HVK Archives: Alienation of Some Intellectuals
Alienation of Some Intellectuals - The Times of India
Posted By ashok (ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in)
Mon, 21 Oct 96 16:26:08 PDT
Alienation of Some Intellectuals
Ashok Chowgule, President
Mahanagar Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Mumbai
When Shri M F Husain's depiction of Saraswati in the nude came to
light, he could have said, "I did not intend to hurt the
sentiments of
the Hindus. However, I now see that this could have happened,
and,
therefore, I am sorry for having depicted Saraswati in the manner
I
did." That would have been the end of the matter. Shri
Vikramrao
Savarkar, nephew of Veer Savarkar, had in fact suggested this
approach. Shri Husain chose not to follow this advice. The
support
he received in this obstinacy from the intellectuals not only
made the
controversy ugly, but has also prolonged it. What is more, it
has
highlighted, as nothing else could, the way we deal with issues
when
the sentiments of Hindus come into the picture.
The drawing depicts a female nude form with the standard
Saraswati
symbols of a lotus, a peacock and the musical instrument Veena.
The lettering Saraswati (in devnagari) at the bottom clearly
identifies
the artist's intentions. In case of such a drawing, the issue of
aesthetics cannot be discussed. The image of Saraswati is so
jarring, that it has to offend one's mind, if one reveres
Saraswati. If
the picture had the same arrangement, with the same female form
fully clothed, the issue of aesthetics can come into play. If
the
picture had the same female nude form, without the Saraswati
symbols, the issue of aesthetics can also come into play. The
question is not of a nude female form, but of a nude goddess.
Symbols are very important to society. These symbols can be
visual, textual or of some other variety. When we hear the words
'tryst with destiny', the image of Jawaharlal Nehru comes to
mind. If
Mother Teresa is depicted in a Paithani sari and not in her usual
simple garb, the form will be jarring to one's sensibilities. A
Paithani
is associated with wealth, something that is not of concern of
the
Mother. If one were to use the aesthetics argument here, then
obviously one is barking up a wrong tree.
Although the drawing was done about twenty years ago, it has come
to light only through a book, Husain - Riding the Lightning, by
Shri
Dnyaneshwar Nadkarni, brought out in 1996. It was also part of a
Marathi book on Shri Husain, which came out in 1993. For a long
period of time, the existence of this drawing was not public
knowledge. And hence it would not have created the controversy.
Using the 'long ago' argument also implies that a fraud conducted
more than twenty years ago, but discovered only now, should not
be
the concern of the law.
Shri Husain has also been supported on the basis of artistic
freedom. But, does freedom also not presuppose responsibilities?
When Mahatma Gandhi was given a Bill of Rights, he sent it back
to
the author, saying that he should prepare a Bill of Duties, and
from
this the Rights would automatically follow. This is the concept
of
Dahrma that exists in our Hindu philosophy, and a person of high
social position has a stricter Dharma than a person at a lower
level.
The former is held as a role model for the rest of society. The
intellectuals obviously do not wish to have any duties, but will
demand that they enjoy all the rights.
Some say that it is prudish to be offended by Shri Husain's
drawing,
since in Hindu art there are many depiction of nudity, even in
temple
premises. Thus, if Khajurao is to be accepted, so should
Husain's
Saraswati. What this line of argument ignores is that what Shri
Husain has drawn is not a nude form, but a Saraswati in nude.
Khajurao depicts mortal human beings, and the erotic art is
restricted to a small part of the total temple art. Similarly,
we have
Hindu gods and goddesses in what could be determined to be
'intimate' positions, using today's ethical standards. In such a
case,
the sensibilities are not offended because this is a traditional
form of
expression. Much has also been made of a 'Saraswati' in nude at
a
temple. Again, one needs to understand the rule and the
exception.
This nude 'Saraswati' is not in a temple of Saraswati, and the
only
way it is identified as Saraswati is because she is holding a
Veena.
There are no other Saraswati symbols.
Shri Husain is also said to be steeped in Hindu culture. But,
does
this give him a license to hurt Hindu sensibilities? Does this
not put
an even greater responsibility on him to show restrain?
Moreover,
those who have objected to this drawing of Shri Husain have never
said that his other depiction of Hindu symbols are objectionable.
Again, an irrelevant argument is brought into the picture.
All the points put forth by the supporters of Shri Husain's
drawing
have been answered. Yet, they go on saying the same thing again
and again. Using different words, different structure of
sentence,
rearranging the position of the points, may be good English, but
it
does not add anything to the debate. One would like to assume
that
those supporting the drawing are not stupid or ill-informed -
this
would be a real insult to their intellectualism. Therefore, one
cannot
but help to come to a conclusion that there is a deliberate
effort being
made to create confusion.
This impression is reinforced when it is alleged that Shri Husain
is
being targeted because he is a Muslim. The question is whether
Shri Husain has hurt Hindu sentiments. If he has, his religious
identity is immaterial. Unless, of course, one starts with a
proposition that it is perfectly legitimate for a Muslim to hurt
Hindu
sentiments. The Husain supporters well know that whenever Hindu
sentiments have been affected, various people have objected to
the
same, even when the ones creating the hurt are Hindus. Numerous
examples can be given of such instances. What these supporters
(and even Shri Husain) seem to have forgotten is that when he was
asked to leave the premises of Willingdon Club, the organisation
that
supported him was Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad. Many of
the
present Husain supporters had actually rationalised the decision
of
the Club. Does this mean that these supporters were anti-Muslim
then? Furthermore, some Muslims have also condemned Shri
Husain. Does this make them anti-Muslim too?
While these supporters are unrepentant as far as Shri Husain is
concerned, they are up in arms against the reaction of the
Bajrang
Dal in Ahmedabad. Before condemning, if one does not understand
the events that led to it, and some of the subsequent ones, we
would
be doing a great disservice to rational discussion. Had Shri
Husain
apologised earlier, would this event have happened? Is blaming
Bajrang Dal totally not akin to blaming the Pandavas for the
Mahabharat war? Why did Shri Husain suddenly apologise after the
event? Does this not mean that in the future a reasonable
request
will be acceded to only after a drastic action is taken? Since
the
issues cannot be answered, the programme is to change the terms
of discussions from the original one about Shri Husain hurting
Hindu
sentiments, to the reactions of Bajrang Dal as a stand alone
incident.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has requested Shri Husain to make a
ceremonious destruction of the offending drawing. In turn, he
has
'threatened' that he will destroy all his paintings. The VHP has
clearly stated that if he chooses to do so, then it is his
artistic
freedom. However, the objective of the 'threat' is to once again
confuse the issue, and create another diversion. Clearly, if the
apology is sincere, then the existence of the drawing cannot be
accepted. Some time back, a fashion house in Europe had made
some garments with Arabic verses as a design. When it was found
that these were Koranic verses, the fashion house apologised and
announced that the dresses were destroyed.
In another instance, a popular general-purpose magazine in Japan,
Marco Polo, had published an article stating that while six
million
Jews were killed by the Nazis, the method used was not the gas
chamber as is generally accepted. Various Jewish organisations
protested at this perversion, and rightly so. The publishers
immediately apologised, and on their own volition announced that
the
magazine would cease to exist.
Given this background, it is amazing that some of the Husain
supporters are now criticising him for having apologised. All of
them
are continuing their campaign of calumny even after Shri Husain's
apology, with the additional target being the Bajrang Dal. What
is
amusing is that these supporters, who are essentially anti-Hindu,
are
now using the Hindu philosophy to berate their opponents. Their
empathy for the Hindu civilisation and culture is well recognised
in
that they are willing to accept an image of a nude Saraswati -
the
goddess of learning.
These Husain supporters need to do some serious introspection.
If
they uphold the right of artistic freedom will they support a
move to
abolish censorship laws, and permit pornography to be displayed
in
book stalls? Will they come out with a statement saying that
they will
support the freedom of anyone who depicts symbols of other
religion
in a manner that may cause hurt of the people of that religion?
Will
they organise the same type of campaign in support of such a
person? Before they answer these questions, let them reflect on
the
problems being faced by Prof Mishuril Hasan, the pro-Vice
Chancellor of the Jamia Millia University. He had said that
while he
finds Satanic Verses to be personally objectionable, but banning
is
not right. Even after three years of the controversy, he is
being
prevented from entering his office at the University.
The manner in which the controversy has raged reveals a lot of
the
mind set of those who call themselves intellectuals. Whenever
issue relating to Hinduism comes to the centre stage, the first
reaction is to allege that those who are taking up the issue are
wanting to create something out of nothing. When this fails, and
the
issue is adopted by the people, the next stage is one of creating
confusion, by bringing in all sorts of unrelated issues. The
denial
tactics are also very frequently used. In the present case, it
is
denied that Hindu sentiments are hurt. Due to the tensions that
this
insidious programme produces, a reaction takes place. Then the
issue becomes the reaction, without taking into cognisance the
events leading to this reaction. The whole objective, right from
the
beginning, is to deny legitimate requests made by Hindus. At the
same time, whenever other religious communities make
unreasonable requests, the 'intellectuals' will be in the
forefront of
demanding that the same are immediately acceded to. Their plea
is
that the minorities are insecure in this country, and therefore
their
feelings must not be upset. The rights or the wrongs of the
issue are
not for consideration, just as in the case of permitting the just
requests of the Hindus.
It is puzzling to understand why all this happens. The only
logical
explanation can be that the intellectuals are so alienated from
the
society, that they are unable to comprehend how the masses think
so differently from them. They are so ensconced in their own
very
small world, that anything outside it is unreal. And because
they
read what they want to read, they do not have the feedback from
the
people at large. For them, an event like the mass celebration of
Pandurang Shastri's birthday, by lakhs of people converging at
Chowpatty in Mumbai, is incomprehensible. The tragedy for the
intellectuals is that the publications that they normally read
find it
demeaning to cover such events, except as a small news item.
However, a Michael Jackson event becomes big news. Reading
what they do, the intellectuals think that there is no world
beyond it. If
they at all read how the Marathi and Gujarati papers have covered
the Husain controversy, they will think that there is another
parallel
controversy going on, which they are unaware of.
The manner of the English press coverage also highlights another
tactic used. Those artists who have spoken against Shri Husain
are
mentioned once, and rarely repeated. However the Husain
supporters will find themselves in the news all the time. It
does not
matter that they keep saying the same inane things again and
again.
The impression that is sought to be created is that the artist
community is fully behind Shri Husain. If in the process the
people
think that this is actually so, the ones to be blamed are not the
vocal
supporters, who, after all, have a larger agenda in mind. Blame
should be entirely put on those silent opponents of this picture
of Shri
Husain, since they do not have the courage to let the people know
it.
In every society, the intellectuals have an important role to
play.
They can do this only if they involve themselves in the lives of
the
people that they would like to lead, and deal with issues that
are of
concern to the people and not to themselves.
October 21, 1996.
Back
Top
|
