Why did we Protest against the Paintings of M.F.Hussain.

AGREE WITH YOU ON ALL POINTS

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Bharatmata.The mother is above all the worldly things,be it art culture and personalities.Perhaps only Indians understand this virtue.

yes!!!

Rajee:

You have commented on Vidyanathan Pushpagiri's blog AS A NATION WE FAILED HIM - M.F. HUSAIN. I agree with Vidyanathan Pushpagiri's statements about the Husain controversy -- that Husain's paintings should be seen as protected free speech within a secular society and under a secular government. If you are going to criticize me for having that opinion, you should likewise criticize Vidyanathan Pushpagiri, who has expressed the same opinion.

I do not agree with India's law against the criticism of religions. That law begs the question "what constitutes a religion?" The Indian law can be used to put a damper on philosophical discussions which are necessary for a society to have expressive freedom and to make intellectual progess. I believe that everyone should have the right to publicly criticize all religions. Without freedom of speech and expression, you cannot have a true democracy or a secular society.

As I have stated before, I am not a proponent of Islam. Neither am I an enemy of Moslems. "Live and let live" is my credo. Hindu temples display lots of ancient statues of naked Gods, so the nude issue is moot. I do not see that M.F. Husain has harmed anyone with his paintings. Husain did not deserve to be harassed or to have his paintings destroyed. Those who do not like Husain's paintings have the option of not looking at them. There is no need to ban Husain's paintings. Some people, including many Hindus, admire Husain's art, and they should be free to enjoy it in peace.

Gregory Fegel

Karor:

Gandhi and most others in the Independence movement wanted India to be a pluralistic or secular State. At Partition Pakistan was created as an Islamic State, but most of India's leaders and citizens wanted India to be a pluralistic, secular State.  

India's Constitution "... declares the Union of India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty and, endeavors to promote among them all, fraternity. The words "socialist", "secular", and "integrity" were added to the definition in 1976 by constitutional amendment." Constitution of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pluralism or secularism is simply the doctrine of tolerance which is a common ideal among many religions and also for most atheists. Without tolerance you will not have a safe and sane society. The doctrine of tolerance is prominent within the Hindu scriptures. Why behave with intolerance? If you reject the intolerance of Islam, why would you want to become intolerant as a Hindu? Is Hinduism to become an intolerant religion?

Husain has many Hindu friends, patrons, and admirers who are not offended by his nude depictions of Hindu gods. A subset of Hindus, even if they might be a majority, should not be seen as speaking for all Hindus.

In traditional Hindu art and in the ancient art of many nations, nakedness is a symbol of detachment from wordly matters and of spiritual purity. The naked Jaina saints stand in giant effigies. The digambar sadhus march naked in their thousands at the Melas. Countless images of naked Hindu Gods and Goddesses adorn ancient temples throughout India. Anyone, including Husain, should have the right to portray the Hindu Gods in a naked form. 

The unconventional graphic expressions of a modern artist such as Husain should be tolerated within a secular society. If we intend to protect the rights of communities, the rights of the community of free-thinking artists to express themselves should also be protected.

In legal terms, who can prove that Husain caused any harm to anyone with his paintings? The only riots, harassment, and death threats that resulted from Husain's paintings were committed against Husain by some Hindu fanatics who do not like Husain's art. No one is forcing anyone to look at Husain's art, and there is no evidence that Husain's art inspired violence -- except the violence committed by the Hindu fanatics who don't like Husain's art.

Husain has many Hindu friends and admirers. Which type of Hinduism will prevail -- the tolerant Hinduism or the intolerant Hinduism?

-- Gregory Fegel

Hi Greg,
Such a long argument does not impress me----I am not questioning Paintings by Hussain but his motives----He confessed that he painted naked those whom he hated----So to me this is full of motivated paintings by him----
As regards naked paintings of Hindu Gods in various temples----it is their in house issue----but an outsider has no business to comment upon them unless he has the same attitude towards his own religious belief-----I would have respected him , if he had done the same thing to his own mother whom he painted fully clothed.
I do not buy your logic that he was not a devout Muslim-----this is not the issue here---He never denounced his religion----this kills your argument----I may not be a devout Hindu---but it does not give me a certificate to ridicule Islam/ Christanity-----I must convert to do 'in-house' criticism.
If some Hindus like his paintings----it does not prove him right----
Greg, I am equally modern and secular----do not require a certificate from Farcial Hussain to prove my modernity-----Greg, your defnce of MF hussain betrays your leanings----it does not mke you a bit modern or secular---You are always biased and prejudiced towards those who question the credentials of Islamic terrorist or Hate- Masters-----Your liberalism ends where criticsm ---genuine criticsm of Pakistan, Islamic terrorists or Muslim Personalities begin-----Your mask of a christian neme does not defend your biased mind.
Cheers!
Regards
Rajee

Thanks Lamberdar aka Mr. Sharma for your comments on my blog on Paintings of MF Hussain. I read your blogs too and would like to say that they were very informative and useful.

Greg
Thanks Greg for all your comments. We all believe that depicting Gods and the values considered religious by members of any religion should not be depicted in any derogatory way. We in India respect other religions and their practice.Though India is not a secular state, it is incumbent upon us to respect other religion. When we respect Hussain's religion, we expect similar response. Since there is no Uniform Civil Code in India, it cannot be considered a secular society,but still whatever Secularism has been existing in India, it is due to tolerance of the majority Hindu community. India was not a nation in true sense in the old days when some Gods and Goddess were depicted naked.Nakedness is not to be overemphasized which Hussain did to gain recognition and fame and perhaps money. Draupadi was saved by the God that just shows that this act was wrong and needed to be punished. A lot of Hindu girls and women were raped by the Muslims during India's partition but this was not publicised or shown anywhere and hence there were no protests. Some Hindu and other Indian artists have acknowledged Hussain.It is true but it is fashion among Indian artist to project themselves as progressive by downgrading their own religion.If they are true to their blood,let them criticize any Muslim or Christian or Sikh religious tenets or Gods.They would know the difference. It is all vote philosphy in India and the political parties,their leaders or henchmen would not criticise Hussain because they want Muslim votes.Yes communalism came to India because Muslim rulers converted Hindus or taxed or harassed them for not becoming one.The Christians exploited poverty among poors to convert them to Christianity.The intimidation came from other religions and now Hindu's react, they are termed as communalist. Your knowledge of Hinduism and Indian history is commendable.

"Why did we Protest against the Paintings of M.F.Hussain."

>>> Indians (Hindus basically) are criticizing MF Hussain (a Muslim) for creating nude and vulgar drawings of Hindu deities and worship symbols and then exhibiting and selling them to make money. MFH's criticism is not widespread though. He has many admirers among India's elite, including top politicians and high officials who look at him as a great art personality and a genius (basically for debasing Hindu worship symbols).

Americans are criticizing A. Weiner (a politician cum photographer) for taking snaps of his crouch area and emailing / twittering them to people. Unlike MFH, he has not shown his creations (photos) in any exhibition and has not sold them for money. But Americans (both public and politicians) are already quite mad with him and want him to quit his job as a member of Congress immediately (because of the nude photos).

Thus it seems, in spite of the similarities in their artworks (nudie paintings and photos), A. Weiner is not getting the same type of recognition and acceptance in America as given to MFH in India.

Karor:

I see that an image of Husain's painting Rape of India is now included in your blog. I only learned about Husain's Rape of India painting this morning. My earlier remark, which pertained to Husain's Bharat Mata, I therefore retract.

The text of your blog, in reference to Husain's Rape of India, reads: Representing India as a woman being raped, is nothing but terrible denigration. For an Indian, 'Bharat Mata' (Mother India) is a Goddess and not some figurative concept and showcasing her in this manner is highly outrageous and a completely unacceptable form of denigration. 

Husain said that his Rape of India was inspired by the Mumbai attack. It is not so outlandish to compare the Mumbai attack to a "rape" of India.  Surely Husain would not be the only one to apply the metaphor of rape to the Mumbai attack. 

Rape is not unknown in the Vedic literature; in the Puranas some Hindu gods raped the sage Gautama's wife. The attempted disrobing of Draupadi in the Mahabharata could be described as an attempted rape.

"In the great gambling match which the eldest brother, Yudhisthira, played at Hastinapura against his cousins, the Kauravas, he lost his all - his kingdom, his brothers, himself, and their wife Draupadi. So she became a slave, and Duryodhana called her to come and sweep the room. She refused, and then Duhsasana dragged her by the hair into the pavilion before all the chieftains, and tauntingly told her that she was a slave girl, and had no right to complain of being touched by men. He also abused her and tore off her veil and dress, while Duryodhana invited her to sit on his thigh. Krishna took compassion upon her, and restored her garments as fast as they were torn." mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/draupadi.htm

In Husain's painting, the woman is fully clothed. The red mark on her forehead, intersected by the brown diagonal line, appears to be a head wound. I take her to be a victim shot in the attacks. The two bovines are not distinguishable by sex; they might both be cows. The woman's position relative to the two bovines is not evocative of a sexual contact. One of the bovines has a gunshot wound in its left haunch. The woman, the infant, and the two cows all appear to be victims -- all of them are shot through by the brown diagonal line which transects the canvas, including the red mark (blood?) on the woman's head. The divided canvas is evocative of division -- the division might be between Pakistan and India, between Muslims and Hindus, or simply represent divisions in general -- or the divided canvas simply represents a broken or wounded condition. The droplets probably represent the tears of the nation. That's about all I would read into it.

I don't see Husain's Rape of India painting as an insult to India. 

-- Gregory Fegel