The
question of why Husain doesn't paint Muslim figures in the nude is a red
herring. The Islamic tradition is a different one from either the Hindu or the
Western; what causes offence in one is different from what causes offence in
another. Islam, after all, prohibits any visual depiction of the Prophet,
whereas visualising our gods and goddesses is central to the practice of
Hinduism.
The emails and
messages still haven't stopped coming in on the Husain paintings of unclad Hindu
goddesses, but I think it's time to draw a line under that debate with one last
foray. First, though, i'd like to deal with those who've questioned my own
record: many have written to ask whether I have spoken out in favour of freedom
of expression elsewhere (i have, for decades, and continue to do so); whether I
have publicly defended Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses (i have, widely,
and in writing as well as in person); and whether I have spoken in favour of the
Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (I have not, because I consider them a
needless provocation). The last line of questioning, I must say, irritated me;
those who draw a parallel between Husain's art and a bunch of cartoons have not
begun to understand the first thing about
either.
But it's time to
acknowledge that one category of objection cannot be lightly dismissed. I wrote
a few weeks ago about those readers who, while fully respecting Husain as an
artist, and without expressing any of the communal bigotry that I found
particularly distasteful about this affair, nonetheless expressed anguish at
seeing representations of goddesses in the nude. They wrote of their hurt that
images they worshipped should have been so depicted; many asked why Husain has
not depicted figures of other faiths, including his own, undressed. Several
added that this was because Hindus are a pushover; other faiths are more robust
in their self-defence, whereas Hindus like me are all too willing to accept
being insulted.
There's a lot
to be said about all this that one can't fit into a single Sunday column. But
some points must be made. First: I don't feel insulted by the paintings because
(unlike the Danish cartoons) no insult was intended. As i've explained before,
Husain is no Johnny-come-lately; he is a major artist, a national treasure, one
with a long record of being inspired by Hindu mythology as a major source of
inspiration for his work. His paintings of goddesses are consistent with 50
years of his paintings of other iconic Hindu images, clad and unclad. I saw the
paintings in that context; his critics saw them out of context (and judging by
some emails I received, grossly exaggerated what the paintings depicted: a
Hindutva website falsely alleges that Husain shows Durga in sexual relations
with a tiger, something it would take a perfervid imagination to see in his
picture!) Husain saw his paintings as being within a millennial Indian tradition
in which nudity has been widely used in art, including on temple walls. So did
i. But I accept that's not
enough.
Husain as an artist has
long used form to suggest ideas beyond form; images in his works are both less
and more than realistic depictions of what they portray. His paintings are full
of metaphors and allusions; the body, he has often said, is a representation of
something formless, illusory (maya). As a Hindu, I did not see his goddesses as
literal depictions of the images I worship. I believe in the Upanishadic view
that the Divine is essentially unknowable, and that all worship consists of
human beings stretching out their hands to that which they cannot touch. But
since we humans, with our limited minds, need something more specific to aid our
imaginations, we visualise God in forms that we find more easily recognisable.
Hinduism, in accepting that need, also gives its adherents an infinite variety
of choices about how to imagine God. That's why there are 333,000 names and
depictions of the Divine in Hinduism; each Hindu may pick the ones he wishes to
venerate, and the form in which he wishes to venerate them. There's nothing more
'authentic' about a Raja Ravi Varma image of Saraswati than that of a calendar
artist; each is imagining the goddess according to his own sensibility. As a
Hindu, I had no difficulty in according Husain the same
right.
The question of why
Husain doesn't paint Muslim figures in the nude is a red herring. The Islamic
tradition is a different one from either the Hindu or the Western; what causes
offence in one is different from what causes offence in another. Islam, after
all, prohibits any visual depiction of the Prophet, whereas visualising our gods
and goddesses is central to the practice of
Hinduism.
But having said that,
one has to accept that people of good faith may well have been offended —
and if so, it's not enough to tell them they shouldn't be. Husain himself
accepts that if you hurt people unintentionally, the right thing to do is to
apologise. And he has done so, more than once. Since when have Hindus become so
ungracious that we refuse to accept apologies?
On his current visit to the
United States, Husain was asked by a radio interviewer how he felt about the
controversy "as a Muslim". The 92-year-old Master bridled. "I'm an Indian and a
painter, that's all," he said. As an Indian and a painter he has brought immense
honour to our country and our civilisation. Is it right that, in the tenth
decade of his illustrious life, he should live abroad, fearful of being hounded
and harassed if he sets foot in his native land? I appeal to the very sense of
decency that some readers claim Husain has violated. Let us put this matter
beyond us, accept his apology, and withdraw the multiple cases that have been
filed against him and which have destroyed his peace of mind. The persecution of
Husain does not show Hindus acting in robust self-defence; it shows us as petty
and small-minded. What does it say about us as a society if, instead of offering
our greatest living artist an honoured place, we tell him he is not welcome in
his own homeland? It is time to end this harassment — not just for Husain,
but for our own sake as a civilisation.