The controversy over M.F. Hussain's art does not seem to die down and raises its ugly head over and over again.
In response to a query on a different forum as to why Hussain has not drawn the Gods of other religions in the nude, I replied with the following: My response I shall answer your query by quoting eminent writer Shashi Tharoor, from his columns that have appeared in a few National dailies: "His (Hussain's) tormentors profess to be defending their faith and the nation's cultural integrity. They object to the use of nudity in his art, particularly in his evocations of Hindu mythological figures and deities, which they claim offends them. Instead of applauding the decision of a Jihadi artist to derive inspiration from the ancient legends of his homeland, they accuse him of desecrating a faith that is not his. Instead of honouring an artist who has revived worldwide appreciation of the richness and diversity of the sources of Indian culture, they have attacked him for insulting Indian culture, reducing Indianness to the narrow bigotry of their own blinkers. It is ironic that a profoundly patriotic painting of the geographical shape of India in the persona of a semi-naked woman elicited the loudest howls of outrage from these philistines. It is a disgrace that our democracy has allowed the most intolerant elements of our society to derail the life and work of such a great Indian artist. These so-called Hindus have clearly never seen the inside of any of our ancient temples, have never marvelled at Khajuraho or seen a sunset at Konarak. Worse, Husain is far more steeped in the Hindu sensibility than they are. Theirs is a notion of 'Bharatiya Sanskriti' that is profoundly inauthentic, because it can be traced back no further than the Puritanism that accompanied the Jihadi conquests. Will they next attack the explicitly detailed couplings of Khajuraho, far more scandalous than anything Husain has ever painted? What about the Kama Sutra, the tradition of the devadasis , the eros of the Krishna Leela - are they all un-Indian now, or even un-Hindu?" "The question of why Husain doesn't paint Muslim figures in the nude is a red herring. The Islamic tradition is a different one from either the Hindu or the Western; what causes offence in one is different from what causes offence in another. Islam, after all, prohibits any visual depiction of the Prophet, whereas visualising our gods and goddesses is central to the practice of Hinduism. " I hope that you, and the others, are convinced, at least partly if not fully, by Shashi Tharoor's eloquence and the link that I have provided. http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/index.htm The Hindu culture has always been full of sensual and erotic depictions of gods and goddesses and the (above) link is meant to illustrate just exactly that. Hussain's paintings are not vulgar depictions meant to offend but are sensual abstract depictions where the body parts are not clearly distinguishable. They are imitations of the rich Hindu traditions where the nude bodies were celebrated and worshipped, as a form of purity. Hussain's paintings are thus a rich tribute to Hinduism, and by no means canvasses meant to offend. Now my question to you, and the others, is: "Should an Artist who has been inspired by India's rich cultures and its civilization heritage and who has consistently carried its traditional Art forward be honored or should he be consistently harassed, and be threatened with having his hands chopped out and his eyes gouged out? cheers Sandeep p.s When I went back into the archives, I noticed somewhat similar queries being raised here by Rajan Parrikar and a few others and hence I have posted this response here.
