I must admit that I was rather complacent about M.F. Hussain's controversial painting until I received an e-mail with images of his paintings (See Below). I did some googling and came across the site that depicts these and a few other Hussain paintings.
Bal Thakarey is known for making inflammatory remarks on a number of subjects, and one of his targets is the Muslim community. What Thakeray portrays in his words, Hussain expresses in his paintings. After all a painting speaks a thousand words. To me that puts Hussain and Thakeray in the same box and I hold both of them in equal contempt.
What irked me is that Hussain has scribbled the names of the deities in the paintings leaving no opportunity for a benefit of doubt.
When the Danish cartoons were published, there was mayhem all over the world, there were riots in India (go figure). In Hindustan barring a few assaults on exhibition of Hussain's paintings, and a case against him; that was dismissed by the Supreme Court....Nothing! This speaks for the tolerance of the Indian people.
Granted, the images of these pictures were not published in a newspaper, but here we have a recipient of a Padma Bhushan in 1973, the Padma Vibhushan in 1989, and a person who was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in 1986, producing art that is insulting to Hindus.
In the Supreme Court ruling, "The judges described one of Hussain's controversial paintings as "a work of art," according to the Times of India. "There are many such pictures, paintings, and sculptures, and some of them are in temples also," the court said."
Excuse me, I have not seen a depiction of Durga seemingly having sex with a lion, or a naked Lakshmi with her feet on Ganesha or Saraswati depicted naked anywhere. Yes Hindu deities are depicted topless and there are plenty of sculptures that would be deemed obscene by people. However, they celebrate not denigrate.
Now if the judge/court had said that the paintings are in poor taste, that they are objectionable and offend the Hindu community.....but, we uphold Hussain's right to free speech and expression and we are bound constitutionally to judge him not guilty....I would have accepted the verdict.
And since I am a person who believes in freedom of expression, had he produced paintings that depicted Mohammad or Christ or Mary in compromising positions, I would have given him the benefit of doubt, for after all he is eccentric and one could say a bit insane. But he didn't. This to me is bigotry. Besides these objectionable paintings, he has painted a decapitated Mahatma Gandhi along with Hitler, Marx and Einstein. What is he trying to say here?
In the name of secularism, the "pseudo intellectual" Hindus will rationalize any insult dished out at the Hindu community and uphold a person's right to free speech and expression. That is all very fine and dandy. Widespread destructive agitation is not the answer, at the same time should Hindus just turn the other cheek? What would be a rational response?
In my view Hindus need to express their displeasure with measured responses and by silently protesting any exhibition of his paintings anywhere in the "secular" world. Hindus should make it clear that they are not proud of M.F. Hussain. At every opportunity that presents itself regarding him, prominent Hindustani's should express their displeasure and censure him and point out his bigotry.
Yes, in Hindustan, individuals have a right to free speech and expression, provided it does not incite hatred and violence. This also means that individuals should be prepared to deal with the consequences. In this instance, Hussain has had to leave the country for fear of his life. If he has any semblance of self respect, he should stay away and continue his self imposed exile.
People who hurt the "sentiment" of a community are branded "communalists" in India. Shouldn't Hussain's one-sided views expressed in his paintings be branded communalist as well?
Durga
Saraswati
Mother India
Mogul King & Brahmin
Einstein, Gandhi, Marx & Hitler
Bal Thakarey is known for making inflammatory remarks on a number of subjects, and one of his targets is the Muslim community. What Thakeray portrays in his words, Hussain expresses in his paintings. After all a painting speaks a thousand words. To me that puts Hussain and Thakeray in the same box and I hold both of them in equal contempt.
What irked me is that Hussain has scribbled the names of the deities in the paintings leaving no opportunity for a benefit of doubt.
When the Danish cartoons were published, there was mayhem all over the world, there were riots in India (go figure). In Hindustan barring a few assaults on exhibition of Hussain's paintings, and a case against him; that was dismissed by the Supreme Court....Nothing! This speaks for the tolerance of the Indian people.
Granted, the images of these pictures were not published in a newspaper, but here we have a recipient of a Padma Bhushan in 1973, the Padma Vibhushan in 1989, and a person who was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in 1986, producing art that is insulting to Hindus.
In the Supreme Court ruling, "The judges described one of Hussain's controversial paintings as "a work of art," according to the Times of India. "There are many such pictures, paintings, and sculptures, and some of them are in temples also," the court said."
Excuse me, I have not seen a depiction of Durga seemingly having sex with a lion, or a naked Lakshmi with her feet on Ganesha or Saraswati depicted naked anywhere. Yes Hindu deities are depicted topless and there are plenty of sculptures that would be deemed obscene by people. However, they celebrate not denigrate.
Now if the judge/court had said that the paintings are in poor taste, that they are objectionable and offend the Hindu community.....but, we uphold Hussain's right to free speech and expression and we are bound constitutionally to judge him not guilty....I would have accepted the verdict.
And since I am a person who believes in freedom of expression, had he produced paintings that depicted Mohammad or Christ or Mary in compromising positions, I would have given him the benefit of doubt, for after all he is eccentric and one could say a bit insane. But he didn't. This to me is bigotry. Besides these objectionable paintings, he has painted a decapitated Mahatma Gandhi along with Hitler, Marx and Einstein. What is he trying to say here?
In the name of secularism, the "pseudo intellectual" Hindus will rationalize any insult dished out at the Hindu community and uphold a person's right to free speech and expression. That is all very fine and dandy. Widespread destructive agitation is not the answer, at the same time should Hindus just turn the other cheek? What would be a rational response?
In my view Hindus need to express their displeasure with measured responses and by silently protesting any exhibition of his paintings anywhere in the "secular" world. Hindus should make it clear that they are not proud of M.F. Hussain. At every opportunity that presents itself regarding him, prominent Hindustani's should express their displeasure and censure him and point out his bigotry.
Yes, in Hindustan, individuals have a right to free speech and expression, provided it does not incite hatred and violence. This also means that individuals should be prepared to deal with the consequences. In this instance, Hussain has had to leave the country for fear of his life. If he has any semblance of self respect, he should stay away and continue his self imposed exile.
People who hurt the "sentiment" of a community are branded "communalists" in India. Shouldn't Hussain's one-sided views expressed in his paintings be branded communalist as well?
Postscript: Hussain has taken up citizenship of Qatar. The "pseudo intellectuals" are bemoaning this as a great loss for India. Let us not confuse the man and his art. He is a great artist no doubt, but as a man, he has offended the land that made him. Leaving it, whether out of fear or otherwise is appropriate. It is leaving the house he has insulted. If he were to paint Mohammad in bad light in Qatar, they would have his head! Would he dare?
DurgaSaraswatiLakshmi
Mother India
Mogul King & Brahmin
Einstein, Gandhi, Marx & Hitler
Parvati
Hanuman, Ravana & Sita
Hanuman, Ravana & Sita 
2 comments:
i think they are works of art and as such they can be criticised as any work of art can be. however, i think before you jump to your own conclusions about the message, i'd exercise some caution. i seriously doubt hussain has any religious/communal motive whatsoever. there is a temple in cochin where krishna is graphically shown having sex with six women. and in the ashwamedha yajna, the queen would arouse the horse and rub her cunt over it's dick. best thing about being a hindu is 'everything goes'. don't fall into the trap of people who try to muslimize hinduism.
maybe my atheistic feelings are hurt by people's representations of god. does anyone care about that?
consider this:
durga is not necessarily 'having sex' with a tiger. she is in union with a tiger which means that is her character - she is a mysterious, powerful and beautiful goddess.
gandhi's head is replaced by the star (seventh chakra of enlightenment). hitler holds a skull (death) over his genitals (he produces death). his nudity is not a symbol of innocence and purity as it is in the case of the brahmin, the goddesses etc. - i his case he has been stripped to show that he is a producer of death.
that is not ganesh - that is an elephant. ganesh has hands, not front legs. why lakshmi is associated with an elephant...well, in hinduism's tussle for supremacy with buddhism, lions (hinduism) were often represented overpowering elephants (buddhism). possibly that's what is alluded to here. or it is a female victorious over a symbol of manhood as the ears and trunk of an elephant can be thought of.
Mf hussain one of the fool
Post a Comment