Hussain's Critics Voice Their Angst
24 Jun 2007, 0035 hrs IST
,Shashi Tharoor 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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment