Let me attach a qualification to this blog: I am not for or anti any group - religious, social or political. I have my own views that I express as best as I can whilst restricting myself to a self controlled parameter so as not to hurt any one's sentiment or religious feeling. I believe there is no such thing as absolute 'Freedom' of anything in a civil society.
Now the blog.
To begin with let me say this that all these 'ignorant people' would have seen these well publicised paintings and had well within their reach the tools - i.e. two eyes and interpreting sane brain - to grasp and offer informed opinions whether nude Sita, Gunga-Yamuna and Bharatmata could be described obscene and if uncalled for. I am sure even a 10 years old village boy would feel offended and ashamed to offer an opinion. On the other hand I am not all too certain that these 'ignorant people' would have understood the 'elitist' lingua and the conclusion of Justice Kaul's judgement. But then who cares.
Justice Kaul declared that, "A painter has his own perspective of looking at things and it cannot be the basis of initiating criminal proceedings against him." How more wrong can Justice Kaul get? Though, I must agree that artist have own perspective of looking at things but that does not necessarily give them the absolute freedom to express freely their perspective if the expression of their perspective could or would hurt people's sentiment or even may be construed as an attack on others beliefs. I am absolutely certain that no one has such god given freedom. Humanity has never accepted 'absolute freedom' in any form ever. Justice Kaul can only kid himself. My creative mind has just conjured up a dozen of 'perspectives' of what Justice Kaul would be doing in his office - alone or otherwise - and I promise that the painted images of my 'perspectives' of Justice Kaul would be totally unacceptable even though it would only represent my own 'perspective'. He would be first to object and protest. There is no such thing as 'absolute freedom of expression' for any one ...I mean anyone and, Mr M F Hussain is also just another 'anyone'.
Justice Sanjay Kaul further showed his concern. "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." I am anti-vandalizing of things - anything. I am 100% for non-violence. But I do understand the frustration of helpless protesters. If Justice Kaul will throw a boomerang of 'ignorance' at protesters I am sure that boomerang will return to him in form of frustration and vandalising - the only tool at hand for the 'ignorant' people. The use of term 'cultural purity' is misplaced and more of a red herring than meaningful. I am sure that every society, community and nationality feel their culture is superior and purer of the purest than others. Isn't this also a 'perspective' that 'should never be challenged'? And Justice Kaul's another concern of 'pushing us towards a pre-renaissance era' first frightened me and then confused me - is India part of 'renaissance' Europe? What 'renaissance' Justice Kaul is taking about and for whose consumption? The elitist has always over exaggerate issues and compared Indian situation with that of Europe and got away with. And I see this as just another issue over exaggerated and not given any serious thought and, as always blame ended up in the lap of 'cultural puritanism'.
And finally his blind and frightening Carte Blanch observation, "the question of obscenity was nowhere to be seen in his paintings, as it was his perspective of looking at things and one should not challenge that." This nearly made me burst into laughter. Was Justice Kaul a blind Judge who judged Mr Hussain's paintings through Braille. If naked portrayal of Bharatmata, Gunga-Yumuna and naked Sita clinging to Hanuman's tail is not obscene than what is? Not only these three paintings but a huge range of nudes are painted by Mr Hussain and can easily be searched on the internet. Judge for yourself.
Being an artist I rejoiced at the declaration that artist's work 'should not be challenged'. But does that mean an artist had an unquestionable freedom to paint and draw anything and everything? Have an absolute Freedom of Expression? Could I now freely depict and paint Babri Mosque Domes as breasts and show Hindu extremists raping the mosque? Seriously could I really do that? I personally don't think so. I, being an artist, am bound by self controlled Freedom of Expression with total respect for others. I can only say with sense of disgust - SHAME ON YOU JUSTICE KAUL YOU HAVE MISUSED THE POWER WE TRUSTED UPON YOU.
He then added, "A painter at 90 deserves to be sitting in his home and painting his canvas." I am sure he meant standing in his studio and, I 100% agree with Justice Kaul here but add a qualification to the statement. The artist must act sensibly and impose self controlled Freedom of Expression - and certainly must not follow Justice Sanjay Kaul's judgement blindly and paint images that would hurt people's sentiments and with a convinction that he could not be challenged. I would put this judgement in the category of anti-social judgement and hope it is vigorously challenged.
Reacting to the judgement, Akhil Sibal, counsel for Husain, said: "This judgement is historical and prominent, and a fight against intolerance in our country and recognizes the importance of debate within legal society rather than misuse of the criminal justice system." I tend to agree that this was a historical judgement but only suitable to be thrown in the scrap heap of history. This judgement should carry public health warning - 'Only suitable for entertainment but STRICTLY NOT to be followed'.
later, Akhil Sibal - son of prominent congress politician - extended his reaction to NDTV by saying that India was pluralistic society and such intolerance will not be tolerated. But when he was quizzed on his definition of 'pluralistic society' and asked why the ban on Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses was justifiable? Why was ban on Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown justified in pluralistic society? Akhil Sibal had no answer to these questions and rightly so. His silence said it all. A couple of chosen communities can rightfully have unchallengeable perspective but one community cannot have this right - this is pluralism in Indian perspective.
My concern is not with nude paintings by Mr Hussain but of the bias and hypocrisy shown by the government and the elite of Indian society in the name of secularism and pluralism.
The leftist and the elitist Indians do not practice absolute 'pluralism' but selective 'pluralism' based on ones own 'perspective' and interest that Justice Kaul judged 'should not be challenged' or 'we shall pushed back to pre-renaissance era' (by the Hindu community)... (my words).
I was a little late this month ...nevertheless I have arrived...to deliver a little more.
Copyrighted 2008 by Navin Joshi
