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
if people don’t like a painting, they have the right to protest. The government does seem to have other priorities then protecting artists and writers who go around offending religious sentiments inadvertently or otherwise. I mean, even Salman Rushdie had to leave the country.
See it is easy for someone to sit in the US and offend every religion under the sun. In India, the government will not rush to protect you if go around offending religious sentiments. At some point in our history, people in India decided to leave religion to the religious. The tacit understanding was, I don’t offend your religion, you don’t offend mine. So when the muslim groups wanted Salman Rushdie’s books banned, the government compiled. When the hindu fundamentalists wanted Husain’s paintings banned, it compiled just as fast.
The government and people’s main aim is to keep the extreme religious views inside the mosques and temples. It comes in the way of making money. Distracted population means a population that does not turn up to work and instead goes around on protest marches all day. In India, work does indeed set you free. Free from hunger and religious fundamentalism anyway.
In reply to required
The government’s highest priority must be to ensure law and order. What’s next? The government has other priorities than protecting eloping couples from murder by their parents?
In reply to bhagwad
actually yes. The government must make all attempts to prosecute the murderers after the fact. Most of the time, honour killers are sentenced to death in a proper court of law. You cannot send a policeman to every home to monitor everyone 24 hrs a day. There are not enough policemen.
In reply to required
Agreed. But what action did the government take against the Shiv Sena for breaking the law and vandalizing Husain’s paintings? Who was jailed? Who was fined?
In reply to bhagwad
Filling up the internet with rhetoric now? I am sure that great writers such as yourself can do your own research.I looked in google for you and found this.
Binay Kumar Singh, who heads the Sri Ram Sena, as it is called in North India, was arrested in December last year for vandalising M F Hussain’s paintings. This is dated 2009. So I guess last year would be 2008.
The original protests occured much earlier and this is what I found :Deputy Commissioner of Police (zone I) Ashok Dhamija confirmed that 26 Bajrang Dal activists have been booked for trespassing and damaging property. –Dateline is Saturday, May 2, 1998 from Indian Express archives.
Remember the original paintings were created in 1996, so we are talking about events that occurred 15 years ago. India has moved out of 1996 into 2011, have you?
In reply to required
And what about people like the Thackerays who constantly threaten to protest “sena style?” Are you also saying that they get what they deserve?
In any case, the fact is that Husain left India because he was afraid. Why else would he have left?
In reply to bhagwad
the wonders of democracy. Thackerey gets support from the people. Believe it or not, people in Mumbai seem to love the guy. In India, people rule. I don’t get to decide who deserves what in politics.
Nobody can prevent anyone from leaving the country. Its a free nation, people can leave anytime they want.
In reply to required
People rule but the Constitutions rights are supreme. They cannot be changed. If the whole country wants to murder me, it’s still illegal and no law can be passed making it legal no matter how many MPs vote for it.
In reply to bhagwad
if there is artist painting Nazi paintings and glorifying hitler. Would you support him? How free is your freedom of expression? Where do you draw the line?
In reply to required
Of course I would support them as long as they’re not inciting people to violence or engaging in violence themselves. In fact, such issues cropped up in the US where a Neo Nazi party wanted to take out a rally in a Jewish population area.
The village tried to stop them, but the court said that freedom of expression is a right and they could take out any kind of peaceful rally.
So we draw the line when there is violence. No other reason is good enough to prevent FoE.
i mean complied.
Besides, if you “elope”, it means you are running away from your parents. Most of the eloping couples have enough sense to drop out of sight of their parents. Some of them have no means of livelihood after eloping and try to get back with their parents. That is the problem. If they stay away from their parents, no problems will occur. Angry people do stupid things.
The government cannot arrest someone before the event. Police rarely interferes in family disputes unless someone breaks someone’s head.
In reply to required
I agree. You can arrest someone only after the fact. But as I mentioned above, when the Shiv Sena goes berserk, shuts down shops, destroys signs, and in this case vandalizes paintings, what action does the government take against them?
the shiv sena has a huge following in Mumbai. The people there are like that. Deal with it.
In reply to required
No. First of all, there’s no proof that the majority of people like the Sena. Second, you can’t do whatever you want if you have the people support. The rule of law, equality, fundamental rights etc are not subject to removal just because people agree to it.
so if I make a nazi painting glorifying hitler, will you support it?
In reply to required
I may not agree with it, but I have no right to try and stop you.
If someone else tries to stop you, I will fight for your rights to paint a glorified Hitler.
In reply to bhagwad
I wonder, will you also fight for someone’s right to glorify Osama Bin Laden? Surely, common sense says you must draw the line somewhere? What about nude kids? If someone puts up paintings of nude kids, would that be fine by you too?
In reply to required
You have every right to glorify Osama Bin Laden provided you don’t actively call of violence. As for nude kids, are they paintings of real children, or imaginary ones? The first one hurts children’s privacy. The second harms no one.
It’s all about whether or not something actually causes someone real harm. Imaginary sentiments are not important enough.
so if I were to write articles, make images glorifying Osama bin laden and extolling his virtues in the good old USA, will you still fight for my rights? I wonder how long the government of the U.S.A will allow that?
required,
If your expressions are direct threats to commit violence they would not be protected IMO. Even though they are just expressions they cause the people being addressed to fear direct harm. This has extended in the US, to police being called in and tackling 8-yr old kid who throws tantrums at school; when he had a meltdown and threatened to kill his teacher. He was “armed” with a small piece of craftwork or something (no gun or knife) so maybe this isnt just expression but I think the expression was more the problem than the “weapon”.
thanks
Jai
Mothers/Sisters and Fathers/Brothers:
Draw a Nude, make him/her sit atop an animal & write full name of someone’s Dad/Bro or mom/sister on the nude, paste it on the notice board of that man/woman’s building.
Imaginary, Offensive. Irrelevant.
(Perhaps there is a case for using actual photographs also in similar positions, after all photographs and person depicted in it are different things, the former being a mere piece of paper.)
BTW that didn’t ‘ require his mom/sister 2 exercise their right to pose naked & which BTW was not, what all this is about: or were you talking Women’s freedom here?
Imaginary Gods:
Imaginary Gods are a nice argument. Can you tell us which “God” is not imaginary? And since Muhammad is not imaginary I presume your logical position would be to oppose doing a MFH on him but I see you were supporting Draw a Muhammad day, have you thought through your argument.
Never mind, with the distinction between Real and imaginary out of our way; (and here I must admit that yours is a very broad mined way to look at things), let us look at another question: If Hussain used his imagination to make a painting it is precious (besides the $$ it can fetch) and if it is vandalized by some loonies, we shd have a state mourning. But If an ordinary Hindu holds an image or a concept (a product of his or his forefathers imagination) but lacks the talent required for expressing his feelings/imagination in some tangible form to be displayed at art galleries, then his imagination can be trashed, ridiculed and he must not raise his voice?
Very broad minded again.
While at it may I ask why is insulting National Flag a crime? Why is it necessary to stand up when national anthem is played in Mumbai cinema halls? Has Tiranga ever moved a court of law to sue someone for offending it?
About the law and offending sentiments:
Contrary to your profound assertions, Salman Rushdie/Taslima/Da Vinci Code were banned under Indian Law for offending “Sentiments” & I don’t know if the governments went around w/ measuring tapes to measure how offended, Muslims or Christians felt. If the Liberals felt as strongly then, as they did in case of MFH, then I must have been a citizen of Pluto those days. These are the famous examples, but the true face of Indian liberals and their buddies in the mainstream media is seen in the stories which fail to make the grade and some of the them are pretty recent.
How many of you know about the arrest of The Statesman’s Editor (sometime in 2009 or 10), subsequent apologies by the newspaper and the editor all because they reproduced an article from some British newspaper, which criticized many religions/prophets including Islam? They also withdrew the article? Reason: some 2000 strong mob attacked their office blocked roads, damaged properties etc etc. Or the other much recent example from Karnataka where offended people went berserk damaging properties resulting in at least one death, because some local daily published an article allegedly written by Taslima. How much hungama?
So the difference is here: X does Y things, Y offend P people. P go berserk, vandalize public property, demand apology from X, demand ban on Y by the Government.
The story diverges from here: if P are Muslims/Christians, Govt bans Y. X may be arrested unless he apologizes. Very often X will issue an apology and offer to withdraw Y from the market. Freedom of speech is saved. If P happened to be Hindus, the Govt, will not only not ban Y but also uphold X’s right to make Y. X won’t apologize, defenders of freedom of speech will shout from every TV studio that freedom of speech is under threat of Hindu communalists. Celebrities after celebrities will give bites saying how India has been shamed and blah blah blah..
If you wish I’ll show how some of the torch bearers of MFH’s freedom went weak in their knees at the mere possibility of offending Muslims. Why should they apply different standards just because
Muslims are intolerant or are they? (True blues don’ think so)
Now you may have a problem with the existence of such a law but that is something you should take up with the Government. As long as the law about hurting sentiments exist, people are free to get hurt, feel offended, suffer mental trauma and seek legal remedy by filing cases as they did in MFH’s case.
In any case, whether X can take Y to court for “offending” him or not, is to be determined by the court of law and not by “broadmined Liberals”. Equally it is not for you to decide what should and what should not offend me, unless you have different laws for different people, something most liberals in India are very supporting of.
Hindu Tolerance :
(To begin with, true blue seculars don’t accept the claim that Hindus or Hinduism is tolerant.) You guys keep on saying Hinduism is diverse etc, it gives us freedom etc etc. Where does this tolerance disappear when some Hindus decide to be intolerant?
If tolerant hindus have no problem living with intolerant Muslims why are they so convened about living with some intolerant Hindus? Doesn’t Hinduism give enough freedom, allows diversity etc.
What courts said in case of Ban on Shivai Jee:
Good you remember that one, but do you know another book on Islam where courts upheld the ban: on very interesting grounds.
BTW with courts revoking the ban on Shiva Jee the field of academic scholarship stands widened considerably. I guess a 100 yrs down the line, a book speculating on parentage of one of the Gandhis wld deserve the same respect as James Laine’s scholarly take on Shiva Jee’s. So I am still giving a 100 years for double standards to rule the roost.
Why not draw Muhammad:
There is some merit in this argument, but “work of art” can be judged in many ways ? For e.g. it could be seen as a political stance? Or for that matter as evidence of painter’s hidden bestiality, or a pervert’s imagination let loose, or his deep seated hatred ? It is about interpretation and everybody is free to interpret it as he deems fit.
MFH the painter is a brand, his being the painter isn’t incidental to the Painting or the story. If that were so try selling his paintings w/out telling the buyer who is the painter and ask them to buy it by looking at it as a work of art.
The problem is that for our liberals defending MFH’s right to paint isn’t just about defending freedom of expression. They defend his expression, they defend the individual be it the author or thee painter.
That shows up in dumb explanations like Hussain is a great painter, picasso of India. He may be, but why should that matter? Is freedom of expression only for talented people?
Hussain loves India and Hinduism, the painting shows his love for the Goddess! So what?
Hinduism has a tradition of such art, so what? Hinduism traditions also include Sati can we do it then? I’m not even talking about the juvenile citing of statutes of Khajuraho to defend MFH, remember, not his “right to paint”, but “right paint”. So given the absence of such traditions in Islam, any painting on Prophet etc wld really be crossing the line.
But then isn’t it quite obvious why Indian liberals come up with such explanations? As I said, liberals, by and large, are not concerned with right to free speech, it is the “Right Speech” and that is why a Salman Rushdie or a Taslima won’t fly but a Hussain can soar.
Don’t get fooled by the prompt “yes I oppose that too” uttered by the likes of Javed Akhtars in response to questions about the ban on Satanic Verses. If they did oppose the Rushdie ban, they must’ve done so in their bathrooms, unlike the song and dance they made on Prime time TV in MFH’s case.
Another shining example, Mr Owaissi of MIM who was not only personally leading the physical attack on Taslima but defending and promising more from that very spot on prime time TV. I’m not sure if the VHP/BD attacks on the art galleries were physically led by leaders of particular significance, or if any such leader had threatened more violence on Prime time TV. Even if someone actually did, he certainly doesn’t get invited by Bdutt’s of the world to pontificate on secularism in popular talk shows, while “Owaissi Saheb” frequently gets to do so as an esteemed
Guest.
Before someone jumps to the standard counter-argument and labels me a nickerwala I want to put the record straight, for all I you know I might be one (altho’ I am not) but labels aren’t the argument and I don’t care. In my opinion Hussain’s paintings were in bad taste, insensitive at its most benign, but I am absolutely clear that he was well within his rights to do & so as am I to call his paintings cheap. The vandals who attacked the art galleries were a law and order problem and the Govt should have taken stern action against them and should have given full protection to Hussain and to the galleries showing his work.
Equally the hindus who filed cases against him were well within their right to do so. It was for the courts to decide if they merited a dismissal or not.
Hussain ran away from law, multiple cases in multiple places did not require him to run from one place to another not for a man of his means. There’ve been similar situations in which Supreme court ordered all the cases to be bunched together and heard at SC or a SC nominated bench. Hussain could’ve sought that relief. But clearly he was either unsure of his innocence or he thought Indian laws couldn’t give him justice or he considered himself above law, at least the Indian law.
The whole episode shows the liberal bigotry at its most eloquent, their poor grasp of the liberal values, absence of convictions as evidenced by the double standards they apply on Hindus. Worse, this is building a generation of liberals, mostly Hindu, whose shallow minds can’t differentiate between praising Hussain, ridiculing Hindus and standing up for free speech.
we humans get offended too easily. like I see some readers offended here :D check this out http://www.shoeboxblog.com/?p=26240
“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:”
What on earth does this sarcastic drivel have to do with the controversy? None of the deities in question actually posed for Husain’s paintings; the paintings were done WITHOUT their consent. The reason this argument is brought up is because Hindus view their goddesses with the same reverence that they do their own parents, hence, they feel the same level of insult that they would feel if someone painted a picture of their mother naked based upon seeing her clothed, and without her consent. What’s truly absurd here is that you say that the gods and goddesses in question are imaginary, yet you imply that they posed for Husain’s paintings (when they didn’t). Well, which is it? Bhagwad, if you’re going to go off on random tangents, please do us all a favor and make sure that they are logically coherent.
“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.”
Oh come on Bhagwad. Surely you jest. The reason that Hindus are protesting against his failure to paint Muhammad naked is because they know that he knows that if he had, he would have been killed while the pseudo-secular media wailed about his offending the religious sentiments of India’s poor, persecuted Muslim community. In contrast, they know that he also knew that if he painted Hindu deities in the nude, he would necessarily face death; radicalism is not as mainstream among the Hindu community as it is among Muslims. Moreover, he knew that the media would immediately side with him and whine about his “artistic freedom” being “compromised” by “Hindu extremists.” The painting doesn’t suddenly become separate from the artist who painted it; it needs to be in the context of his other works, which reveal the themes of his paintings. In Husain’s case, it reveals that he painted Hitler naked in one of his paintings to humiliate him. If Husain himself admits that he uses nudity in art to humiliate, then how can anyone praise this pervert?
“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”
The “angry crowd” doesn’t WANT to become intolerant. They become intolerant because Husain ABUSED their tolerance. Hindu “intolerance” is generally a response to intolerance by Muslims or Christians, who take advantage of Hindu tolerance to undermine it. If they acted like the Jews or Parsis have, and minded their own damned business, India would be a far more peaceful place.
In reply to Sasank
If people view gods and goddesses as people, then that’s their problem. Their insult it their own fault. And no one is forcing them to view the paintings so no one is forcing them to get insulted either. And I didn’t imply at all that the gods/goddesses posed for the paintings! Where did you get that idea? Deities cannot give consent because they don’t exist.
Tolerance has no meaning unless it is abused. If it’s not put to the test, then the tolerance is fake. And no one is asking for “tolerance” really. You have full freedom to hate the paintings and hate Hussain. Just no violence please or you go to jail. That’s all.