The ongoing Husain debate -- Editorial from the Times of India

[Guest guest]

SHASHI ON SUNDAY:

Husain's critics voice their angst

24 Jun, 2007

Shashi Tharoor

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Sunday_Specials/All_That_Ma

tters/SHASHI_ON_SUNDAY_Husains_critics_voice_their_angst/articleshow/2

144446.cms

or

http://tinyurl.com/37yfks

 

[shashi Tharoor writes:]

I suppose I should have been braced for the inevitable

backlash that came my way in response to my column

'Why is India's Picasso staying away?', about the

persecution of M F Husain, but I was still taken aback

by the virulence of the attacks directed at me. Emailers

and bloggers of a particular persuasion have insulted me

roundly, called me everything from a deracinated

intellectual to a 'jihadist', and dragged my mother, sisters

and wife into their outrage as well. What on earth has

happened to civilised discourse in our country? That

people educated enough, and affluent enough, to have

recourse to the internet, should express themselves in

this manner is almost as depressing as the content of

their convictions. I grew up in an India of school debates

and inter-college tourneys in which we were

encouraged, indeed expected, to disagree with each

other, but to do so with reasoned argument, not

invective. I am sure that India still exists, but it has yet

to manifest itself on this issue.

 

There was one honourable exception to the unrelenting

tirades of the self-righteous: a sincere and thoughtful

email from a K V Sundaravadanan, respectfully

expressing his anguish at Husain's paintings of Hindu

goddesses and my defence of them. After all the hate

mail i have received from those who disagree with me, it

was a pleasure to hear from one who couches his

concerns in such evident decency. But that does not

mean he has persuaded me.

 

Mr Sundaravadanan acknowledges that Husain's

paintings " no doubt have brought laurels to this country.

But, " he goes on, " what purpose have his pieces on

Goddess Saraswati and Bharatmata achieved? Have they

brought universal joy to the beholder? The artist should

bring joy to the people and not pain or revulsion. " That

point, sir, is easily dealt with: few works of art elicit

unanimous responses of either joy or revulsion.

Aesthetic appreciation is often a subjective matter, and a

painting that brings you joy might easily leave me

indifferent, or vice-versa.

 

His second point, however, touched me. " I am an

ordinary, very ordinary, individual, going about my life

peacefully, without consciously causing mental or

physical pain or anguish to anyone " , writes

Sundaravadanan. " I am probably a representative of

millions of Hindus in this country or abroad, devout, and

respectful to not only Hinduism but also other religions.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid caused enormous

mental anguish, which lasted for months. The above

mentioned paintings of Mr Husain caused similar

anguish which still hurts. " And he adds: " i, like my

millions of fellow followers of my religion, are a

voiceless lot... "

 

Certainly the gentler voices of ordinary and well-

meaning folk are all too often drowned out by the

raucous cries of the extremists on both sides of any

controversy these days, which is why i believe it is

essential for liberal commentators like myself to listen to

them. It would be foolish of us to pretend that the

anguish expressed by Sundaravadanan is not real. But it

is, sadly, unnecessary and misplaced.

 

Had Husain set out to denigrate Hinduism the way that

the mobs set out to demolish the Babri Masjid, such

anguish would be understandable. But Husain is a

painter with a six-decade record of not just respecting

Hinduism but of being inspired by it. In countless

paintings he has revealed a profound and subtle

appreciation of the tales and legends of Hindu tradition,

allusions to which (and depictions of which) infuse

much of his art. This is not some deracinated shock-

jock, but an Indian as immersed in the Hindu cultural

heritage as any artist who professes the Hindu faith. He

has depicted goddesses and the quasi-divine characters

of our mythology in his work for decades. But why

unclad, Sundaravadanan may well ask. For millennia

there has been a distinction in art between 'nudity' and

'nakedness'. The human form, whether ascribed to real

people, mythological figures or divine beings, has long

been a major subject of artists and sculptors in every

tradition. Nudity was a staple of Indian art and sculpture

for millennia: some of the most exquisite statues and

temple carvings from antiquity depict goddesses (as well

as apsaras, gandharvas and mythological characters)

unclothed. It is the artistic merit of the work that

distinguishes a nude from a salacious or pornographic

depiction of the naked body. Michelangelo's David is

revered and visited by millions every month. Yet, it

shows a fully naked young man in anatomically explicit

detail. What is more, David is the great hero of the

Jewish people. Yet, there have never been any protests

by Jews or others about Michelangelo's (or many other

artists') depictions of David in the nude, because the

artist's intent and the quality of his work speak for

themselves.

 

In my view, that is also true of MF Husain. His intent is

neither salacious nor hostile to Hinduism: he has

depicted divine figures in keeping with the artistic

sensibility of his age, just as Raja Ravi Varma's

depictions of Saraswati reflect the best of Victorian

canons of realist art. Sundaravadanan is of course free to

disagree about the merits of Husain's work or his choice

of subject-matter. Not everything Husain paints is

equally worthy of admiration: his output is so prodigious

that some of it is uneven. I have myself publicly

questioned his depiction of Indira Gandhi as Goddess

Durga in 1971. His motives were clearly political, but as

a work of art the Durga/Indira painting is still

impressive. That, in the end, should be the only criterion

that matters.

 

Sundaravadanan adds his concern that Husain's work

could provoke " sexual crimes and assaults on women " .

That, i'm afraid, is where he loses me. No work of art

can explain or justify any sex crime; if an assault occurs,

the criminals should be punished, not the artist. To put

the artist in the dock for the misbehaviour of his

detractors is to betray the best of our civilisation at the

behest of the worst. And that no right-thinking Indian

should let happen.