Thursday, March 04, 2010

M.F. Husain chooses Qatar


Salil Tripathi gets it right:

Some self-righteous folks remind us that Qatar is not a democracy, nor does it guarantee freedom of expression. But Qatar’s record on free speech is not relevant; India’s is. And it is for Indians to reflect on why India’s most widely known painter feels safer in Doha than in Mumbai.

A bit later, he cites several recent examples of India's shameful record of protecting free speech:

This is no longer about Husain. Last week, there were protests in Andhra Pradesh against Yarlagadda Lakshmi Prasad, who was honoured for his Telugu novel, Draupadi. Not a week passes before somebody, somewhere, claims being offended and seeks a ban of some sort. Artists are free, but must not offend. So India allows Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen, who offends fundamentalists in Bangladesh for writing about persecution of Hindus, but once objections are raised, the government sets conditions, telling her to behave. Barbers force Shah Rukh Khan to change the name of a film; the Shiv Sena takes on Sachin Tendulkar and Mukesh Ambani, who say Mumbai belongs to all Indians; and the paper tigers in Mumbai threaten to disrupt Shah Rukh Khan’s new film, My Name Is Khan.

11 Comments:

  1. Anonymous said...

    There is a fine line between freedom of expression and respecting all faiths. It has to be honored by all, the artists, writers, Govt. and all political parties.

    TA

  2. gaddeswarup said...

    Faith above law?

  3. Anonymous said...

    Law too!!! But everything can not be settled by citing laws. Nothing works better than mutual trust and respect.

  4. Anonymous said...

    Unfortunately so many laws are also religion based in this country. That debate can open another Pandora's box.

  5. Anonymous said...

    Last week there was a riot in Karnataka about Taslima's comment on Burka. However, that is not to be bothered. Keep it up! You are truely Secular.

  6. Pranav Dandekar said...

    Here's another well-written article on this by Vir Sanghvi: http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=445

    I take a somewhat hardline position on this based on two observations:
    1. People claiming that M F Husain has the right to express himself by painting nude portraits of Indian gods don't seem to ever say in the same breath that people also have the right to depict Prophet Muhammad in way that offends Muslims. This appeasement of Muslims/their sensibilities is well-known and oft-cited example of double standards in this case.
    2. Unlike the US, afaik, India does not afford its citizens total, absolute, complete freedom of expression (e.g. there are Fundamental Duties to go with Fundamental Rights). For example, in the US you can burn the American flag, the consitution, etc. In India, you can't (it is probably illegal). So there is no point in trying to apply western notions of freedom to the Indian setting (if you want to do that, you should start by amending the constitution to get rid of fundamental duties).

  7. Secular and Proud of it said...

    Anon5: it is a democratic right to protest provided you are not harming anybody. In any event, those killed in the police firing were demonstrators, who were exercising their democratic right. How come you are not protesting against this?

    Sincerely,
    Secular and Proud of it

  8. Pratik . said...

    Never been a fan of Hussain, strictly from an art point of view. IMHO, his paintings, except for a few (which are truly awesome) are sub-standard; but then he has a different view of art and he is welcome to it. While I just love the impressionists and early neo-impressionist style of art, I hate his pseudo-neo-impressionist style - its neither here nor there.

    But he should not have been driven off. I mean, yeah, he made a few nudes that many folks can find offensive, but seriously, if you look at them, they are scarcely of a better quality than a child's doodles. They can easily be passed off as almost anything (well, may be not the Bharat Mata painting). If only the dude had chosen some sensible captions for his doodles, not too many would have recognized them as gods and goddesses ...

    In any case, Hussain was not putting up his paintings on a billboard or anything; they were exhibited in art galleries where presumably only those folks who would not mind looking at these paintings (and so would not be offended) could look at them. Honestly, if you speak to most of the folks who protest against Hussain, they would not even have seen the paintings. In any case, the man did not break the law. In a country where far more heinous crimes occur every day, he is getting undue attention. I am not a fan of Hussain, but I dont think his work should have been vandalized and the man made to feel insecure in a supposedly democratic law abiding country. The reflects poorly on India as a country.

  9. Anonymous said...

    No mention of "Islam" or the Danish cartoons. How balanced!

  10. Anonymous said...

    @ Anon above.

    Since you asked for it... Yes, Hussain's religion is Islam. And no, he did not protest against the Danish cartoons. Now you got mentions of both? Good.

    And oh, I am sure most folks posting in this blog feel that the idiots who declared fatwa for the cartoons are about as big of intolerant vandalistic morons as the Shiv Sainiks.

  11. shaji said...

    MF Hussain, Mother India and my narrow mindedness.