Dear Dr Desai At the outset let me clarify that I am not an art critic nor a connoisseurof art. Therefore I am indifferent to the paintings of MFH or any other painter. I do not defend MFH nor do I attack him. However, I do take strong objection to his being made a scapegoat for narrow political purposes by organisations having extremist ideologies. And I feel bad when I see so called educated, respectable people supporting the stand taken by these organisations.
Regards, Marshall On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:00 PM, anil desai <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Marshall, > > You have not filled any gaps in my understanding of this issue as I have > familiarised myself with the HC and SC judgements etc. I believe JC > answered this problem in some detail and much better than I ever could in > his post of yesterday. My question is: should there be discrimination in > how the so called educated, tolerant and at least outwardly respectable > people treat religions other than their own or should Marshall be defending > the objectionable paintings of Hussain, Anil Desai should be defending Da > Vinci code and some non- muslim should be complimenting danish editors who > printed the cartoons and ( who have now tendered a grovelling apology)? > > Anil Desai > > > > On 7 March 2010 11:16, Marshall Mendonza <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dr Anil Desai: >> >> 1. No, I do not and I was not interested in this until Goanet published >> one of his offensive drawings that I found hurtful. The day I saw it, I >> could not sleep the whole night as I love my religion . >> I hope you love your religion. I assume you are a catholic and you >> would not be happy to see Christ depicted similarly, unless of course you >> are bigoted. >> 2. No. I have clarified this in my reply to question 1. >> 3. No, but there are two possible groups I can think of - extremist Hindus >> who really have no right to call themselves Hindus and bigoted people from >> other religions. >> 4. I not only disagree but deplore violence or threats of violence from >> any quarters. >> >> Response: >> Thank you Dr Desai for your frank responses. >> I will now take the liberty of filling in the gaps of your understanding >> the issue entirely. >> 1. >> >> The first set of controversial paintings in question were created in >> 1970s, but did not become an issue until 1996, when they were published in a >> Hindi magazine, *Vichar Mimansa. *A considerable effort seems to have >> gone into finding a total of two "sacrilegious" paintings -- Sita and >> Saraswati -- in a corpus of over ten thousand paintings, drawings etc in >> private galleries. >> >> In 2004, Delhi High Court dismissed these >> complaints<http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/campaigns/national/mfhussain-campaign/hussain_verdict.pdf>of >> *"promoting enmity between different groups ... by painting Hindu >> goddesses in an uncharitable manner hurting the sentiments of Hindus".* >> >> This campaign got a fillip in February 2006 after the controversy over >> Prophet cartoons found its reverbrations in India as well. >> >> In UP a Samajwadi Party minister offered Rs 51 crores to anyone who would >> chop off the hands of the Danish cartoonist and yet no legal action was >> taken against him. >> >> The Hindutva group perhaps felt slighted that despite their best efforts, >> they were not able to mobile enough people in favour of their campaign >> against Husain and seem to have got into a competitive communalism mode. >> >> Coincidentally, just when the Prophet cartoon controversy was playing >> itself out, in its February 6, 2006 issue, *India Today* published an >> advertisement titled "Art For Mission Kashmir" which contained a painting of >> Bharatmata for an auction organised by Nafisa Ali of Action India (NGO) and >> Apparao Art Gallery. The proceeds of this auction were to go towards >> earthquake relief in Pakistan. That was pounced upon and the campaign was >> relaunched, as if in competition with the Muslim campaign against the >> Prophet cartoons. And like the earlier controversial paintings, this one too >> had been done a long time -- decades -- back and came to notice only because >> of this advertisement fortuitously timed around then. >> >> Hindu Jagriti Samiti (HJS) filed a case with Mumbai and Thane police and >> appealed to President A P J Abdul Kalam and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to >> take action against such "anti-national and perverse attitude of the great >> artist". >> 2. >> >> As Pratap Bhanu Mehta <http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?230328>had >> put it then: >> >> The real object of attack does not seem to be Husain or a concern for >> Bharat Mata. The occasion is being used to bait an assortment of people, >> from secularists to Muslims. Commentators seem more troubled by the fact >> that so-called secularists do not denounce Husain than they are by the >> plight of Bharat Mata. Or l'affaire Husain is being converted into yet >> another occasion to benchmark Muslim loyalty. Surely, the argument goes, you >> Muslims and secularists, who denounced the Danish cartoons, now show your >> true colours. Will you also denounce Husain or will your double standards be >> exposed? Once again, the purported issue, poor Bharat Mata, got lost in the >> din, just like freedom of expression or religious piety. >> >> 3. This is what the Delhi HC and Supreme Court had to say about the >> paintings: >> >> Well, ask any art-critic and historian and they would be able to place it >> in perspective. Delhi High Court in May 2008 clearly stated the obvious: "A >> painter has his own perspective of looking at things and it cannot be the >> basis of initiating criminal proceedings against him...In India, new >> puritanism is being carried out in the name of cultural purity and a host of >> ignorant people are vandalizing art and pushing us towards a pre-renaissance >> era". >> >> The Chief Justice of India K.G.Balakrishan had the best response to the >> question when, while upholding the Delhi HC decision, he said: “There are so >> many such subjects, photographs and publications. Will you file cases >> against all of them? It (Husain’s work) is art. If you don’t want to see it, >> then don’t see it. There are so many such art forms in the (Hindu) temple >> structures.” >> 4. The main point to note also is that these paintings were not in public >> places and were in private collections, rarely exhibited and that too in >> rarefied exhibitions attended by people who by no stretch of imagination >> would have been offended by them, at exclusive galleries. All of them were >> done many, many years back. Those who claimed to be hurt by these paintings >> were the ones who went about putting these paintings in public >> domain<http://www.vishalarya.net/?p=64> >> . >> >> The above excerpts are taken from the blog of Sundeep Dougal which has >> appeared in Outlook. Refer link below. >> http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=2198 >> >> Regards, >> >> Marshall >> >> >> >> >> >
