I was constantly surprised to see how irrational most people's views are when it comes to social issues, and in this particular case, about freedom of expression. I read this entry titled, "Does India deserve M F Hussain?" on Soutik Biswas' BBC blog. There was a long list of vitriolic comments left by the angry mob, consisting mainly of patriotic Indians, proud of their new found wealth and status in the world, confident of their self-assuring rhetorics about diversity and tolerance. Most commentators identified themseleves as Hindus, some of whom, surprisingly enough, even claimed that they were liberals, only with a small yet immensely confusing clarification that they were of a special kind that respects freedom of expression in arts provided that it doesn't cross the boundaries of tolerance, that is, as long as their holy cows aren't tickled. As far as I can see, they are the moderates who mistakenly believe that they are liberals, or perhaps enjoy proclaiming themselves as liberals. Anyway, I don't intend to appear condescending based on such trivial matters of nomenclature, especially not when all their arguments can be deconstructed point-by-point to reveal their meaninglessness. The bulk of their opinions fall into one or more of the following four categories, each of which are nothing more than a reflection of the prevalent illogical and reactionary sentiments which continue to plague India's social progress.
(1) Some readers feel that M. F. Husain should have depicted some Muslim or Christian Prophets in nude so as to balance out his 'offenses' in the eyes of Hindus. Their claim is that Hindus are more tolerant and that Husain has exploited this tolerance.
This is by far the most ignorant and illogical argument. It seems that our standard of tolerance has gone down to such a level where Hindus think that they are being more tolerant as long as they don't end up killing an artist for his artworks. Extremism is not the benchmark against which tolerance is to be judged because in that way any fundamentalist action, no matter how damaging and disreputable, can be passed off as a mark of tolerance. Such incidents have happened even in the past with Deepa Mehta and Taslima Nasreen's works, and their recurrences only prove how intolerant the Indian society is, no matter how fervently one claims otherwise. Indians should not even approve, encourage or justify such behaviors, irrespective of what other countries and their religions do. Husain should be free to paint anything he wants, and in similar way, all bans on Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses', Taslima Nasreen's books should be lifted. Those who don't like an artist's work can write a rebuttal or review, but have no right to stop him or her from creating their art or prevent others from enjoying it. Only a psychologically repressed society advocates violent retribution, and unfortunately, India is one, as amply demonstrated by most of the commentators. How did it all come to this is a question that one often wonders when they look at the creativity of our predecessors. For India to truly develop, advances in technology must be accompanied with much needed social reforms.
(2) Some comments argue that Husain's art goes against Indian 'morality'
This too is entirely meaningless, since morality is not an absolute concept; it is subjective, and above all, it continuously evolves over time, and rightly so. In fact, it is the duty of an artist to challenge the prevalent notions of morality and to make people question them so that we don't get stuck with false, yet well-accepted, notions about morals. In any case it is not some abstract notion of morality that Husain's art poses a threat to, if at all, it just exposes the fact that the idea of morality, at least among a large portion of the Indian population, is too closely associated with religious beliefs or simplistic sentimentality as opposed to conscientiousness.
(3) A few commentators suggest that Husain should have been more 'sensitive' about general public opinion.
Artists are perhaps the most sensitive and conscious beings in the first place. Over the course of mankind's progress, it has been the artists, scientists, and philosophers who have mostly held ideas that were extremely unpopular, if not downright unacceptable, to the general public at the time. And so they made many enemies. But that didn't stop them from provoking the public again and again, not out of malice but out of the sheer need to seek truth and to enlighten the masses. If the argument that one should not express oneself out of sensitivity towards the general public opinion was justified, then we would have lost most of the great writers, painters, playwrights, and in fact, we would still be believing that the earth is the center of the solar system. Therefore, it is not only appropriate but also necessary that thinkers continue to offend the general public by forcing them to face realities and questioning their holy cows. Public opinion cannot be a consideration while expressing oneself through painting or writing; if the public doesn't like it then they can simply turn their back. An art form that is unaesthetic it will die out naturally.
In conclusion, it is important to accept that Indians need to show true tolerance instead of simply speaking about it, and that overlooking or denying our society's flaws is not an act of patriotism, but correcting them is. What India desperately needs is a wave of social reforms -an Indian renaissance that will enlighten both its thriving middle income class and its oppressed lower income class. While the technological progress is already happening, the cultural and social reforms are yet to be seen. It is the artists who can show the way. But time is of essence; the nuovo rich society is being numbed by the comforts of the cozy multiplexes and shopping malls and are simply turning apathetic to the need to fight against all kinds of bigotry, religious dogmatism, superstition, and ignorance. It will not be possible to sustain the country's progress in the absence of that consciousness.
(1) Some readers feel that M. F. Husain should have depicted some Muslim or Christian Prophets in nude so as to balance out his 'offenses' in the eyes of Hindus. Their claim is that Hindus are more tolerant and that Husain has exploited this tolerance.
This is by far the most ignorant and illogical argument. It seems that our standard of tolerance has gone down to such a level where Hindus think that they are being more tolerant as long as they don't end up killing an artist for his artworks. Extremism is not the benchmark against which tolerance is to be judged because in that way any fundamentalist action, no matter how damaging and disreputable, can be passed off as a mark of tolerance. Such incidents have happened even in the past with Deepa Mehta and Taslima Nasreen's works, and their recurrences only prove how intolerant the Indian society is, no matter how fervently one claims otherwise. Indians should not even approve, encourage or justify such behaviors, irrespective of what other countries and their religions do. Husain should be free to paint anything he wants, and in similar way, all bans on Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses', Taslima Nasreen's books should be lifted. Those who don't like an artist's work can write a rebuttal or review, but have no right to stop him or her from creating their art or prevent others from enjoying it. Only a psychologically repressed society advocates violent retribution, and unfortunately, India is one, as amply demonstrated by most of the commentators. How did it all come to this is a question that one often wonders when they look at the creativity of our predecessors. For India to truly develop, advances in technology must be accompanied with much needed social reforms.
(2) Some comments argue that Husain's art goes against Indian 'morality'
This too is entirely meaningless, since morality is not an absolute concept; it is subjective, and above all, it continuously evolves over time, and rightly so. In fact, it is the duty of an artist to challenge the prevalent notions of morality and to make people question them so that we don't get stuck with false, yet well-accepted, notions about morals. In any case it is not some abstract notion of morality that Husain's art poses a threat to, if at all, it just exposes the fact that the idea of morality, at least among a large portion of the Indian population, is too closely associated with religious beliefs or simplistic sentimentality as opposed to conscientiousness.
(3) A few commentators suggest that Husain should have been more 'sensitive' about general public opinion.
Artists are perhaps the most sensitive and conscious beings in the first place. Over the course of mankind's progress, it has been the artists, scientists, and philosophers who have mostly held ideas that were extremely unpopular, if not downright unacceptable, to the general public at the time. And so they made many enemies. But that didn't stop them from provoking the public again and again, not out of malice but out of the sheer need to seek truth and to enlighten the masses. If the argument that one should not express oneself out of sensitivity towards the general public opinion was justified, then we would have lost most of the great writers, painters, playwrights, and in fact, we would still be believing that the earth is the center of the solar system. Therefore, it is not only appropriate but also necessary that thinkers continue to offend the general public by forcing them to face realities and questioning their holy cows. Public opinion cannot be a consideration while expressing oneself through painting or writing; if the public doesn't like it then they can simply turn their back. An art form that is unaesthetic it will die out naturally.
In conclusion, it is important to accept that Indians need to show true tolerance instead of simply speaking about it, and that overlooking or denying our society's flaws is not an act of patriotism, but correcting them is. What India desperately needs is a wave of social reforms -an Indian renaissance that will enlighten both its thriving middle income class and its oppressed lower income class. While the technological progress is already happening, the cultural and social reforms are yet to be seen. It is the artists who can show the way. But time is of essence; the nuovo rich society is being numbed by the comforts of the cozy multiplexes and shopping malls and are simply turning apathetic to the need to fight against all kinds of bigotry, religious dogmatism, superstition, and ignorance. It will not be possible to sustain the country's progress in the absence of that consciousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment