Thursday, July 03, 2008

MF Husain Nudes: Judgment

 
Sanjay Kishan Kaul has a done a good job in penning down his reasons on why he has quashed some criminal cases pending against M F Husain for allegedly hurting sentiments of many Indian Hindus. His judgment has far reaching consequences for our constitutional democracy. This landmark judgment is historical and should be celebrated. 

The judge has used this opportunity to discuss many other things, about Art, about freedom of expression, about Indian History, definition of personal morality, etc.

This is what the judge had to say [All emphasis mine]. He began by quoting Pablo Picasso.

Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art.”

Many people don’t understand Art really. There is no need for everyone to understand it either. Does every Tom Dick and Harry pick up Milton to read his poems or do common men go and see Picasso’s paintings in a museum? How many Indians have read the sordid and erotic stories of Shakuntala and Dushyanth? And how many of them have enthusiastically admired fornicating deities in Kajuraho?

The judge ventures into the history of India which was surfeit with erotic art.

With a 5000-year-old culture… Ancient Indian art has been never devoid of eroticism where sex worship and graphical representation of the union between man and woman has been a recurring feature.

The sculpture on the earliest temples of ‘Mithuna’ image or the erotic couple in Bhubeneshwar, Konarak and Puri in Orissa (150-1250 AD); Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh (900-1050 AD); Limbojimata temple at Delmel, Mehsana (10th Century AD); Kupgallu Hill, Bellary, Madras; and Nilkantha temple at Sunak near Baroda to name a few.

These and many other figures are taken as cult figures in which rituals related to Kanya and Kumari worship for progeny gained deep roots in early century A.D. Even the very concept of ‘Lingam’ of the God Shiva resting in the centre of the Yoni, is in a way representation of the act of creation, the union of Prakriti and Purusua. 

The judge then cites the link between erotic art and religion itself. Here, it is important to understand that eastern religions did not develop the way Abrahamic religions have developed. The modern Hindu accustomed to, or overwhelmed by the morality inherited from Abrahamic religions, tends to believe that Hinduism is somehow very similar in its moral teachings as that of Abrahamic religions and in an earnest attempt to compete with Abrahamic religions he wants Hinduism to impose more stringent rules and codes on personal morality.

The ultimate essence of a work of ancient Indian erotic art has been religious in character and can be enunciated as a state of heightened delight or ananda, the kind of bliss that can be experienced only by the spirit.

He asks: 

We have been called as the land of the Kama Sutra then why is it that in the land of the Kama Sutra, we shy away from its very name?... Indian art has always celebrated the female form. There is nothing salacious about it.

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and so does obscenity. It is our perception to objects, thoughts and situations, which rule the mind to perceive them in the way we do. 

He quashed the plea “that the said painting uploaded on a website could be accessed by any person sitting across the globe who in consequence whereto could get affected by viewing the same.”

There can be no exasperation caused by viewing such painting on the website for the reason that a person would firstly access such a website only if he has some interest in art and that too contemporary art and in case he does view such a website, he always would have the option to not to view or close the said web page.

It seems that the complainants are not the types who would go to art galleries or have an interest in contemporary art, because if they did, they would know that there are many other artists who embrace nudity as part of their contemporary art. 

To calm down those complainants who accused MF Husain of deliberately hurting their sentiments, the judge says:

there seems to be no deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner [MF Husain] to hurt feelings of Indians as already stated and as a matter of fact, the subject matter i.e Bharat Mata could be alleged to wound nationalist feelings of an individual and not any religious feelings.

This is interesting. He asks the pertinent question, ‘Why are Hindus considering Bharat Mata a religious icon?’ The claimants to hurt sentiments ask MF Husain the question, “Why do you paint ‘our’ icons nude and not ‘your’ icon nudes?” by which they conveniently put M F Husain and his identity (that of a Muslim) as an outsider which is the wont of most nationalist and Hindu Indians to naturally assume that Muslims are outsiders.

As I discussed in the earlier article, ‘does depiction of a symbol in nude same as depiction of a real mother in nude?’ The judge rightly addresses this question:

… the impugned painting cannot form the basis of any deliberate intention to wound the religious feelings of the complainants since the figure, on the basis of the identity alleged, represents an anthropomorphic depiction of a nation as also that to hold a person liable under the above said section, mere knowledge of the likelihood that the religious feelings of another person may be wounded would not be sufficient.

How could the claimants to ‘hurt sentiments’ own up Bharat Mata as their own excluding Muslims from it? Is it to do with the prevailing notion that Muslims are not patriotic enough? That India is Hindu which accommodates Muslims as guests?

51 comments:

  1. Brilliant..!!!

    I Like the way how the judge has explained it.

    How come they label people patriotic or un-patriotic on the basis of religion?

    You know what.....screw patriotism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brillant

    Thank you very much for this post. It has definetly enlightened me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the part about development of Hinduism being different from that of Abrahamic religions. I guess with rising fundamentalism and bigotry in the world, some Hindus' fall in that trap, looking at everything with their worldview and in the process, limiting and maiming our way of thinking. Perhaps we need to reflect and articulate better about the ways Hinduism and other eastern religions are different from the monotheistic religions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "How could the claimants to ‘hurt sentiments’ own up Bharat Mata as their own excluding Muslims from it? Is it to do with the prevailing notion that Muslims are not patriotic enough? That India is Hindu which accommodates Muslims as guests?"

    This has nothing to do with questioning the patriotism of muslims, but it is an interpretation of the different ways in which hindus and muslims percieve Bharata mata.
    In our pujamandir we had a statue of Bharata mata and we used to pray to it. So, when I see the nude painting, it not only hurts my patriotic feelings but also my religious feelings.

    Please stop juxtaposing the values of the kamasutra times with the present day and telling me its wrong to get hurt bcos they were accepted long time back in India. Many of those customs and beliefs are scoffed at now, so lets not have selective amnesia.
    When these sculptures were built they were built by the sanction of the people not against their will.

    I am not an artist but that doesnt mean I donot have a right to take offense at something I percieve as obscene.

    while muslims are allowed to protest at a cartoon of their prophet, another muslim, paints denigrating pictures, despite repeated appeals and requests by the hindu community to not do so and you dont see any hipocracy in that?
    I am not saying that MF Hussain has no right to paint those pictures, but he clearly knew he was huritng the sentiments of some hindus and should have clearly expected this backlash and should have been prepared for it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like the part about development of Hinduism being different from that of Abrahamic religions. [..]

    Sunil, I believe Arun Shourie has written an essay on this topic. Google should help.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have a slightly different viewpoint on this entire issue -

    It is not about law, it is not about religion - it is about basic civic sense, especially by such a high visible and respected person.

    Would we have had the hullabaloo if Mr. MF Hussain painted any nude woman? I think not. Civic sense demands (let's not get into the argument of what is right and what is wrong) that you don't hurt the feelings of any large group of people (used in a broad sense), be it Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Christainity etc etc.

    If we speak of 'Art' being a freedom expression and the high moral stand that all seem to take about being broad-minded and all that, would we accept any nude painting of jesus, the prophet?? Would we accept any art form which depicts, say Gandhi fornicating with another woman? Isn't the thought itself gross? Aren't you revulsed at the very idea?

    We can all speak of freedom, expression, we have prevented Talibanism - no rules, no laws, I am talking of basic civic sense. Freedom is not being used here, it is being absolutely abused, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. why does MF have to paint those controversial figures again and again....because doing otherwise wont get him much coverage...why doenst he do the same to other religions including his own...if thrs nothing to paint...imagine. no, he wont do it..and ppl will make all linkages between kamsutra and what not in the name of freedom of expression...Sarvamekam is right...by defying civic sense he gets more fame/defame,,,so be it.thats what he does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I hailed this verdict by Justice Kaul (see my blog post: http://vishal12.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/competitive-intolerance/), I have some disagreements with the flow of Kaul's (and your) logic.

    He says "It seems that the complainants are not the types who would go to art galleries or have an interest in contemporary art...". I don't think questioning the eligibility of the complainants is a right way to justify the verdict. If someone who does go to the art galleries has a problem with these paintings, would he have given out a different judgement? The complainants were not trying to express their criticism of the paintings (their eligibility would be a valid concern in that case), but had grievances about who was being depicted (Hindu goddesses) and the physical position/form in which they were being depicted.

    Also, justifying the verdict based on Kamasutra is another feeble rationalization. As 'anonymous' correctly mentioned (above in comment section), you can not justify today's actions based on what was acceptable centuries ago. If Christians used to burn witches once upon a time, that doesn't mean they are eternally unqualified to object to witch-burning.

    Having said that, I am a strong supporter of freedom of expression. And protecting freedom of expression should be the the sole reason to dispose off the charges against Hussain. All other rationalizations look shallow and illogical to me, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the way, do you have the full transcript of the judgement? I tried to find one few months ago, but to no avail.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sarvamekam:

    it is about basic civic sense, especially by such a high visible and respected person.

    I am not sure if you know that most artists never bothered about civic sense. Take for example, Salvador Dali or Pablo Picasso. Dali did the most bizarre things and did not conform to ‘civic sense’.

    Civic sense demands (let's not get into the argument of what is right and what is wrong) that you don't hurt the feelings of any large group of people (used in a broad sense), be it Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Christainity etc etc.

    And yet, artists, authors, poets DO NOT tend to conform. I am not sure if your ‘civic sense’ is enforceable.

    would we accept any nude painting of jesus, the prophet??

    There is good number of paintings of nude Jesus. Even Michelangelo painted few of them. Here are few links:

    Here Jesus is kissing a naked woman in an open park:
    http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/files/jesus_138.jpg

    Here is Jesus on the cross, by Michelangelo:
    http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/images/crucifixion-michelangelo-chalk-c1541-brit-museum-wga.jpg

    Here is another Jesus, Nude:
    http://theimpolitic.blogspot.com/2007/03/big-picture-on-chocolate-jesus.html

    Another naked Jesus, attributed to Michelangelo:
    http://terry58.stblogs.com/2007/03/25/621/

    Another naked Jesus by an artist (go down the page to view it):
    http://portfolio.dustdesigns.net/people.html

    Here’s naked and gay Jesus:
    http://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/2007/12/sex-and-spirit.html

    Another naked Jesus by Michelangelo:
    http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/michelangelo2.jpg

    Michelangelo’s naked Jesus (repeat):
    http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog19/jesusmichelangelo.htm

    Naked Jesus by Lovis Corinth:
    http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog19/jesuscorinth.htm

    Naked Jesus by Michelangelo:
    http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog19/jesusmichelangelo2.htm

    Naked Jesus on Gaudi:
    http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog19/jesusgaudidetail.htm

    Naked Jesus, Unknown Artists:
    http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog19/jesusunkownartist.htm

    Naked Jesus:
    http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog19/jesusohlsson.htm

    Jesus with an erection:
    http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/links/insurgent.jpg

    Would we accept any art form which depicts, say Gandhi fornicating with another woman? Isn't the thought itself gross? Aren't you revulsed at the very idea?

    I am not sure why you expect people to get revulsion at the thought of adults having sex with consenting adults. May be, you do. Fine! But it doesn’t mean others have to. You are pushing your ideas of revulsions onto others and expecting them to conform to your ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Vishal:
    I pasted the link to the complete verdict in the previous comment.

    You will see that the Justice Kaul was still acting within the framework of Indian Constitution, Indian Penal Code and other precedents from India, USA, Australia, and few other countries.

    The definition for obscenity is important to this case and that those definitions include a ‘common man’. There are few precedents in contemporary history which make him give those details.

    Freedom of Expression in India as he explains is not as absolute as it is in United States. He had to take extreme care to explain his ruling, as you can see in his verdict. Each case sets a precedent to the next.

    If someone who does go to the art galleries has a problem with these paintings, would he have given out a different judgement?

    I think he explains that as well – in Indian context, a person who get affected by a hoarding or a placard can actually complain and get it removed.

    and the physical position/form in which they were being depicted.

    The judge cannot act in vacuum. He has Indian Penal Code and other laws which are quite restrictive in nature. What is obscene, what is vulgar, what is allowed and what is not is still not very clear in Indian context.

    As 'anonymous' correctly mentioned (above in comment section), you can not justify today's actions based on what was acceptable centuries ago. If Christians used to burn witches once upon a time, that doesn't mean they are eternally unqualified to object to witch-burning.

    What is important is the arrow of progress in terms of freedom of expression. While going towards burning witches is retrograde, shunning nude paintings is also retrograde. If someone was crucifying heretics now in present time, a judge could say that there was a time in India when heretics were given a free hand.

    All other rationalizations look shallow and illogical to me, that's all.

    I cannot afford to be an absolutist. Because Indian laws and constitutional framework does not guarantee Freedom of Expression at all costs. In spite of so many restrictions enshrined in constitution, Indian penal code and many other retrograde precedents, Justice Kaul has heralded a new verdict. That should be celebrated no matter what.

    Though ‘All men are created equal’ is enshrined in Declaration of Independence of United States, it took more than 150 years for it to get implemented when it came to treatment of African Americans. It took some Supreme Court rulings to actually implement it.

    A person waking up in 21st Century may find it shocking to see discrimination of a black person, but it was almost state-sponsored just a half-century ago. And nothing has changed in Constitution, only the precedents by few judges.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous:
    In our pujamandir we had a statue of Bharata mata and we used to pray to it. So, when I see the nude painting, it not only hurts my patriotic feelings but also my religious feelings.

    So, please don’t look at the nude painting of Bharata mata! That solves most of the problems.

    Please stop juxtaposing the values of the kamasutra times with the present day and telling me its wrong to get hurt bcos they were accepted long time back in India. Many of those customs and beliefs are scoffed at now, so lets not have selective amnesia.

    So, are you suggesting that people should not have sex anymore? ;-)

    When these sculptures were built they were built by the sanction of the people not against their will.

    Really? Were there referendums? Or Gallup Polls? ;-)

    I am not an artist but that doesnt mean I donot have a right to take offense at something I percieve as obscene.

    You have a right to perceive anything as obscene. But you don’t have the right to impose your perception onto others as long as they are not imposing onto yours. MF Husain has not sent you an invite to come and view his paintings, or did he?

    while muslims are allowed to protest at a cartoon of their prophet,

    That way Muslims are allowed to cut off hands of thieves, stone women for adultery and hold public executions. Would you want to do that? ;-) [You should take the next flight to Saudi Arabia]

    another muslim, paints denigrating pictures, despite repeated appeals and requests by the hindu community to not do so and you dont see any hipocracy in that?

    Did you ask M F Husain if he protested against Danish cartoons?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "So, please don’t look at the nude painting of Bharata mata! That solves most of the problems."
    I think you missed the point completely. I was trying to explain to you why it is a religious issue for hindus but not for muslims. secondly if somebody takes a vulgar video or picture of someone you love and is spreading it, would you suggest that I follow your denial method?

    "So, are you suggesting that people should not have sex anymore? ;-)"

    Again you are missing the point. I was talking about the values at the time of kamasutra not about what was written in it.

    "But you don’t have the right to impose your perception onto others as long as they are not imposing onto yours. MF Husain has not sent you an invite to come and view his paintings, or did he?"
    As you yourself said "as long as they are not imposing onto yours" of course they were, I have no personal grudge against him, so why would I object unless I felt that he was imposing.

    Again, taking the example of the vulgar MMS, according to you I should keep silent until the video was personally forwarded to me?

    "That way Muslims are allowed to cut off hands of thieves, stone women for adultery and hold public executions. Would you want to do that? ;-) [You should take the next flight to Saudi Arabia]"

    I was talking this in the context of the Indian constitutional and judicial paradigm, so I dont know where you got the saudi arabia angle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The best way to resolve this whole issue is by commissioning a Hindu artist to do nudes of Prophet Mohammed and his wives and display them in art galleries (however nauseating they might me be):-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous:

    secondly if somebody takes a vulgar video or picture of someone you love and is spreading it, would you suggest that I follow your denial method?

    I think I answered this already. If the mom is biologic then it is a matter of privacy of individual. You can take that person (who has violated her privacy) to court.

    However, if the mom is symbolic then it is NOT a matter of privacy of an individual.

    so why would I object unless I felt that he was imposing.

    ;-) [Doesn't make sense]

    Again, taking the example of the vulgar MMS, according to you I should keep silent until the video was personally forwarded to me?

    Yes!

    If two consenting adults exchange vulgar or obscene MMS of other two consenting adults, then it shouldn't bother you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. rags, does this come close enough to what you're proposing?
    -chirkut

    ReplyDelete
  17. As interesting as that might be, it is not possible legally, so no, that was not what I was suggesting. Banning is a retrograde practice. It stifles freedom of expression. I was suggesting the reverse i.e. extending your artistic freedom to all religions rather than restricting it to one religion. But I wonder what the reaction would be if someone develops the guts to do a nude of prophet mohammed. That person most likely will suffer a fate worse than Taslima Nasreen. Our government most likley will not support that person and he will be hounded wherever he goes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sujai, thanks for the full transcript of the verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I wonder if those people who complain of hurt sentiments have ever been to Shravanabelagola and seen the Bahubali statue.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kudos to the judge and thank you for posting this.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sujai

    In your distinction between a biologic mom and symbolic mom, there is a philosophical clash with religionists. While symbols are just symbols for atheists, it can be dearer to a religionist than the real thing. A symbol strikes deep emotional chords to a religionist which I think an atheist will have a difficult time sympathising with. While it is easy to insist that the symbolism be appreciated as art, the emotive responses it evokes in religionists will not let them see it that way. It is also arguable from the religionist's viewpoint that viewing a symbol in any other view than the whole range of personal meanings that a symbol carries would be tantamount to stripping the symbol of its true glory.

    I think the real issue is not of art over religion but of understanding and compassion. Art is not so important as to bring about civil unrest in the society. In some ways, it is arguable that allowing such art in public fora is an imposition of an artistic view of symbols over the religious view of the same symbols. I don't see why one particular direction of imposition of views is preferable over the other, except ofcourse if one is predisposed against religionists.


    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dear Vinod,
    "In some ways, it is arguable that allowing such art in public fora is an imposition of an artistic view of symbols over the religious view of the same symbols."

    I do not think anybody is "Imposing" here.It is a conscious choice made by each individual wether to be offended or not.Each individual has to rethink where his supposed "Values" are derived from, what principles are they based on?

    --Sanju

    ReplyDelete
  23. Vinod,
    You have put down your views very nicely on this subject. I fully agree that art is not so important to create social unrest in the society.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Vinod, Abhi:

    Art is not so important as to bring about civil unrest in the society.

    That's an extremely sad way of looking at things.

    It’s easy to say Books are not so important as to bring about civil unrest in society, and then ban the books; say that new ideas or theories are not as important, and then forbid new ideas. There is no end to what can be included in that list – so as not bring civil unrest in society.

    At one point of time, a man hypothesized that may be Earth was not the center of the Universe. That idea was blasphemous enough that could cause civil unrest, so much so that the Church intervened to kill the person who proposed such a ridiculous idea.

    But that idea became important to mankind, so much that it changed the way we civilized, it set in motion grand revolutions, emancipated people from clutches of slavery, liberated people from persecution and ostracism, and brought us medicine, transport and freedom.

    Do we look at each piece of Art and say, is this idea, book or art important? Is this idea, book or art worthy of enduring civil unrest?

    Every new idea, book, art was attacked by the people. Mediocrity does not see higher than itself. But those ideas, books and art have liberated us. They allowed us to accept people who are different from us. It challenged our intellect, piqued our curiosity, and pushed us to accept unfamiliar thoughts and ideas. Monets, Picassos and Dalis did not conform to the people’s standards. The sculptors of Kajuraho and Ellora were not prosecuted by the standards of the people.

    In this day and age, mobs and masses want to dictate how every person should live and that puts an end to freedoms as we know it. Earlier, kings and popes decided the fates of artists, authors and thinkers; nowadays, the mobs decide their fates.

    Civil unrest can be caused by many things – at one point of time people believed in witches and wanted to kill some women, and protecting them and preserving them would cause civil unrest. Should we then go ahead and allow the mobs to kill those women to stop that civil unrest?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sujai

    It is true that art has played an invaluable role in bringing significant changes to human civilization. My statement in the previous post was a bit too widely worded. It is also difficult to qualify it though. Art that conveys a certain humanitarian message to the masses that anybody with a basic sense of reason can appreciate regardless of their beliefs can be distinguished from the art forms of the type that is under discussion in this particular blog entry. I fail to see what liberating message is there in MF Hussein's art that can uplift the Indian society in anyway. If it has any value at all, it is in advancing an atheistic agenda or even (very weakly) an anti-Hindu agenda. I do not think religionists, en masse are blind to the message of valuable art. Perhaps if you can explain what societal ill of Hindu or Indian soceity at large, does nude art of Hindu gods and godesses tries to alleviate, then I might be willing to reconsider my stance. Even the Renaissance had a significant contribution from the works of monks and monastries in terms of philosophical contributions. Religionists are not averse to freedom of expression. Martin Luther King Jr was a pastor in a Church. There are numerous other examples of religionists working for the liberation of people. You tend to assume that an objection to art somehow has to come from a superstitious, unthinking and uneducated mass of religionists, which I think is quite condescending. Having said all that, I'd like to state that I am for the free expression of art in general and I only take exceptions in particular cases, this being one of them.

    In general, Art, while a necessary part of freedom of expression, is subject to qualifications like many other aspects of freedom of expression. No country gives an unbridled license to freedom of expression. All countries qualify it in their own way, making sure it does not lead to serious destabilizations. In thinking about freedom of expression it is important to weight it against other countervailing factors, social stability being one of them, importance of the message to the society being another and so on and so forth. Each case of expression of art should be looked at and discussed individually. I struggle to make generalizations on what forms of art should be allowable and what forms forbidden or restrictively allowed. I do not think that this necessarily stifles healthy discussions. There are ways to make that happen wherein a better balance of values are achieved.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  26. At one point of time, a man hypothesized that may be Earth was not the center of the Universe. That idea was blasphemous enough that could cause civil unrest, so much so that the Church intervened to kill the person who proposed such a ridiculous idea.

    Sujai, I wasn't aware that the Church intervened to kill Aryabhatta. ;)
    *tongue-in-cheek*
    -chirkut

    ReplyDelete
  27. How do we distinguish between art that is "liberating" and art that is "outrageous"?. Art is subjective and artists make it ambiguous so that different people have different interpretations of the same art work. Art is a person's self expression. If Mr.Hussain feels this is his form of expression then let him be. Art doesn't have to convey any humanitarian messsage to the masses. The Government takes care of that:). What standards can we apply to distinguish between those that are "acceptable" and those which are "unacceptable" to the people? Shouldn't we give artists the benefit of doubt? So why don't we just let people create whatever they want? Viewing it or not is our choice. If someone feels the artwork is degrading or insulting they can express their dislike through the print or electronic media, not by ransacking the artist's house and issuing death threats.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is an unusual judgement. Regardless of one's view on it rightness and wrongness it is full of fallacies:

    1. a tautology. You feel hurt by this art so you do not understand art. How do you know I don't understand art - because you feel hurt. Oh, I see.

    2. You have always pained your goddesses nude so anybody can. By that logic, if you allow your father or your brother to take money out of your wallet then anybody should be allows to. There is no such thing as theft.

    3. You should not feel hurt about Bhrat mata because some other people do not. By this logic people should not compalin about poverty because other people are rich.

    4. Ancient Indian art has eroticism in it (note the word ancient) therefore modern Indians should not mind it. By this token ancient people in many placed practiced canibalism so modern people should too.

    The problem is you cannot define what should or should not hurt people. You cannot make a law that says you are allowwed to be hurt for these things and not for other things. That is like trying to make a law against stupidity. The question is what do you do when people do in fact feel hurt. One option is to say tough luck, you have live with it and that is fine. The convoluted attempts to explain why people should not feel hurt is really nonsense.
    Hopefully after this judgement the government will allow Da Vinci code and satanic Verses to be released in India.

    Virtropic

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi

    I do not think the secular government will allow satanic verses,Davinci code to be released in india.That will hurt the sentiments of minorities.

    You Hindus ruled by all kind of people on the earth,You still have some self respect?This is ridiculus.Forget it

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Ancient Indian art has eroticism in it (note the word ancient) therefore modern Indians should not mind it. By this token ancient people in many placed practiced canibalism so modern people should too".
    What a dubious comparison. How can erotic art be compared with cannibalism which involves killing a person? This kind of thinking is because some people here equate nudity with vulgarity and pornography.

    ReplyDelete
  31. One, Vedic pronouncements were the unquestioned authority for all art and other aspects of social and individual life in India. This conformity effectively forestalled excessive intellectual, including pseudo-intellectual, discussions on what constitutes art, what its purpose is, and so on, thus avoiding intellectual chaos and anarchy, all in the name of intellectual fermentation, freedom of expression, which idle intellects are fond of, nay, obsessed with, in any age. The wasters' obsessions really stem from the idlers' materialistic, or let us say commercial, drives, that ignore the need to maintain even a semblance of harmony of thinking with the help of certain socially agreeable premises.

    But what are those Vedic statements ? They are, essentially rooted in the triad of sat chit ananda : being - or existence -, consciousness, bliss, THAT is Brahman - which is expounded in ever so many ways for comprehension, in the different Upanishads, which form the Jnaana Kaanda or the Philosophical section of the Vedas that follows the Karma Kaanda, or the section on certain elevated forms of rituals reckoned to usher material prosperity for individuals.

    The topic of eroticism, which this discussion is about, is woven around the declaration that bliss, or Ananda, is one of the three essential forms in which Brahman exhibits itself. Ananda manifests in infinitely diverse forms: in the spontaneous cheer of a baby responding to a hearty smile of an elder, in the warm, thankful gesture of even an unknown person when being done a trifling bit of favour as a matter of courtesy, in the loving mutual embrace [not only erotic expression of carnal passions] of loving ones of opposite sexes, ... ... As far as the public depiction of carnal passions as a form of bliss goes, it was restricted to holy or secluded places. In holy places, the 'beholder' was better prepared to view erotic portrayals in sculpture as a manifestation of the divine bliss in through that piece of religious art preferably kept within the precincts of a temple. Such depiction was also forbidden from glaring exhibitions in public. A piece of art can be made in an infinity of ways depending only on the imagination of the artiste, but what, among them, is exhibited is by collective will required to conform to authority, in our case, the Vedas [which are in fact intended for the whole world, as such conformity is in its wholesome interests]. Non conformity by an artiste means, undoubtedly, that (s)he is motivated by false notions of attaining fame especially among the less informed and the super-egoistic, or by his uncontrolled instinct to make money by commercializing art or just by a reckoning that his fame which has dipped too low has to be boosted by such cheap means. Such art, artiste, and attitudes do not have anything to do with Vedic declarations of Brahman exhibiting itself in bliss, or even with just the law of a not-too-a-moral government.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous

    I must say that that is some fine eloquence there in your comment. I'm glad to see someone who can present the vedic ideas/approach with some sense and coherence. Thank you.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rags

    "How do we distinguish between art that is "liberating" and art that is "outrageous"?."

    It can be done on a case by case basis. I cannot give a general guideline.


    "Art is subjective and artists make it ambiguous so that different people have different interpretations of the same art work. Art is a person's self expression. If Mr.Hussain feels this is his form of expression then let him be."

    All that is fine as long as art is a private affair. But the moment it gets into a public forum there are a lot of other factors that will inevitably come into play. Art will no longer just be art.

    "What standards can we apply to distinguish between those that are "acceptable" and those which are "unacceptable" to the people? Shouldn't we give artists the benefit of doubt?"

    Yes, artists must be given a chance to explain what is the general message of their provocative art. It must make sense to the general public that is offended by it.

    "So why don't we just let people create whatever they want? Viewing it or not is our choice."

    As I've mentioned before, freedom of expression is not an unbridled freedom. It has its limits in EVERY society. It is about balancing the rights. The people of a country have the right to practice their faith without being mocked or ridiculed.

    "If someone feels the artwork is degrading or insulting they can express their dislike through the print or electronic media, not by ransacking the artist's house and issuing death threats."

    I fully agree. My point is that it would be fine by me if the court had gone against MF Hussain's work as well.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon, What you explain so beautifully is idealism at best. The basis of which is , viewing of the divine is the only ultimate source of pleasure and beauty, and the rest is merely materialistic in nature. Any form of search or redefinition of the term beauty or pleasure, should ultimately conform to the vedic definition or it is not worthy. In its very essence it curtails the freedom of creativity. It makes knowledge of the old as the ultimate source, and that there is nothing beyond it. Human by nature, needs to test his limits. By adhering to the knowledge of the Vedas, he always limits himself, to the very Vedas, and can never go beyond that knowledge. The very mark of creativity, is to realize conformity, and travel beyond it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I agree with thoughtroom. Going by some of the comments here people seem intent to take India back to the stone ages.

    Vinod said:
    "All that is fine as long as art is a private affair. But the moment it gets into a public forum there are a lot of other factors that will inevitably come into play. Art will no longer just be art".
    I'm still not sure about this. Art galleries are usually attended by a select few people. The general public (most of them) don't go to art galleries. Infact most of us wouldn't have known about this if not for the controversy behind those paintings. Either way I don't get it why people should be offended by Mr.Hussain's nudes because that is his interpretation of the gods and godesses. No one is asking other people to accept them. If your idea of God is different stay away from it. If it offends you don't see it. This is the price that we all have to pay to be in a democracy.The price you pay to hear your own voice amongst the multitude of other voices.

    If God was as tolerant as theists commonly make Him out to to be you think He'd be bothered by some mortal paiting Him nude? Honestly, who are you guys fighting for?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rags

    How far do we carry the idea of paying the price for democracy? Can newspapers then defame anybody? Do we not place standards of responsible journalism on them? Can anybody say anything they want in a rally and get away with it, even if it be something that is communalistic? How about if it was something male chauvinistic?

    Surely, you too would draw the line somewhere on the freedom of expression. How would you react if another artist painted women as rightfully being the objects of men's sexual pleasure? Would you react to it as just art? Or would you express your dissent in some legitimate form? Would you not feel that something fundamentally sacred - rights of all human beings to be treated equally regardless of gender - has been trampled upon?

    It is not God that is being defended when theists object to the paintings. They are defending their right to practice their faith without being insulted for it. The reason why you find no problem in allowing such nude art is because religious symbols are not of any particular importance in your worldview. But that is not so for most others.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  37. "How would you react if another artist painted women as rightfully being the objects of men's sexual pleasure? Would you react to it as just art? Or would you express your dissent in some legitimate form? Would you not feel that something fundamentally sacred - rights of all human beings to be treated equally regardless of gender - has been trampled upon"?

    Right on spot. I wanted to give an example like this earlier. I'd probably call the guy an MCP with a serious psychological problem. I would criticise him obviously ,but I wouldn't be calling a ban on the artist's works (as long as it doesn't depict real people). That is for the courts to decide. There is nothing wrong in expressing dissent nor am I against it. Dissent is as important to democracy as is freedom of expression, even more. But how you express your dislike is important.

    I'll give you an even better example. This example probably has a greater impact on society than what innumerable nude paintings could possibly have as it is beamed on televisions everyday. I absolutely detest Fair and Lovely ads. They are more offensive to me than the most erotic paintings on earth. However there are several other Indians who are not the slightest bit offended by it. Can I call for a ban on the products citing my hurt feelings. You tell me. I'd like to also add that I am not the only one offended by it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi

    There are few common threads in all the people defending Hussains work

    1.Freedom of expression and who controls it?
    Freedom of expression should limit itself as long as it is not offending the others.Then how much is correct level.What hussain did is deffinetly not on the border line,it is way out insulting and irresponsible

    2.Responsibility:its not individual responsibility(as per some bloggers comment),It is govt responsuibility
    Every individual has responsibilities towards society,simillar to their rights

    3.Does art has any reponsibility?
    Yes,it have reponsibility.As baharat ratna(?:correct me if this not the correct award for him)Hussain got even more responsibility.If street side artist doe not know about this,it is a different case.As a learned member of the society we do expect some responsibility

    4.Other artistic forms like cinema and advertisement have guide lines.Professionals like doctors and lawyers have code of conduct.
    Why cant artists follow code of conduct

    5.Economics: No responsibility,No code of conduct,thick to others sensibilities.The only benifit is tax on sale of the paintings,No where near the cost of damamge he made to the socity.

    6.Religion:It is not acceptable in Islam?Why he do this.If it is pure motherly love,does islam does not have any motherly persnalities in the entire Quran?Why he repeats the same picture?

    7.Patriotism:Hindus by objecting to the painting,excluding muslims.
    Why muslims are not objecting to this?Is this not muslims responsibility to object to this satanic,un patriotic peice.

    8.Temple art:There are some nude art on ancient temples?So it is ok in 21 century?
    The context is differnt.Time is differnt.Intentions are different.

    9.Muslims killed lakhs of hindus during their ocuupation,burnt universities,looted temples,raped thousands of people

    Is this also OK?.It is the same mindset to humilate and make fun of other peoples feelings.

    Terrorism does not may have religion.But terrorists do have one

    There is a methode in this madness.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rags

    "Dissent is as important to democracy as is freedom of expression, even more. But how you express your dislike is important."

    Well, if that is your point then I think there is nothing to disagree. My point all along was simply that hindus have a right to express their dissent in this matter in a LEGITIMATE form and it would be fine if the COURTS had banned the paintings. My emphasis has been working dissents through the democratic institutions. I was not trying to justify vandalism/violence/robinhoodism of any sort.

    "I absolutely detest Fair and Lovely ads. They are more offensive to me than the most erotic paintings on earth. However there are several other Indians who are not the slightest bit offended by it. Can I call for a ban on the products citing my hurt feelings. You tell me. I'd like to also add that I am not the only one offended by it."

    I think you can advocate for a ban on such ads as they clearly have underpinnings of racism.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  40. Vinod:
    it would be fine if the COURTS had banned the paintings.

    I am NOT FINE with that. I don’t want courts to ban the paintings, the books and movies. I want courts to concern themselves with protection of our rights instead of curbing them.

    I have no problems in religious people forming a group to leverage their clout to gain opportunities, ensure their rights are protected, etc. But I oppose such group representations when they curb individual freedoms. And here, I am not talking about ‘freedom to pee on the road’, but just the basic freedom ‘to do what you want to do within the private environs’.

    Sujai

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Temple art:There are some nude art on ancient temples?So it is ok in 21 century?
    The context is differnt.Time is differnt.Intentions are different".

    You guys are terribly mistaken if you think nude sculptures are not being done now. Go to Mahabalipuram or some other place, there are plenty of artists who do nude or semi nude sculptures of Gods and Godesses to be installed in temples. Infact nude sculptures are more common in India than any other country because it has been officially sanctioned for centuries to be used in temples. Please travel and know more about your own country.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Sujai

    "And here, I am not talking about ‘freedom to pee on the road’, but just the basic freedom ‘to do what you want to do within the private environs’."

    I'm not sure how private is an art gallery exhibition. What does it take to get in there? Is it only by invitation of the artist? Then yes, it is a private function and I fully agree with you. If it a mere matter of an entry fee, then it can no longer be considered a private function and I will then have to disagree with you.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  43. Vinod:

    I'm not sure how private is an art gallery exhibition. What does it take to get in there?

    This is the crux of the matter. What is private and what is public? What is imposed and what is not?

    A scandalous book in a book store – is it imposed onto the innocent readers? An adult movie in a theater – is it imposed onto underage people? A sexually explicit painting in an art exhibition – is it imposed onto the innocent viewers?

    There is an understanding that the above instances are NOT imposing onto the innocent people if done in a certain way. An adult movie with a warning that only adults are allowed asking for ID proof, a hustler magazine in a wrapper indicating it is intended for mature audience, etc, are NOT imposing themselves onto the people.

    However, a nude advertisement hanging in the center of the town, a sexually explicit statue in full view in the children’s park, a person standing in the crowded street reading out sexually explicit book, etc could be considered ‘imposing’ onto the people. There is not escape from exposing one to such things – that means they cannot be avoided.

    Having said that, there may be some technicalities that can be fought over in courts.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Prakash:

    What hussain did is deffinetly not on the border line,it is way out insulting and irresponsible

    Being irresponsible is a matter of personal opinion. Should the personal opinion be legalized?

    3.Does art has any reponsibility? Yes,it have reponsibility. As baharat ratna(?:correct me if this not the correct award for him)Hussain got even more responsibility.

    How can one say someone (who has won an award) has “even more” responsibility? Can such a demand be legalized? Can we go to court saying a person X has more responsibility than a person Y? Can we say that a minister should be penalized “more” for crossing a red light compared to an ordinary citizen?

    Also, what is the responsibility of ART? Should it ‘help’ mankind in a predetermined manner? Or is the function of Art just expressing one’s opinion and creativity? Should it be curbed even when it does not infringe upon other people’s rights?

    Getting offended is not a good enough reason to curb individual freedoms. That way, some people may say that watching women on TV offends them – that’s when we make a theocracy – and we are opposed to that.

    Why cant artists follow code of conduct

    What code of conduct do you have in mind? That artists in India should stick to paintings brinjals & tomatoes, and cats & dogs? Shall the code of conduct work retroactively? That way we can tear down all the Indian temples which show goddesses in lewd positions.

    It is not acceptable in Islam?Why he do this.

    Shall we have legal rules on freedom of expression based on religious identity of a person? If so, can a Hindu artist paint his goddesses in nude?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Vinod:
    Though you asked these questions to Rags, I intervene to answer.

    How far do we carry the idea of paying the price for democracy? Can newspapers then defame anybody? Do we not place standards of responsible journalism on them?

    There are two things. One is the matter of taste and another is matter of law (I can’t help myself, but the topics on Larry Flynt on this blog covers this very well).

    Yes, we do expect newspapers to be responsible. Even I criticize Indian media and TOI a lot, and I have devoted some topics on this blog. But I do not ask for banning the media outfits and holding them responsible by law – unless of course it is really a transgression of law.

    Can anybody say anything they want in a rally and get away with it, even if it be something that is communalistic? How about if it was something male chauvinistic?

    I have no problems with either – communalistic or chauvinistic, as long as they do not infringe upon other people’s rights, unless it is done with a specific intent to do bodily or property harm to someone. I don’t want to legalize compensation for emotional anguish caused by offending sacred symbols.

    How would you react if another artist painted women as rightfully being the objects of men's sexual pleasure?

    I have no problems with that. I would not stop anyone from doing it.

    Or would you express your dissent in some legitimate form?

    I think lot of people resort to dissent in a legitimate form and get things done. Some hymns that were used in Hollywood movies were edited out to pacify Hindu groups. It is a matter of taste, not the law (I reiterate).

    Would you not feel that something fundamentally sacred - rights of all human beings to be treated equally regardless of gender - has been trampled upon?

    No.

    They are defending their right to practice their faith without being insulted for it.

    I don’t think anyone has insulted anyone’s gods here. According to the person who painted it (MF Husain), he was not insulting them when he painted them in nude. If that is case, how can others construe he is insulting them?

    What if I start believing that folding one’s palms and praying to a god tantamount to insult? Should I then go and take every devotee who prays to gods in certain manner to court on the crime of insulting my gods? Who owns these gods anyway? Who are the legitimate owners of these gods?

    And if these gods belong to everyone, and if there is an unwritten rule that painting them in nude is an offense, how come so many contemporary temples carry gods and goddesses in nude?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Vinod:

    The people of a country have the right to practice their faith without being mocked or ridiculed.

    That's IMPOSSIBLE to achieve at.

    The whole of idea of freedom of expression includes right to express opinion, dissent, ridicule, mock, parody, satire and criticize - and that targets of such expression could be faith.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sujai

    "The whole of idea of freedom of expression includes right to express opinion, dissent, ridicule, mock, parody, satire and criticize - and that targets of such expression could be faith."

    While the first part is generally true, it is the individual societies that decide (democratically) whether it is as far applicable as faith as well.

    It can so happen that they may elect leaders who pass an Act in parliament that can guard symbols of faith in certain ways, even if the courts are unwilling to do it. A cursory look at the laws in various countries in relation to freedom of expression will show you that it is a qualified freedom and not an absolute freedom. Singapore, for example, does not allow newspapers to paint caricatures of its political leaders. Societies usually have somethings as sacred depending on the fundamental philosophy dominant in the society. I don't think atheism is the dominant philosophy of Indian society. My point is it is perfectly possible to protect symbols of faith if need be.

    On the theoretical question of should such a thing (passing a law that protects faith from ridicule) ever happen, it depends on the regard we have for faith and its symbols. That is a philosophical difference over which we can argue till we turn blue.

    "Yes, we do expect newspapers to be responsible. Even I criticize Indian media and TOI a lot, and I have devoted some topics on this blog. But I do not ask for banning the media outfits and holding them responsible by law – unless of course it is really a transgression of law."

    In general, what measures one takes when there is some form of abuse of a FoE depends on what has been infringed upon. Again this leads to a philosophical difference. Protection of property and life alone may not be the only sacrosanct things of a state. Symbols of faith can be included in it if the people feel that it should be so. Even if only life and property are considered sacrosanct, where the mockery of symbol of faith can easily lead to destruction of property and life, then I believe that something is awry in the body of laws governing that country. I think there is an arguable case then for missing out the significance of symbols of faith in the society in the body of laws governing that society. That leads us to the question of the role of law. Should it merely protect what a society cherishes at the present so that there is stability achieved or should its protection be such that it gives a particular direction for the society to evolve, risking some degree of instability at the present?

    "I don’t think anyone has insulted anyone’s gods here. According to the person who painted it (MF Husain), he was not insulting them when he painted them in nude. If that is case, how can others construe he is insulting them?"

    I think a mere denial is insufficient. He ought to have given atleast one alternative interpretation of the nudity in his painting that ANY reasonable can see as not denigrating the symbols of faith. (For the sake of argument, let's assume that an art gallery is a public affair)

    "What if I start believing that folding one’s palms and praying to a god tantamount to insult? Should I then go and take every devotee who prays to gods in certain manner to court on the crime of insulting my gods? Who owns these gods anyway? Who are the legitimate owners of these gods?"

    While you may theoretically take such a person to court, the courts may choose to stay neutral and hence not adjudicate either way and may dismiss your case in regard to public interest. Anyway, it is no longer in the realm of FoE at all. But it is in the realm of freedom of religion as they clash against each other in belief. The current discussion is not about one belief against another. It is about art (FoE) and its prima facie offensive impact on the practice of faith of a community.

    ~ Vinod

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  48. "It can so happen that they may elect leaders who pass an Act in parliament that can guard symbols of faith in certain ways, even if the courts are unwilling to do it".

    I don't think so.Courts do not act on their own beliefs. They are instruments for upholding the constitution. If an Act has been passed by parliament its enforcement cannot be disputed by courts unless the existence of the Act itself has been questioned by a majority in Parliament or the Act is directly antagonistic to another Act (Ex: Fundamental rights vs Fundamental dities). So if the Indian constitution does not have any specifics for the remedy of hurt sentiments then you cannot expect courts to uphold it except on outstanding cases(or if you are able to amend the constitution suitably with a two third majority).

    Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and curbing it can be justified only in exceptional cases as in Emergency, armed rebellion or in cases which cause bodily harm and property destruction and openly infringes on others rights. Mr.Hussain's paintings certainly don't qualify for the above.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "So if the Indian constitution does not have any specifics for the remedy of hurt sentiments then you cannot expect courts to uphold it except on outstanding cases(or if you are able to amend the constitution suitably with a two third majority)."

    Rags, thanks for the correction.
    I totally forgot about the constitution. lol.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  50. I would never had researched this subject had it not been for censorship against artwork in a blog of mine on the ArtLab network. Subsequent correspondences with the network creator contained vitriolic attacks against MF Husain. Your post is a brillant analysis and I took the liberty of linking to it in my own blog (in the editing stage).

    ReplyDelete

Dear Commenters:
Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.