s I
write this, today’s edition of The Times of India (March 9, 2010)
has reported that MF Husain has officially surrendered his Indian
passport to the Indian mission in Doha following weeks of media debates
and discussions that erupted in the wake of the artist announcing that he
had decided to accept the citizenship of Qatar.
“Maqbool Fida Husain (born September 17, 1915, Pandharpur,
Maharashtra, India), popularly known as MF Husain, is a Qatari artist of
Indian origin…” reads the Wikipedia entry. It has updated Husain’s
biography with surprising alacrity. But it will take a while for even his
critics to allude to him as a “Qatari artist”.
Maybe we should have seen it coming when he did not return
home even after the Supreme Court of India on September 8, 2008 quashed
court cases that had hounded him since1996, initiated against him by those
protesting his portrayal of Hindu goddesses in the nude. (At one point he
had been battling nearly 3,000 such cases.) The cases may have been
defenestrated but not the hate campaigns his controversial paintings
triggered. A blog has even demanded that a red corner alert be issued to
get Husain, who is now beyond the reach of Indian law.
In 1998 Husain’s house was attacked and art works
vandalised by Hindu groups like the Bajrang Dal with the tacit support of
the Shiv Sena.
Husain had to issue an apology after the Hindu Janajagruti
Samiti and Vishwa Hindu Parishad protested against a painting of a nude
woman whose outline resembled the map of India. The painting had to be
withdrawn from an auction in February 2006. Apparently, it depicted Bharat
Mata, or Mother India. Husain has denied ever appending these labels to
this work though he agrees that the image personifies India.
Protests against Husain led to the closure of an
exhibition in London, also in February 2006. The mounting threats and
court cases finally forced him to flee to Dubai the same year and set up a
home and studio there. Picketing outside art auctions and shows where his
works are sold or exhibited has now become a routine feature.
In 2007 he was selected to receive the Raja Ravi Varma
Award from the government of Kerala. But on September 12, the
Kerala high court stayed the Left Democratic Front government’s move to
confer the award on him after a complaint was registered against him in
Pandharpur, on the basis of which a non-bailable arrest warrant was issued
against him by a lower court. The court directed the Kerala government to
present Husain in court when he arrived to receive the award. The basis of
the complaint was that Husain had hurt the sentiments of Hindus through
his painting of Bharat Mata. The Kerala high court’s stay order was also
dictated by a public interest litigation petition filed by a member of the
former royal family of Kochi, contending that the state government had
flouted norms in selecting Husain for the award.
On March 15, 2008, 18 artists flew to Dubai from India to
honour Husain at a felicitation ceremony at the Jumeirah Beach Hotel. The
list of artists included Amitava Das, Ram Kumar and Surendra Pal Joshi.
Sponsored by the Bhoruka Charitable Trust, the event featured seminars on
art. If Husain couldn’t come to India, India could go to Husain – that was
the underlying idea behind the endeavour. Husain was ecstatic, as one of
the things he misses in Dubai (and in Qatar) is interacting with fellow
Indian artists.
A surprise had been planned for Husain: a joint “live”
painting by all 18 artists – apparently for the first time in the world –
that would be presented to him. The event had to be cancelled following
veiled threats. The artists quietly flew back. Not only was Husain not
honoured but a unique work of art was prevented from being created.
History in the making was thwarted. No one spoke of the far-reaching
implications of the event that did not/could not take place.
The Indian government has been regularly making token
efforts to get Husain back home. This gathered momentum last year. But
Husain was not impressed. “What are they talking about?” he asked in a
telephonic interview from Dubai, excerpts of which were carried in a
report on October 30, 2009 (‘Husain says govt cover not enough’). “The
India Art Summit held in August this year did not feature a single work by
me. The reason given was that they could not afford to take the ‘risk’.
How will they protect me if they cannot protect my work? How can I trust
them?”
That the Art Summit was supported by the union ministry of
culture is a sad commentary on the Indian government’s lack of will to
protect Husain from harassment by a section of society albeit a small one.
In January this year the BJP-ruled Himachal Pradesh
government decided to drop Husain from its school textbooks, replacing him
with Nicholas Roerich and Sobha Singh, on the flimsy grounds that Husain
did not belong to the state.
The arm of communalism is obviously long and strong –
longer and stronger than that of the law.
An email forward condemning Husain’s “perversion and
hypocrisy”, which surfaces whenever he is in the news, has been doing the
rounds once again. I quote the text of the mail. It has been edited only
for punctuation: “Read upto the root, then you know the route (sic) cause
of the nudity of Husain (sic),” it begins. “Really sad when art loses its
innocence. Very sad, but it is reality…”
It goes on to say: “If a person dresses like a Sikh Guru,
thousands of Sikhs gather and destroy their establishments, threaten to
kill him, announce a bounty on his head. Sikhs are not criticised for
being communal and intolerant.
“If a Danish journalist depicts the Prophet of the
Muslims, Muslims all over the world rise in anger. There is violence. A
booty on the head of the journalist. Muslims are not criticised for being
communal and intolerant.
“If MF Husain draws paintings depicting Hindu Gods and
Goddesses in sexual positions (which relations are not borne out by
ancient texts at all) and Hindus merely protest, they are called communal,
intolerant, and taught lessons in secularism by one and all.
“The problem apparently is not with Sikhs and Muslims, it
is with Hindus, because we are not violent, we accept what ever (sic) is
dished out to us. We do not have the guts to say that this is wrong. We
seek acceptance from outsiders rather than from our conscience. We worship
the same Gods and Goddesses but don’t stand up for them when the time
comes.
“That is why Husain is wrong. Be a judge yourself of
Husain’s paintings below.”
A set of paintings by Husain are then juxtaposed to
chilling effect with rather simplistic captions (in italics): Goddess
Durga in a sexual union with Tiger and The Prophet’s daughter
Fatima fully clothed; Goddess Lakshmi naked on Shree Ganesh’s head
and MF Husain’s Mother fully clothed; Naked Saraswati as
against Mother Teresa fully clothed; Naked Shri Parvati
compared to Husain’s Daughter well clothed; Naked Draupadi
as against A Well clothed Muslim Lady and so on.
It is caustic enough to erode the support of even the
staunchest liberal/secular-minded Hindu and makes it easy to sympathise
with both camps – those who argue for artistic freedom and those who claim
their religious sentiments have been hurt.
Husain elicits this kind of ambivalent reaction because he
tries to bring together his love and fascination for the Indian/Hindu
culture and mythology and free artistic expression. His being a Muslim but
with an easy familiarity with Hindu deities and epics – easy enough to be
able to interpret them creatively – complicates the issue. Though Husain’s
Muslim identity may never have interfered with his identity as an artist,
it is a Muslim artist pushing and challenging the boundaries of
creativity and religious decorum that incites fundamentalist sentiments.
Two letters to the editor (The Times of India,
March 2, 2010), both apparently by Hindus, sum up the two ends of the ‘a
Muslim Husain depicting Hindu deities obscenely’ debate: The one titled
‘Govt lets religious fanatics thrive here’ says, “The manner in
which renowned artist MF Husain was forced to flee India speaks volumes of
Indian government’s hollowness in protecting the freedom of expression
guaranteed by the Constitution… Instead of establishing the rule of law,
the government appears to have allowed religious fanatics to have the last
laugh.”
In the one titled ‘Husain is lucky with just court cases’,
the writer concludes, “Husain would not have been spared like this in
other countries, especially in Islamic nations, for a similar act.”
Though most liberal-minded educated urban Hindus will not
admit it in public, they nurse a niggling feeling that their religious
tolerance is perceived as weakness and that if fanaticism is the measure
by which religious fervour and affiliation is gauged, Hindus often fall
short. Because they are not angry enough when their religion is slighted,
they are seen to have a cavalier attitude towards their religion. (Spoofs
on Hindu epics and gods in the print and electronic media are laughed off
by most Hindus.) This is one of the reasons why Hindu intolerance and
fanaticism is on the rise – public demonstrations to prove that Hindus are
not spineless and can feel as strongly about their religion as Muslims do.
The incendiary mail cited earlier astutely exploits this sentiment.
Another email that is making the rounds emphasises this,
apart from the ambivalent attitude Husain’s paintings generate which I
spoke of earlier:
“Mr Husain has perhaps misinterpreted his limitations on
his liberty to paint pictures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. We cannot blame
him for this. Everywhere we look around in India there are objects de art
(sic) in stone/wood carvings, in metal icons, in mural paintings, etc,
depicting our Gods and Goddesses in all kinds of poses, some even erotic,
dressed, semi-dressed and undressed. Khajuraho is world famous
for this kind of depictions. Indians and foreigners flock there in large
numbers to feast on these sights, without any revulsion. Patronage of
eroticism seems to have thrived in India from time immemorial… It is said,
‘Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’. So is obscenity… No creator or
producer has been hounded out of India for putting to public view
revolting scenes as we see today. Why Husain? Why?”
The reason is that there has obviously been an insidious
process at work to bleed Husain slowly so that he is rendered too weak to
assert his creativity and artistic freedom, to demoralise his spirit and
gradually wish him away from public space and psyche. But in one fell
swoop the artist has exercised his freedom and turned his back on a
country that rejected him and a government that either clucked in sympathy
or shrugged in helplessness.
“I’m a free bird. I can stay anywhere I want… There are no
boundaries for me. Art speaks a universal language,” he said on March 5.
But his tone was devoid of any triumphalism. He admitted being deeply
hurt. “Now they are asking me to come back (but) when I was in exile,
there was no one to speak for me” (‘Now Qatar is my place’, The Times
of India, March 4, 2010).
Technically, no one could have stopped Husain from
returning to India, especially after the apex court on September 8, 2008
dismissed a plea to prosecute him for his allegedly obscene paintings of
Hindu deities. It must be remembered that it was a self-imposed exile.
What prompted it was probably also self-inflicted. If only he had painted
Hindu deities more demurely! But art has its reasons.
Commenting on the legal and artistic implications of the
landmark judgement, Husain had said (‘Husain Wants to Return to India with
Humility’, Khaleej Times, September 10, 2009), “The Supreme
Court has proved that there is no such thing as obscenity when it comes to
a work of art. No one can file an obscenity case against me now. A
precedent has been set, which will be referred to not only in India but
also the world over. There was no ban on me to return to India but now I
feel truly liberated.
“My mind and soul have always been there. When you are
intensely in love with something, the barriers of time and space
disappear. But when I do return physically, I don’t want to go back
triumphant but with a deep sense of humility.”
But Husain did not come “home”. More than the court cases
against him, he feared physical harm. He feared the violence his return
would have triggered.
In an interview for an article titled ‘Still in
Circulation’ in the April 17, 2009 issue of Wknd., a magazine of
the Khaleej Times, Husain said that the Indian government had
invited entries for a symbol for the Indian rupee on the lines of the
pound, the dollar and the euro. “A government agency contacted me and
asked me to participate. And, of course, I wanted to,” he said. “It’s not
another gimmick to be in the public eye. I’m often accused of being
gimmicky. It’s because I love participation – to be an active part of a
vibrant society. If someone invents a new kind of matchstick, I’d want to
paint a matchstick label for it. That’s because I’m passionate about life
and like to respond to what’s happening around me.”
He added with a tinge of sadness in his voice, “But even
if they like my design, I don’t think it’ll be selected. If it’s selected,
it’ll trigger protests.” He quickly shrugged and smiled, “At my age
everything ceases to matter… everything except art.” In the same
interview, he said, “Work energises me. It is my prayer, my meditation.”
This is proved by the volume of work he has undertaken. He
is at present working on three major projects: the history of Hindi cinema
initiated by Sheikh Nahyan Bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, minister of higher
education and scientific research, for a proposed museum in Abu Dhabi; the
history of Indian civilisation for a UK-based Indian businessman in London
and the history of Arab civilisation – a set of 99 paintings – for Sheikha
Mozah Bint Nasser Al Missned, the consort of the emir of Qatar, Sheikh
Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani. “I will finish all of them by 2012,” he says
matter-of-factly. Even at 95, Husain rarely indulges in nostalgia. His
gaze is set on the future.
It was probably this that prompted him to accept the
citizenship of Qatar when it was offered – an assurance of a safe haven to
live and work in.
He did not ask for it. According to his close relative and
confidant, it was a fait accompli. He applied for a three-year visa to be
able to complete his project. The Qatar royal family reportedly offered
him a royal passport instead so that Husain did not have to keep renewing
his Qatari visa.
Since then, the media noise has drowned the real subtext.
Husain too has been responsible for raising the decibel level by giving
mixed signals – he has cited the creature comforts that Qatar offers,
apart from it being a tax haven where he enjoys complete artistic freedom.
He has called Qatar his “new place” but has added, “I’m saying this
with a deep pain in my heart”. He has asked, “Is there any surety that I
would be protected in India?” But he calls India his motherland, to which
he can return any time he wants to and doesn’t have to beg to be called
back and he denies any threat to his life.
It is not always easy to separate sincerity from sound
bites, especially given the fact that Husain is media-savvy. But beneath
the veneer of an upbeat-looking Husain is a heartbroken man. These last
few years he has had to walk the thin line between asserting his artistic
freedom and upholding what he believes to be right on the one hand and
having to constantly prove his patriotism and “Indianness” on the other.
It has been a balancing act, trying not to be cowed down by fringe
elements baying for his blood and at the same time expressing regret for
having hurt Hindu sentiments. It is worth noting that he has not
expressed regret that he painted Hindu goddesses as he did, merely that
they offended some people. (He reiterated this on TV channels recently.)
But he was clearly tired of having to constantly prove his credentials.
And when the offer of the Qatari citizenship came, he accepted it. But it
can’t have been an easy decision to make. If one listened hard, it was not
a defiant artist but an anguished man forced to make an impossible choice
that made all those contradictory statements.
The tragic irony is that he has chosen a theocratic and
despotic state against a democratic, free and secular India. The reason is
easy to grasp but bitter to digest: Husain is now free to portray Hindu
goddesses the way he has been doing in the past, if indeed he chooses to,
as long as he continues to portray Muslim figures/Islamic subjects as he
has always chosen to – with dignity. Does it reek of double standards in
art? It certainly does if Husain had deliberately set out to denigrate
Indian deities and Bharat Mata. But he was merely placing them in their
cultural ethos and religious milieu. He was following a tradition.
That Husain as an Indian artist created images from the
Hindu tradition and culture he had assimilated over the years is
undisputable. But is the fact that Husain is a Muslim only incidental to
the issue? Did Husain choose Qatar – an Islamic country – over a
Hindu-dominated India? We may never be able to answer these two questions
satisfactorily. And they will come back to haunt us and Husain for a long
time to come.
Husain in his ripe old age may have taught the Indian
state a lesson by resolutely turning his back on the lip service it
offered him. But it is a Pyrrhic victory in a war of attrition. The state
and his detractors finally did get him. He looks defeated even as he
sounds upbeat.
This dichotomy is something that one often sensed even in
his earlier statements. He once told me, “I truly miss my country. I have
travelled a lot and kept going out of my country. But I never realised
what it was like not to be able to return to my country till the time I
was not able to return to it. It was then that I felt the pangs of
separation… the pangs of missing my motherland. I not only miss my
motherland but simple things – meeting people, walking on the streets…
Nothing, not even paradise, can take the place of home… It’s a mysterious
tie but a very strong tie that a man has to his soil. I would one day like
to return to my motherland, no matter how long it takes. Even if it takes
10 years, I would like to return.” But sadly, if indeed it takes 10 years,
Husain will then be 105.
More recently (on May 23, 2009), he seemed to shrug off
the ‘exile’ tag when he said, “I’m a traveller. I’ve always been
travelling and feel at home everywhere in the world. It makes no
difference to me where I am. The prophet fled from Mecca to Medina –
Hijrah. ‘Seeru fil ard’, he said – ‘Go, travel into the world’. And
that is what I’m doing. I’m so busy finishing my three major projects and
many others that I have no time to think of missing India.”
Maybe it was bravado. Maybe he was hiding his angst behind
his incorrigible optimism and indefatigable energy. Maybe what he said was
heartfelt. Or maybe, like all contradictions, both statements were true.
Who can say that one cancels the other one out?
In an interview (‘Still in Circulation’, Wknd.), he
confessed, “Once the only thing that would make me sad was betrayal of
trust. Now not even that.” And added, “The only thing I fear is violence.
Sadly, there’s a lot of it around.”
It is probably a deep sense of betrayal – that his country
let him down – and fear of the violence that his return could set off that
influenced his decision.
That India’s most celebrated contemporary artist may never
return to his country and might die with his wish unfulfilled is too
terrible to contemplate. But that he is no longer India’s most
celebrated artist is even more so, for it is more telling a critique on us
than it is on Husain, the artist.
The Indian government has described Husain as “the pride
of India” and expressed the desire that Husain should consider coming back
and feel safe in India. But that he should be allowed to return just
because he is old is an inane albeit a valid argument. Husain wouldn’t
want it. Maybe the time to make amends has passed. But if it has not, we
will lose precious time if we continue to drag our feet till Husain
becomes too old to care or remember, or until it is too late. Husain may
not show it but he does feel his age.
I had said of Husain in an article I wrote when he turned
94 (‘It’s Been a Long Penance’, Khaleej Times, September 22, 2009):
“Regret is a hollow sentiment that survives by virtue of hindsight. And
Indians are known for valorising genius on hindsight.” I reiterate it now.