By K.R. Phanda
A leading news magazine in an editorial recently has called Maqbool Fida Husain a national institution and one of our real icons. The artist'ssuccess is unquestionable but his mind certainly is not. Only someone who has seen Husain'sentire collection of paintings can shower such praise as has been done in the case cited.
This writer possesses a volume containing many prints of Husain'spaintings and sketches. The book was published in 1988 by Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited with a foreword by Mr Russi Mody. The text is by Dr Daniel Herwitze of California State University. The paintings were selected by Husain himself. This volume is available with the reviewer for inspection for anyone wishing to do so. There are several prints and sketches which clearly demonstrate the artist'sperversity.
To paint nudity is an old tradition. To portray sex may be pornographic but it is not unnatural and certainly not perverse. However, to depict copulation between an animal and a woman is revolting to any average person. Imagine a horse and a woman together, or a bull and a woman, a lion and a woman, or an elephant and a woman!
While an individual'spersonal views are beyond the pale of judgment when he or she seeks to use a public platform to air them one expects a certain restraint. When an individual'sperversity affects persons unknown to him, it is slanderous. And, when that perversity comes down to pronographic depiction of revered deities, it is sacrilegious.
How can so many instances be dismissed as inadvertent deviations by the painter? Suppose Husain is allowed the benefit of doubt and judgement is suspended for a while. Look at some of his other paintings. One will never come across the painting of a Muslim woman without clothes. Husain'sstep mother Shirin, Prophet Mohammad'sdaughter Fatima or Mother Teresa, they all appear in Husain'spaintings fully clothed, a privilege denied to Hindu deities and women.
While Husain'spaintings have been in the public domain for decades now, the editorial mentioned prompted this writer to reassert that prima facie, Husain has insulted the Hindu ethos in general and believing Hindus in particular. Can he be forgiven for painting Durga and Saraswati in the nude? Or Sita masturbating on the long tail of Hanuman; or sitting naked on the thigh of Ravana. Imagine a bull copulating with Parvati while Shankar watches the act on Shivratri. Or Durga in union with her lion! Imagine a naked Krishna with his flute, sitting on a cow but with no feet and no hands.
How can so many instances be dismissed as inadvertent deviations by the painter? Suppose Husain is allowed the benefit of doubt and judgement is suspended for a while. Look at some of his other paintings. One will never come across the painting of a Muslim woman without clothes. Husain'sstep mother Shirin, Prophet Mohammad'sdaughter Fatima or Mother Teresa, they all appear in Husain'spaintings fully clothed, a privilege denied to Hindu deities and women.
On yet another panel painting, Husain has portrayed Einstein, Gandhi, Mao Zedong and Hitler sitting in a row. The former three are dressed but the Nazi leader is naked. Does this imply that Husain painted Hitler in the nude because he hated him even as he spared the others. All the Hindu deities painted by Husain fall in the same category as Adolf Hitler, the killer of six million innocent Jews among thousands of others.
It may be recalled that in Ahmedabad a few years ago, members of the Bajrang Dal held a demonstration against the painting of a nude Saraswati referred to above. This is perhaps the least offensive amongst the nudes of Hindu deities Husain has painted. Most others are much worse. Yet, there has been no protest against the 17-year-old book which was widely circulated among India'selite on its release.
What is even more surprising is that a steel company, whose business is far removed from publishing books on art, should have chosen to sponsor such a volume at, what obviously seems, a considerable cost. There have been no protests from the Hindu elite nor has the Government considered it necessary to question this publication. Surely, if Salman Rushdie'sSatanic Verses deserved to be banned, MF Husain'sworks too need similar attention.
(Husain, by M.F. Husain, Tata Iron & Steel Co. (1988).)
Courtesy: The Pioneer
