom lampoons him for being a "rabid, fundamentalist Muslim goon" that he is. There was hardly a whimper from the same bunch of pseudo-secular tycoons when State after State went about banning ‘The Da Vinci Code’ for allegedly offending Christian sensibilities although it was screened successfully all over Christian Europe and the Americas. These are precisely the double-standards of India’s breast-beating chatterati that prompted coinage of the term "pseudo-secularism".
However, the instant issue is not quite about Husain’s secular credentials. 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.
There is, however, one aspect of the verdict with which I respectfully disagree. Justice Kaul has observed, obviously in good faith, that "A painter at 90 deserves to be at his home — painting on his canvas". Agreed, but who asked him to leave the country in the first place? Since departing from India’s shores has Husain ever pined for the country of his origin? Has he expressed an ardent desire to be back amid his own people? I
n fact, he appears quite content hawking his paintings at astronomical prices in Western markets. Of late he has made glitzy Dubai his home where, among other things, he rented a state-of-the-art auditorium at a phenomenal rate to organise a private screening (for his late life obsession, Madhuri Dixit) of yet another self-indulgent film produced by him. I have, therefore, never understood the persistent demand from a section of the media that the Government of India bring him back instantly. How can the Government drag a reluctant nonagerian back home when he has demonstrated no intention to return?
Besides, the clever painter is fully aware that he is an absconder from justice. He has not appeared before the law despite several cases lodged against him. On that account, the due process of law would demand his arrest as soon as he steps on Indian soil. Although he is certain to be bailed out immediately thereafter, Husain would evidently prefer sufficient media pressure to be mounted so that the judiciary takes a sympathetic view of his transgressions and drops all charges against him. Then he can return to the accompaniment of orchestrated media cacophony celebrating his triumph over "right-wing Hindutva forces".
The courts, however, will have a torrid time when dealing with the pending cases against him for those relate to his repeated depiction of revered Hindu goddesses in the nude. Husain has painted Saraswati, Durga and Sita in various states of undress and it is the exhibition of these offensive portrayals that originally triggered mass protest. Arguably, some of these paintings are not of recent vintage and, moreover, others may also be guilty of similar depictions. But Hindu public opinion is much more sensitive to such wilful disrespect to its pantheon of gods than it was, say, 20 years back. The rise of religious sentiment, particularly aggravated Muslim sensitivity, is a global phenomenon that cannot be attributed to "right-wing Hindutva forces" alone.
Personally, I agreed entirely with Muslim opinion when it was outraged by the improper depiction of the Prophet by a Danish cartoonist. Similarly, I had defended the ban on Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses nearly two decades ago. I am of the firm belief that nobody, especially those in the public domain, has a right to hurt religious sentiments of any community. If that entails periodic curtailing of the otherwise sacrosanct principle of freedom of expression, so be it. Rights of citizens, whether enshrined in the Constitution or recognised merely by convention, cannot be absolute because they may need to be occasionally circumscribed by the public interest. Although "public interest" is not amenable to a universal definition, we must accept that it is for the state, acting through the government of the day, to exercise its judgement as to what constitutes the public interest.
Hussain has compounded his offence by exhibiting no sign of remorse for outraging Hindu public opinion. In fact, he basks in the commercial gain accruing from the controversy and the voluble, albeit misplaced, support he enjoys from a section of Indians who are professional Hindu-baiters. In this, he is quite unlike Taslima Nasreen who readily deleted certain offending portions of her novel Dwikhondito by way of apology to Muslim sentiment. In my opinion, Nasreen too was wrong in deliberately hurting Muslim opinion and rightly retracted in the face of criticism.
It is India’s misfortune that humiliation of Hindus is seen by a perverse section of the community as the hallmark of liberalism and feted as an expression of progressive ideology. It is this hypocrisy that deserves to be exposed. It is not material if Husain is eventually found guilty and convicted for inflaming religious sensibilities, although in my opinion he should be. But his cheerleaders are guilty to a greater degree for they celebrate Hindu humiliation.
Source: www.dailypioneer.com
The view expressed in the article is of writer & need not be taken as HJS’s views. – Editor
