Charles - I am going to say (jokingly of course) that "You asked for it. This is a long and detailed reply. Sorry.
On Thursday 15 May 2008 5:02:35 am Charles Haynes wrote: > > I believe societies have ways of putting fingers into sensitive places > > in a way that judges and governments cannot do. > > I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Could you explain more? This statement of mine has two parts joined up to make a sentence. "Putting one's finger up someone's backside" to trouble him is a transliteration of a Hindi expression, but I modified it for "decency". I am actually referring to the way Hindu protestors of Husain's art are obliquely "fingering" issues that they believe the government refuses to address directly. Indian politicians are seen (by a proportion of Hindus) as apologists of Islamic excesses or intolerance of any sort, allegedly to garner votes from a Muslim "vote bank" which is said to have a decisive effect in Indian polls where the man who gets elected is the man who is "first past the post". The need to be an apologist is said to become acute because Muslim communities often occupy restricted geographical areas, and cornering all votes in that area could be a clincher for a particular electoral constituency. Vote bank politics is blamed for various ills, including illegal immigration from Bangladesh and the illegal regularization of such immigrants by giving them valid Indian identification documents. But in the Husain case these issues are less important than the perceived pro-Muslim/anti-Hindu bias that politicians are said to show. When Muslims are intolerant of "art" in the form of Taslima Nasreen's works or that of a Danish cartoonist, Indian politicians are seen as sympathetic to this intolerance for fear of upsetting their vote bank. There is a degree of perception among Hindus that Indian politicians will typically not feel upset when Hindu icons are insulted, and will instead call for "tolerance". In fact such tolerance has actually been there and this tolerance is now being sought to be removed, but I will comment on that below. I will take your next 3 questions together: > > It certainly looks like a work of art, but its title and characters can > > survive only so long as Hindus in society can tolerate them. It matters > > little if people who are not Hindus can tolerate them. > > Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The title and characters > will not survive if Hindus in society cannot tolerate them? What does > that mean? Do you disagree that such tolerance is a requirement in a > large, complex, free society? > > > A sudden decision by some Hindus to not tolerate an old painting tells a > > story by itself (IMO). The climate of tolerance must not be one sided. > > What is the quid-pro-quo you envision? > > > To my mind it is important to read between the lines and not to miss the > > particular target that is being aimed at in this MF Husain paintings > > issue. > > What target is that? I'm afraid I'm still confused by your somewhat > elliptical references. Could you please spell it out? I can guess or > assume, but I'd be afraid of mistaking your meaning. The painting itself is merely that of a multi-headed female like figure that appears to be seated on a tiger, but the tigers rump appears very human and appears to be positioned like that of a human having sexual intercourse (or being fairly intimate) with the female figure from behind. The Tiger's body has the word "Durga" written in Devanagari script on its body. Durga is Parvati or Kali, the consort/wife of Shiva. Durga is worshipped as the power that drives evil away. In Hindu belief, Shiva's power derives from his female component, represented by Durga. Durga famously rode a tiger while eliminating some evil force. The painting is entitled "Durga in sexual union with a Tiger". When you paint a woman having sex with a tiger, it can pass off as art. But when you paint such a figure and call it Durga, you are inviting the attention of people who want to see Durga as a force that drives evil away, and not as a symbol in sexual union with an animal. This might be art, but it is controversial art because it pokes at popular belief. It provokes and demands criticism. For a Hindu the abstract concept of a force that protects against evil being depicted as a female (mother) form controlling a tiger and fighting what is to be feared is itself art. Depicting that artistic concept as a female having sex with a tiger is interpreted as an insult to the pure, non sexual "mother figure" relationship that people have with Durga. It is as vulgar as painting a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa. "Artistic licence" may demand that egregious acts such these must be "tolerated" but artists need to understand that their art can invite criticism too and artistic licence is not a licence to free them from criticism. "Intolerance" is a feeble skirt to hide behind when art is being criticized. But let me get back to the point. Husain's art is suddenly being crticized by Hindus who have suddenly found an agenda and a good excuse for criticizing his art. Husain is definitely NOT the primary target of these critics. The real target is what is seen as one-sided secularism in politics. This "secularism" is seen as the plank on which vote-bank politics to garner Muslim votes rests. Husain is a Muslim name. A man with a Muslim name has painted a picture of a Hindu goddess having sex with an animal. If Hindus were to invent the concept of blasphemy for themselves, there could be no better symbol than this painting to invent it for. Hindus do not have a pre-defined concept of blasphemy, but they have no dogmatic code that prevents them from inventing it if needed. The people who are being critical of Husain are "pinging" India's politicians. They are saying to the politicians "If you think it is OK to banish Taslima Nasreen because she offended Muslims, and if you say that it is OK for an Indian politcian to put a price on the head of a Danish cartoonist, let us see your response to our (Hindu) grievance against MF Husain." In doing so he people who are protesting against Husain's art are setting up a "Heads I win, Tails you lose" choice for Indian politicians. If the politicians say that Hindus should tolerate such "art" it means that they are showing double standards by not tolerating art by Taslima or a Danish cartoonist. The only choice that Indian policticians have is to accept that Husain's art is offensive. But this is a bad choice, because it puts them on the same boat as the people they term "Hindu extremists" I am fascinated by the way these things are panning out. Hypocrisy on every side is being shown up. What will actually happen remains to be seen, but in the short term I can only see "extremists' winning and people like Taslima, Salman Rushdie, that Danish cartoonist and MF Husain being on the run in their lifetimes. Interesting to me is that of the four people I have listed, three are on the run for "islamic intolerance" and one is on the run for "Hindu intolerance" I see a lesson being passed on in this. Hindus are learning that intolerance works as a political force. I also see that the only way to roll this back is not an easy path. it will mean being equally forthright and honest to Muslim and Hindu extremists that they are bigots. Muslim extremists have always maintained that one can be killed fro saying that. It will only need Hindus to adopt that trick more widely to make the game even more deadly. But politcians in India do not have the guts or moral standing to oppose religion. They will compromise as long as they can stay in power. And by doing so they will only fuel extremism. And that extremism will therefore exert its force outside political control and will either convulse or compromise. Both are occurring in India, but what the final result will be is not clear. We live in interesting times - and to me that is as fascinating as art. Thanks for your patience if you got so far. shiv
