The Indian people’s response to M F Husain’s death has been fairly predictable. For a lot of people like me, it’s very sad that a 96 year old Indian was driven from his home and had to spend his last days under a strange sky and on strange soil. All because people were unable to ignore things which irritated them. But we’ve discussed this many times before. I’ve already explained why you can’t take someone to court for “offending” you. Only if they physically prevent you from doing something or if they physically attack you do you have the right to respond in a physical manner. Otherwise, if a painting offends someone they can protest against in in kind through another painting, a book, a song or a funny cartoon. Not using violence.
Any number of articles on Husain’s death have elicited heated comments. This post is to humorously analyse two of the most common “hate” responses. Here goes:
Would you allow your mother or sister to be painted naked?
This is so funny because it assumes that a person’s mother or sister is their personal property. If they go of their own free will and pose naked for a picture, do you have the right to stop them? Sure you may not like it, but it’s their choice. So the answer to the question goes like this. Would you paint your own mother or sister naked? I may not. But I won’t stop them if they want to get their own painting done :)
Another strange aspect is that in reality, no one’s mother or sister was painted naked. Imaginary gods and goddesses don’t qualify as people. If they did, then let the offended gods go take it up with the Supreme Court! Why should mere mortals have to do god’s work for them? If god is not going to court, what right do other people have to do it for them? In legal terms, they have no locus standi. Meaning that if a certain article attacks me personally, a third party doesn’t have the right to file a civil case on my behalf without my consent.
So let Bharat Mata come and do her dirty legal work for herself! Having poked fun at this response long enough, let’s move onto the other common refrain:
Why didn’t Husain paint Mohammed naked?
So here’s what I don’t get. Is your complaint against the painting or the painter? Suppose for a moment that he did paint Mohammed in the buff. Would these offended people suddenly be ok with the paintings of nude goddesses? The answer of course is no. So what the hell is the relevance of Husain’s other works? After all, a painting must be judged by itself as a standalone work of art. The painter is irrelevant. Once a painting has been painted it becomes a separate thing from the artist. It matters not at all whether he painted something else or not.
The angry crowd must object to the painting itself. Let them forget who painted it. The second point is this. Would it have been more acceptable if Husain was a Hindu? I personally feel that the angry boys are upset because they feel taken advantage of. They feel that Islam is far less tolerant and they want Hinduism to be intolerant as well. Interesting no? Instead of saying “Look how advanced we are. You can paint anything you want about Hinduism and no one will take it seriously,” the response instead is “Muslims would have gotten really upset. They’re so intolerant. I want to be intolerant too!”
So go to the comments section of any popular article on Husain and do a search for mother/sister. Also check out “Mohammed” and sit and enjoy all the outraged responses :D
You need not view a painting to be insulted by it. That Husain cared so little about Hindu sacred symbols is what makes his paintings offensive. Their insult is not their fault; it is Husain’s and Husain’s alone for knowingly painting provocative and insulting “art.” It doesn’t matter whether the deities in question exist or not. The point is that Husain knowingly and intentionally provoked the Hindus, who had done nothing to him at all. The entire thing is his own damn fault. He would never have had to go to Qatar if he had painted Hindu deities as they were meant to be painted, in accordance with the Hindu tradition, and not used sacred Hindu iconography to realize his perverse fantasies. I mean, it’s not like Husain was incapable of drawing things properly. I’ve seen some of his other paintings of fully clothed people in non-provocative poses, and I have no problem with them. It’s his flippant misuse of Hindu symbols that I resent.
In reply to Sasank
Of course you have to view a painting to be insulted! Tell me – suppose he painted these pictures and kept them in his bedroom without showing anyone. Say he just told people that he painted naked hindu goddesses. Would that still be insulting?
Suppose he just thought of naked hindu goddesses. Would that also be insulting? After all, a painting is nothing but a person’s thoughts translated onto canvas. Where do you draw the line? Freedom of expression is also freedom of thought.
In a democracy like India, we have a right to provoke people without the fear of violent retaliation. We have the right of be offensive and offend people. Let others respond in kind – using words, paintings, poetry etc. But not violence.
Of course it would be insulting. There is no reason for the Hindus to simply ignore the paintings and allow Husain to trample upon their deities as he pleased. The fact that he cared so little about Hindu sacred iconography is the issue here. I’m not saying he didn’t have the right to do so. I’m saying that it was a deliberately inflammatory thing to do. He has no one but himself to blame for the resulting fiasco. I’m not supporting violence against him or saying he had no right to paint or think. But he should have been willing to face the consequences of his own arrogance rather than flee to Qatar to avoid lawsuits and claim to be an innocent victim of Hindu fanaticism. He was not innocent by any means. He knew exactly what he was getting into, yet he didn’t care about perverting Hindu sacred symbols. The blame lies upon him and him alone.
In reply to Sasank
Are you saying there was no threat of violence against him? If so, then he was being threatened despite not breaking any laws. How is that his fault?
Everyone has the right to offend other people without the risk of getting harmed.
Sure he had the right to offend. But that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Husain provoked the Hindus to violence unnecessarily; he knew full well that he was insulting Hindu sentiments, but he didn’t care. Thus he was responsible for the consequences of his carelessness and irresponsibility.
In reply to Sasank
This is like a mullah claiming that a girl wearing jeans offends his follower’s sensibilities and therefore it’s her fault if she gets raped!
People who indulge in violence have no excuse. They’re expected to behave like adults and follow the law. The fault always lies with the person who first resorts to violence.
I’m not saying the fault doesn’t lie with the people who resorted to violence. I’m saying that Husain is also to blame because he deliberately an unnecessarily provoked the Hindu populace. Your girl in jeans example doesn’t work; girls who wear jeans don’t do it specifically to provoke Muslims who are offended by such things. Even those who do that do it specifically to challenge the mullah’s repression against women. In contrast, Husain was not challenging any kind of repressive practices in the Hindu community; he was not, for instance drawing paintings of upper castes abusing lower castes as a protest against caste discrimination. He was simply perverting Hindu symbols for no reason at all than to annoy the Hindu community.
In reply to Sasank
Then we need to understand what you mean by “blame.” You seem to agree that the people who threatened violence need to be punished as per the law of the land. Clearly, Hussain can’t go to jail or be fined since he didn’t break any laws.
So what does “blame” actually mean here?
I mean that Husain deliberately provoked the Hindu community to violence through paintings he knew they would dislike. He was responsible for the consequences of his actions, namely threats of violence that he was well aware would result. That does not meant that those who threatened him should be allowed to carry it out. My problem is not that Husain wasn’t fined or jailed; I agree that he should not have been. My problem is with him deliberately provoking the Hindu community, and then whining about being the victim of Hindu fanaticism. He isn’t the victim of anything but his own arrogance.
In reply to Sasank
The point I’m trying to make is that in a civilized society, no one should be afraid of threats of violence no matter what happens. The fact that Hussain was threatened reflects the immaturity of those who threatened him.
It also reflects a failure of the police to instill confidence in Hussain that he would be protected. Clearly threats themselves are meaningless unless there’s a danger of them being carried out.
For me, it’s all about the law. If a law is broken, then there is punishment. If no law it broken, it’s none of my business.
I’m not saying that those who threatened Husain were mature. But Husain himself was not mature at all either. Your views on laws are characteristically myopic. Husain’s actions were perfectly legal, but that doesn’t make it fair for him to intentionally and knowingly hurt people. Even if something is legal, people may indeed get offended by it. People’s emotions and reactions don’t fit into nice little boxes regulated by laws. Husain isn’t necessarily in the right simply because what he did was legal. It was cruel, abusive, and arrogant, and that, I think is what is at the heart of the issue. This is most definitely an emotional issue of religious sentiments and mutual respect, not a legal issue.
In reply to Sasank
I agree that Hussain might have been insensitive. But he has the right to be a jerk.
Some time ago, a pastor burnt a quran in the US. I wrote a blog post where I said that he had all the rights to do it – but he was a jerk at the same time.
But a person’s being a jerk or not being a jerk is none of my business as long as it doesn’t affect me. I’m concerned only when laws are broken. And when violence is threatened that’s when laws are broken which is why I wrote this blog post.
Given a choice between a person being a jerk and a person breaking the law, I would choose the former and not the latter.
I don’t think we disagree here. I don’t believe in censoring offensive material; I believe in refuting it. My problem here is with your contemptuous dismissal of the two “angry responses.” Hindus view goddesses as mother figures; whether they exist or not is irrelevant. Husain knew this and acted like a dick anyway. They protest against his failure to paint Muhammad naked because it implies that he cared more about not offending Muslims than about not offending Hindus. Dismissing the legitimate feelings of hurt and marginalization that Hindus felt in response to Husain’s drivel, and siding with this pervert I think, is hardly fair.
In reply to Sasank
I feel people have the right to respond in any way they want – angry or no. I only have a problem if those responses turn violent. I objected to the “angry responses” only because those making the responses seemed eager to respond with violence.
I disagree. The people who want to respond with violence are a small minority fringe among those who are hurt or annoyed by Husain’s “artwork” and make such “angry responses.” Simply because people are angry does not automatically mean that they’re foaming at the mouth and baying for Husain’s blood. You’re assuming that the Hindu populace is much more bloodthirsty than they actually are; the fanatics that the “secular” news media loves to highlight are in fact minorities that are given far more attention than they deserve given the small following that they command.
In reply to Sasank
I’m not so sure. The shiv sena for example is an organization with a well known history of violence and vandalization. Threats made by them are credible.
About the violence being in a minority, a cursory reading of the comments on any article regarding Husain on a news website reveals a disproportionate number of people calling for his execution, hanging, torture, etc…You’ll hardly come across a person saying “He was an asshole, but he shouldn’t be harmed.”
After all, when someone says “this is unacceptable,” what they’re really saying is “don’t do this or else…!”
He didn’t clear whether he was creating an art or throwing an insult
In reply to Prashant
Is there a difference?