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
LOVE this post!! I have argued endlessly on this and these are the two exact objections.
“Muslims would have gotten really upset. They’re so intolerant. I want to be intolerant too!” is the commonest demand.
The same rationale is used for some other ‘privileges’ too… It seems those who object are actually envious and aspire to have Intolerance (etc) as a right.
In reply to Indianhomemaker
Sounds so strange no? People actually envy others for being intolerant :D
In reply to Indianhomemaker
Problem is you guys NEVER acknowledge that muslims are intolerant lot. Hand chopping, anyone? oh yeah, it was the professor’s fault.
In reply to Abhilash
There are certainly lots of intolerant Muslims. I’ve never denied it. In fact, that was the purpose of the “Everybody draw mohammed” day. But what’s your point?
Excellent points. I liked the first response very much! :D
I do not agree somehow. Society is not yet developed to such an extent where they can think like this [mother/sister stuff]. I somehow feel that even Mr. Hussain knew that what he was getting into. And he knew this as well, If you want to piss someone off very fast, attack their religion” But yes, he died in a way no one should.
“Why didn’t Husain paint Mohammed naked?”
When people ask this question, they basically mean that Hussain, like all Muslims, is perverted and intolerant of Hinduism and Hindus…They’ll give umpteen examples of how he painted Hindu Goddesses (do they even exist?) naked but always painted Muslims (including his daughter) fully clothed…What they fail to realize is that by asking such a question, they are doing nothing but showing their own intolerance and hypocrisy…Are Hindus, therefore, secular and tolerant as they claim to be?
What Hussain’s motive in painting nude Hindu Goddesses was, I don’t know…All I know is that he wasn’t violent and didn’t cause anybody bodily harm…If people don’t like his paintings, they should just ignore them…
In reply to Sraboney
Agreed. Let’s assume for the moment that Husain didn’t like Hindus and painted whatever he wanted just to antagonize them (which he most certainly didn’t but let’s say it was for the sake of argument.) Does that mean people have the right to be intolerant in return? As long as he wasn’t actually hurting anyone or preventing them from exercising their own rights, he can be safely ignored if people didn’t like him.
Here I am reading this just after I posted a similar view point on my blog :D
Muslims do not worship idols … hence what could the painter have used as a model? The portraits were of persons, not concepts! Our goddesses are celebration of the feminine principal. Yes they are, and one can’t deny that! He was chaste in depicting them, unlike some statues that I have seen.
In reply to Phoenixritu
Yup – there’s that too! No shortage of material in Hinduism :D
Well I guess you won’t mind my commenting over here :P
And, I found it strange and felt pity that posing naked for a painting is a profession in our country. While in some countries like France and America people do it for mere sake of artistic values, can’t believe them either. As far as painting Hindu Gods naked is concerned I guess Hussain Sir loved controversies, as an Indian he would have been knowing the simple fact that we Indians are pretty much aggressive when it comes to religion. He could have explored his artistic limits with something more profound and unimaginable.
Alas, now he is dead, and we must bury all controversies with him. Nice read. :)
http://n2mn.blogspot.com/
In reply to RACHIT SHARMA
Civilised life, especially in countries with great ethnic and religious diversity, would soon break down if everyone felt free to say anything they liked to anyone. The problem is where to draw the line. Indyeah: Qatar Calling
In reply to Formerly Anon
That’s a very depressing thing to say Anon. You’re almost making it a law saying there’s no way humans can learn to live with tolerance. Words after all can always be ignored. They’re just sounds coming from a person’s mouth or ink on a book. Unlike physical violence people always have a choice to listen to words or see a painting.
In reply to bhagwad
Fortunately (my opinion), we don’t have the equivalent of First Amendment, otherwise there would have been no case against Varun Gandhi or Imam Bukhari for incendiary speech. Sadly (my opinion again), we have drawn the line differently for Rushdie, for Taslima and for MF.
Bhawad,
Hanuman & Sita have a Mother-Son kind of relationship. They are never pictured naked together as Hussain did. Also, if you choose to defend his paintings by pointing to Khajuraho, what was that about hitler? Was hitler also painted naked in Khajuraho? He painted hitler naked among other leaders (fully dressed) to insult Hitler. So, we can argue that he might have meant to insult hindu gods, you can never know. And why did he remove a song from his film when some muslim group opposed? He chose to respect them/fear them? what was it? Anyway, many people see it as this – when hindus opposed his art he said it is art, live with it. When Muslims opposed, he duly obliged. If you say he has the right to offend, then ok, that is some logical argument. If you say he did not mean to offend by his paintings, *totally* illogical considering his other paintings and action when a muslim group was involved.
Anyway, I personally don’t have a problem with his paintings, but I do have a problem with ‘seculars’ like you and IHM commented above.
You guys are an interesting lot. Screaming for freedom of expression if that freedom is used against anything Hindu (or Christian in USA). When people like Taslima & Rushdie are are involved it is all about religious sentiments. I have not seen any secular folks defending the right of ‘that’ cartoonist in national TV. All those freedom of expression fans will run for dear life when they hear those magical 2 words ‘danish cartoons’. Just like ‘secular liberals’ in USA run for cover when they hear another set of magical words – ‘Florida pastor’. I have seen liberals say there should be freedom to burn the American flag because we need absolute freedom and vociferously defend the rights of Westboro baptist church. When the issue of the pastor was in the news all the liberals were missing. And you had called him a jerk. By your own logic Hussain is a jerk, is he not?
My point is, if you don’t have the balls to stand up to all fundamentalists, just freaking accept it. Then we can take it from there.
In reply to Abhilash
Abhilash, you accuse me of not standing up for the freedom to offend when it involves Muslims. Here are some examples on my blog where I’ve done just that.
1. The freedom to paint Mohammed
2. The Freedom to offend in general
3. I supported Terry Jones when he burnt the quran.
If Husain meant to insult Hindus, he is indeed a jerk. But being a jerk is not illegal.
And if you think that freedom loving liberals are ok with freedom of expression being clamped down on when it offends Muslims, you haven’t read too much of them. The links above are all on my blog and are easily found under the “freedom” tag. But you didn’t even bother searching for them instead assuming that I hadn’t written anything offensive to Muslims at all.
So give people the benefit of the doubt before accusing them of being one sided.
In reply to bhagwad
I’ll give it to you for being a neutral. What I meant was the guys who come on TV as experts and participate in discussions or the persons who are well known in public space.
As an example, I’ll quote a well known secular liberal Vir Sanghvi (From http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=445)
“Even if he had painted the Prophet, fully clothed and portrayed with respect. we would not have risen to Husain’s defence with the same vigour.”
This is typical attitude of the secular liberals. Most of them are like this. I do appreciate you writing against all fundamentalists, but there are well known ‘secular’ people in India who have vouched for Hussain because it is art and campaigned against the cartoons. I was pointing out the contradiction.
In reply to Abhilash
I read the article and I agree that it’s outrageous. There’s no excuse whatsoever in not denouncing fanatical Muslims if they react violently to someone painting Mohammed.
But let me say that most people who love freedom are not like Sanghvi. They denounce both with equal vigor.
Let’s put this to a test. I’ll put up a poll on my blog asking readers if they will get equally outraged by a person offending hindus and a person offending muslims. I’ll give the examples of Jones burning the quran and Husain’s paintngs. It’ll be neutrally worded with no nudging in either direction. What do you say?
In reply to bhagwad
here is an idea: would your readers be equally outraged against anti christian propaganda? how about pro-hitler stuff? Would they prefer not to be offended by that? I mean if there is a show of Nazi art in your town, would you not protest? Even though the freedom of expression should allow Nazi art?
In reply to required
Boss, if you don’t like to see a Nazi rally why on earth would you go and watch it? That’s the beauty of words and paintings etc. You can get offended only if you choose to go and see them.
It’s like choosing to put your hand into the fire and then complaining when you get burned!
In reply to bhagwad
Enlarging the scope of this leads me to questions that are more troubling and the answers less clear. In this comment I use “nazi rally” at various points of space to compare to a town with mixed population of conservatives and liberals.
1. “Nazi rally” in enclosed gallery or stadium.
The conservatives and liberals hold their own talks and shows where everybody is welcome but people go by choice.
2. “Nazi rally” in public streets/ square.
If I transit thru I dont have the option of not watching it. I need to change my route or time.
This is akin to a common place in the town. When Cs and Ls meet they make polite small talk but mostly avoid socializing with the “other” set.
Also a sign of growth and strength on the part of the group staking claim on the public space.
3. “Nazi rally” happening everyday:
I need to make a permanent change in my plans.
The town square is dominated by the “other” crowd. The losing camp (C or L) makes fewer and fewer appearances in public space. Their meetings are now guarded and even in enclosed spaces they probably authenticate entrants and participants.
4.”Nazi rally” 24×7 everywhere in town.
If its all over the place it is the new normal and I am the aberration. I either make peace with this and get back to my old routine, or relocate to a place where I am not the aberration.
C or L crowd leave town and go to someplace that is a better fit for ” their” values.
——————————————
We probably see these camp formations more clearly in the webworld but I have come across a fair number of instances of people actually reaching step 4 IRL, or at least they claim to do so on their blogs. There isnt much of a point to this post other than to note that people who are ideologically flexible seem, oddly, to be better suited to get along in any place.
thanks
Jai
Have a draft that pretty much says this, though not as articulately. I even went back to see his body of work – I thought the Bharat Mata painting was really nice aesthetically. And he painted the horses nude too….no one cares about animals’ morals now. Darn it….what a beastly state of affairs! :-D
Belong to the first group that feels sad that a 90+ er did not have the choice to come home, regardless of whether he chose to come or not. RIP, MFH!
In reply to Sangitha
That’s another thing isn’t it? His paintings are nowhere near offensive even to a prude. They’re certainly not porn.
As people have the right to offend , so also the right to get offended and in turn to counter offend and so the cycle can go on forever . So please dont decide for people what should or should not offend them. I agree with you that violence should have no place in this.
To my knowledge Hussain was never physically attacked .
As for the painting of muhammed , I think there is a legitimate argument . The question is , whether Hussain was a bigot . You are correct that “the angry boys/girls are upset because they feel taken advantage of ” , and I dont see you giving any reason why they shouldn’t feel so. Hinduism does not need to compete with other religions in your hypothetical market place where it could use its liberal credentials as usp .
It is unfortunate that he had to die in a far away land , but it was his choice , he could always have chosen to stay back and fight for his right to express himself . The court had squashed all but three cases against him , for me he was an opportunist who took qatari nationality {beacon of liberty i presume} when it suited him. I guess he was an indian after all , as we are probably the most opportunistic people.
In reply to shashank
Agreed. If something offends someone, so be it. As long as they don’t turn violent. Though Husain wasn’t attacked, his paintings were vandalized which crosses the line of physical action and the RSS/Shiv Sena also issued physical threats to him. Rather than fight long protracted legal battles he just chose to leave.
To be “taken advantage of,” you have to be in a worse situation than you were before. How are Hindus worse off for Husain’s paintings? They can still worship whatsoever they wish and still have all the same rights. No one was harmed and so no one is taken advantage of.
My normal reaction when I find something offensive to me is to shut it off from my existence. More than religion, I take my parenting principles seriously. So should I go and shut down every parenting author who offends my sensibilities and philosophies?
People may say religion and parenting are not the same, but hey, I decide what is more important in my life. Just because there are more people offended by something does not make it a more worthy target.
Lastly, what I find hugely ironical is that we all believe God is all powerful. That God will punish the evil doers and nothing can happen without the will of God. And yet, the same believers get their panties in a bunch when someone “offends” God and try to defend the AllMighty God who is capable, apparently, of everything else in the universe except defending Himself / Herself / Itself.