Home > 2006 Issues > January 15, 2006

India That is Bharat Fida Communal Husain Satiricus WHY is this column utterly butterly boring? Because Satiricus does not have the imagination to make it lively. And why does Satiricus not have the required imagination? Because he is a solid Hindu. That is the problem. Now, had he been a secularist, he would have been capable of flights of fancy beyond the imagination of a communal cuss. Then the writings of Satiricus would have deserved and received as much acclaim as the paintings of Maqbool Fida Husain. He became aware of his abysmal anti-secular inferiority when he saw a whole section of Husain's paintings at the end of a book titled Anti-Hindus, which its authors, Prafull Goradia and K.R. Phanda had been kind enough to present him recently. Now, like any other Hindu-in-the-street, Satiricus has been to various Hindu temples-temples to Hindu gods and goddesses like Shiva and Vishnu, Krishna, Rama and Hanuman, Sarasvati, Laxmi and Durga. And how do the idols or images show these deities? In the most traditional and tiresomely tribe manner. Shiva sitting still in meditation. Krishna preaching the Gita to Arjun. Rama sitting on the throne, his hand raised in benediction, Hanuman kneeling before Rama. Sarasvati playing the Veena, Laxmi standing in the lotus. Durga riding a tiger. All wearing clothes-befitting divinities as conceived by hopelessly Hindu idol-makers. Obviously these idol-makers lacked the fertile fancy of idol-breakers, especially secular idol-breakers like M.F. Husain. So, sheerly in service to secularism Husain painted pictures showing how these Hindu gods and goddesses really deserve to be shown. The result is picturesque and every picture is a sexational exercise in secular pornography. Could such enchantingly artistic secularism go unrewarded in sterlingly secular India? Of course not. Satiricus has no doubt it does not show that Husain is just a very old man with a very dirty mind. It only shows that he is a secular source of inspiration for artists of India (is that Bharat?). So Maqbool Fida Husain was duly awarded Padma Shri. Was that enough? It was not. So he was awarded Padma Bhushan. Again, was that enough? It was not. So he was awarded Padma Vibhushan. Now Satiricus asks-is that enough? Maybe not. So he awaits the next higher award. In the meanwhile he notices with some surprise that in Husain's world there are also women-including deified women-who, unlike his Hindu goddesses, are neither naked all the time nor copulating all the time. They are in decent clothes and in decent poses. But that is because they have taken care to be born in the only two decent religions in secular India, Islam and Christianity. They are Husain's mother, Husain's daughter, Prophet Mohammed's daughter Fatima, and Mother Teresa. On the other hand when Husain's women are not explicitly Muslim or Christian, they are always doing the one thing that is perpetually on Husain's mind-copulating with animals, with a horse in one picture, with an elephant in another. What does all this show? Satiricus is sure it does not show that Husain has a sick mind. Satiricus is convinced it does not show that Husain has a sex-crazed libido. Satiricus has no doubt it does not show that Husain is just a very old man with a very dirty mind. It only shows that he is a secular source of inspiration for artists of India (is that Bharat?). Another artist may say, if Hindu goddesses Laxmi and Saraswati can be shown stark naked by master Husain, why can't he, a faithful follower, show Husain's mother and/or daughter in the same state? A third may go still further and say, if Padma Vibhushan Husain can paint women copulating with horses and elephants, why couldn't he aim for at least a Padma Shri by painting great master Husain himself copulating with at least a sow? What would happen if a Hindu artist in a Muslim country painted such pictures of Fatima or Ayesha? Would there be a fatwa on his head? No, there won't be a fatwa on his head, because the very next day his head would be found in one gutter his body in another gutter. Satiricus solemnly assures Husain that he does not have to fear such an eventuality in this country. The reason is simple-modern Hindusthan is not made up of Hindu men on the one hand and Hindu women on the other. Modern Hindusthan is now made up of Hindu mice on the one hand and Hindu eunuchs on the other. Even the mice are a special breed. Injections of Indian secularism have made them spineless. These mice (Satiricus included) wring their hands and weep and wail and turn tail, and that's the end of it. And the eunuchs write newspaper articles singing the praise of Husain and his likes, and lauding him loudly for making India the very picture of secularism. They would even happily volunteer for poses for a Husain painting.-Sorry, sorry! Satiricus forgot.

Previous Page (27/35) - Next Page (29/35)