Mumbai: An article was published in the Indian Express in its Sunday issue dated May 21, 2006 under the heading ‘The Unbearable Nakedness of Seeing’. In this article, there was criticism on Hindu Janajagruti Samiti which is fighting in a lawful manner, against indecent paintings of Hindu deities and Bharatmata drawn by anti-Hindu painter M.F. Hussain . In this connection, the Samiti had lodged a complaint with the Press Council of India. The Press Council has taken a note of the complaint and has issued a ‘show cause’ notice to ‘the Indian Express’.
News: Indian Express supports Sexual Perversion against Hindu deities!
Protest Photos: • Photo Gallery • News Report
Please go through the protest images and judge yourself about its true democratic nature.
A few months ago, an exhibition of paintings by anti-Hindu painter M.F. Hussain was held at ‘Saffron Art gallery’ in Prabhdevi, Mumbai. Members of the Samiti had opposed holding of such exhibition. In that article, members of the Samiti were referred to as rabbles and they were also called fundamentalists.
Dr. Durgesh Samant, the all-India spokesperson of HJS had issued a letter to the editor of Sunday Express to counter their charges; but in spite of sending two reminders, the newspaper did not publish their explanation on the same. Therefore, the Samiti complained to the Press Council. In the reply sent to Shri. Ramesh Shinde, the spokesperson of the Samiti for the State of Maharashtra, Shri. Pradip Behl, Section Officer [c] has informed that referring to Samiti’s letter dated 18.07.06, the Indian Express has been issued ‘show-cause’ notice.
• Acknowledgement of Show Cause Notice
Date : May 26th, 2006
To
The Editor,
The Sunday Express
Sir,
In her article, ‘The Unbearable Nakedness of Seeing’ Ms Maitreyee Handique (published in The Sunday Express dated May 21st,2006) has made some remarks about Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) which makes wrong impression in reader’s mind about HJS and are defamatory. Overall tone of the article is very critical of HJS, an NGO which is protesting peacefully over last six months against M.F.Husain’s objectionable paintings of Hindu deities for hurting religious sentiments of Hindus and his painting labeled Bharatmata for hurting national pride. This article has provided some false information to the readers. All these force me to write this clarification which I request you to publish in The Sunday Express at the earliest.
1. It was stated in the article that Husain’s Bharatmata was taken off from Apparao Gallery. This is a straightforward case of false propaganda. This particular auction which was organized by Apparao Gallery and Auction India had taken place on 6th, 7th and 8th of February 2006. After nationwide protests, on Feb. 6th Husain was reported to have apologized for the painting and after that Ms. Apparao (the curator of the gallery) declared that she is withdrawing the painting. But on Feb. 8th Nafisa Ali on behalf of Auction India while participating in a TV program (by CNN-IBN in which the undersigned was a co-participant) declared that the painting was already sold on the very first day i.e. on Feb 6th, for Rs/-80 lakh.
2. In this article the author has labeled HJS and its activists as fundamentalist, rabble rousers, having Husain bashing as their favorite cultural pursuit etc. Let me first mention what Delhi High court has stated in its judgement (delivered on April 8th, 2004 in the matter of Maqbool Fida Hussain v/s States of Chattisgarh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Shri Sanchidanand Upsana, Gargana Rashtravadi yuvak Chalval, and Shailendra Dwivedi) regarding few of Husain’s paintings. The Honourable Justice Kapoor states, If one has been granted unlimited freedom, one is required or expected to use it for good purpose and not with malicious intention, to defame or degrade religious deities may be mythological, as these immortals are held in highest esteem and over a period become part of one’s day to day religious life to such an extent that anything adverse said or printed or painted hurts the religious feelings immensely. Any objectionable, demeaning caricature or painting of religious deities or gods or goddesses of any particular religion creates disharmony and ill will amongst different communities. Even if it is presumed that such a painting is a piece of art still one cannot be oblivious of the fact that depiction of these deities or goddesses in full nudity comes within the mischief of deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings of concerned religion as these goddesses are worshiped by crores of people… Under the garb of freedom of expression no person can be allowed to hurt the religious feelings of any class of people. This should be known more to the petitioner who belongs to a different religion. If the petitioner wants to gauge the depth and the unflinching nature of religious feelings he may venture and try his hand at his own or any other religion and see how sensitive religious feelings and beliefs are. Such acts promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and arc prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. It is the effect that is guiding and determining criteria.
It is worth noting that the Hon’ble Justice had made these observations regarding only two of Husain’s objectionable paintings (which includes the one called Saraswati mentioned in the article). HJS has raised objections about 20 such paintings by Husain (when only one of them is sufficient to prove the guilt and will call for necessary punishment as per law). Now I don’t think anybody will label our High Courts as fundamentalists. Then what is wrong if some Hindus raise protests against such paintings? In that case labeling of HJS activists as rabble-rousers and fundamentalist etc. is clearly defamatory. This particular reference of High Court judgement assumes more importance in view of the case (involving Akbar Padamsee, which is not related to religious feelings getting hurt because of a painting and comparatively very old too!) mentioned in the article to support author’s views which clearly misleads the reader.
3. About the controversial painting called Bharatmata, Govt. Of India has taken note of the painting and issued directives to police to take necessary legal action in the first week of this month. As per media reports he has been accused of hurting national honor. I am sure no one will label our present Govt. as one with Hindu rightist ideology. Actually here is a problem which shall be analyzed without prejudice of being a Hindu or Non-Hindu. It should be seen with eye of an Indian who is upholding national pride in his heart or an alert citizen concerned about national honor above all other issues. Tomorrow anyone can paint our national leaders including Father of Nation naked under the guise of purity and freedom of expression etc that too using the Ashok Chakra, the Tricolor etc. Are we willing to accept that? Labeling such an issue of national importance as Hindu rightist issue is wrong. In addition to this it should be remembered that central govt. had issued a directive to state police stating Husain’s paintings are creating communal disharmony.
4. Now coming to the issues involved in this controversy and points made in the article. The whole article creates an impression that HJS is raising objections about nudity in paintings in general and about nude paintings by Husain in particular. This is not the case. HJS has raised objection about those of Husain’s paintings where he has hurt the religious feelings of Hindus. Apart from paintings of Hindu deties shown naked (in some cases in obscene postures too) these include paintings that totally twist the facts like one of his painting showing George Washington in the place of Lord Krushna. So it should be clear that paintings consisting of nudity of faces of unknown individuals and those depicting nakedness of deities worshipped by crores of people for centuries together are two altogether different things. The issue is not about nudity in art but hurting religious feelings through art. I think particular view adopted in the article by author is either deliberate or because of ignorance of the author about religious feelings of Hindus and the movement. (Sir, to make the issue clear to your readers it would have been better if you would have shown those objectionable paintings of Husain showing Hindu deities instead of the present ones in the article showing unknown nude females.) Whatever may be the reason it does misleads readers creating wrong impression about HJS. And so this clarification by HJS is essential.
5. Whenever anybody raises objection about an artist’s creation the lobby supporting him starts drumming up the song of attack on freedom of expression. The more moneyed the artist the more influential will be the lobby and the song will be louder and which in addition to the song itself will also express its feelings directly or indirectly that ‘only we know what art is all about, you commoner better shut up!’ This thing is also perceived in the published article. But those who do so should also remember that with freedom of expression there comes responsibility of using it correctly and secondly as freedom of expression is there for the artist, it is there for those who want to criticize his work too! Particularly if the art is made available for public viewing. All protests by HJS in this matter were peaceful. These widespread protests resulting in approximately 1250 complaints (lodged by commoners like housewives, students and others in the urban and nonurban areas of more than three states despite lot of police harassment) with police without any incidence of violence over the span of six months. Neither HJS supports any act of violence in this regard but one should give space for the criticism to express in legitimate way. I am sure that the author will support my request for the space for this clarification in The Sunday Express.
6. While arguing in favor of Husain, the author has mentioned about Husain’s ‘iconic paintings of themes from Ramayana and Mahabharata’. Well, it’s like a politician saying that he has done a lot of social work so he should not be punished for his corruption. Can some good acts become an excuse for non punishment regarding some acts of crime? It is particularly true when the author tries to underline the contrast in the conflict by saying ‘some 50 rabble-rousers belonging to the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti shouted out the 91 year old painter’. Age of the culprit also can’t be an excuse to hush a crime. The protests were organized outside Saffron Art Gallery’s Prabhadevi office with prior police permission.
Sir, the article published shows HJS in very poor light, defames HJS, mixes up the issue of nudity in art with art hurting religious feelings of Hindus and issue of nudity in art with the national pride getting hurt because of art. Let me also state that HJS is a nonprofit, apolitical NGO working also for issues like elimination of bad practices in public celebration of Hindu Festivals like noise pollution, big idols of Lord Ganesh, unnecessary extravaganza causing waste of public money etc. This article because of above mentioned reasons damages the image of HJS in public mind and needs clarification to limit the damage. I am sure that you will allow this clarification to appear fully in coming issue of The Sunday Express.
A receipt of this article by concerned desk will be well appreciated.
Yours truly,
Dr. Durgesh S. Samant
National Spokesperson,
Hindu Janajagruti Samiti
Mobile : 9322652711
E mail : [email protected]
Add. : B-12, Bhagirathi Jagannath Appts.,
Samantwadi, Uthalsar, Thane 401601.
Supporting News:
1. Why controversy dogs MF Husain
Sahar Zaman
CNN-IBN
Posted Friday, May 05, 2006 at 22:07
Updated Saturday, May 06, 2006 at 09:51
New Delhi: While the Centre’s move to impose restriction on MF Husain’s famous painting ‘Bharatmata’ has been a rare move of its kind, this is not the first time that M F Husain has courted controversy.
Nor is it the first time that he has been accused of insulting national honour. The current legal mess started when his artwork — Bharatmata in the nude — was brought up for an auction in February this year.
2. ‘Case already filed against Husain’
Express News Service
Day after Home Ministry directs Delhi, Mumbai to take action against artist, police chief says it has a month ago.
Mumbai, May 6: A DAY after the Union Home Ministry directed the Mumbai and Delhi police to take ”appropriate” action against artist M F Husain for his paintings depicting Hindu deities in a manner that might hurt religious sentiments, Mumbai Police Commissioner A N Roy said the Mumbai Police had last month registered a case against Husain.
3. "Red alert" on M F Husain
GG2.NET NEWS [05/05/2006]
THE INDIAN government has alerted the police fearing communal riots over a nude painting by the country`s most celebrated artist M F Husain, a report said.
A case against Husain for hurting the sentiments is also pending in a court.
The federal government has alerted police in New Delhi and western Mumbai city to "objectionable" paintings by Husain and asked for "appropriate action", an Indian newspaper reported on Friday.
The law ministry examined about half-a-dozen works by Husain and told the government that prosecutors would have a strong case against the artist if they sued him for deliberately hurting religious feelings.
The newspaper added that it was up to the state governments if they wanted to take action against Husain based on the advisory.
|| Shree ||
To, Date : June 5, 2006
The Editor,
The Sunday Express
Indian Express, Mumbai.
Sir,
We have sent an article (dated May 26, 2006 and received by your office on May29th 2006) refuting baseless allegations against us made by Ms. Maitreyee Handique in her article titled ‘The Unbearable Nakedness of Seeing’ published in your daily on May 21, 2006. This article misinforms public about Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) and its activities. Let me state that HJS is against Husain neither because he is Muslim nor because he is well known but because he has committed a crime to denigrate Hindu Gods & Hindu Goddesses through his paintings and continued to keep them for public viewing and sale. HJS has raised objections when other painters did it irrespective of their religion. We brought into light and raised protests against the unscrupulous spending of temple funds by Shree Sidhivinayak Temple management, Mumbai for so called International Temple Summit ( where Rs. 14 lakh were spent to provide Five star accommodation and food for the delegates for two days), HJS has brought into light the wrong depiction of Map of Jammu & Kashmir by CIA, BBC & CNN. These are just two of such activities by our NGO. The last one was raised in parliament. To label HJS as ‘fundamentalist returning to their favorite cultural pursuit’, ‘rabble rousers’ and the comments as ‘temperament of moral police’ etc. have done not only injustice but also has projected HJS in poor light amounting to defamation.
I hope that you will publish our clarification in next issue.
Yours truly,
Dr. Durgesh Samant, MD
National Spokesperson,
Hindu Janajagruti Samiti
|| Shree ||
Date: June 14, 2006
To
Shri. Shantanu Datta
The Editor( Mumbai ),
The Sunday Express / Indian Express
Sir,
We have sent clarification (dated May 26, 2006 and received by your office on May29th 2006 and is attached with this letter) refuting baseless allegations against us made by Ms. Maitreyee Handique in her article titled ‘The Unbearable Nakedness of Seeing’ published in The Sunday Express on May 21, 2006. This article misinforms public about Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) and its activities. Let me state that HJS is against Husain neither because he is Muslim nor because he is well known but because he has committed a crime of denigrating Hindu Gods & Hindu Goddesses through his paintings and continued to keep them for public viewing and sale. HJS has raised objections when other painters did such type of thing irrespective of their religion. We brought into light and raised protests against the unscrupulous spending of temple funds by Shree Sidhivinayak Temple management, Mumbai for so called International Temple Summit (where total expenditure was Rs.24 lakh and out of which Rs.14 lakh were spent to provide Five star accommodation and food for the delegates for two days), HJS has brought into light the wrong depiction of State of Jammu & Kashmir by CIA,BBC &CNN. These are just two of such activities by our NGO.The last one was raised in parliament. To label HJS as ‘fundamentalist returning to their favorite cultural pursuit’, ‘rabble rousers’ and the comments as ‘temperament of moral police’ etc. have done not only injustice but also has projected HJS in poor light amounting to defamation.
I hope that you will publish our clarification in next issue. Please note that your office has received our first reminder on June 5, 2006.
Yours truly,
Shri. Ramesh Shinde
Maharashtra State Spokesperson,
Hindu Janajagruti Samiti
