[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Artistic freedom vs social responsibility PART - I
-
To: GHEN <lists@rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu>
-
Subject: Artistic freedom vs social responsibility PART - I
-
From: ashok <ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in>
-
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 96 16:43:36 PDT
-
Priority: Normal
-
ReSent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 12:22:16 -0400 (EDT)
-
Resent-From: lists@rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu
-
ReSent-Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961015122216.11232D@rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu>
-
ReSent-To: ghen@netcom.com
Title : Artistic freedom vs social responsibility
PART - I Limits to artistic expression are
essential for community will-being
Author : Iqbal Masud
Publication : The Times of India
Date : October 13, 1996
Limits to artistic expression. are essential because the
wellbeing of the community. is more important than the
individuality of the artist. And if the community is
given priority over the voice of an individual, the
imposition of certain boundaries are necessary. These
boundaries, as far as I am concerned, are clear: there
should be reasonable restrictions in the interest of
public law and order. If a work of art is likely to
cause disturbances or instigate riots, then it has
crossed that boundary.
For me, personally, the starting point of this debate was
Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. I first beard about
Satanic Verses when I read an interview with Rushdie in
India Today. I understood immediately what Rushdie was
trying to say and strongly felt that, it was a dangerous
thing. His reference to the prophet as Mahound - a
derogatory term that the medieval Christians had used for
Mohammed - for example, is extremely offensive to Mus-
lims. Similarly, the section called Jahiliya which means
ignorance and is the term by which Muslims referred to
the period before Islam - takes everything in the Quran
and stands it on its head.
It is important to remember that Muslims believe that the
Quran is the word of God. Therefore, by making fun of
the Quran, Salman Rushdie had, by Muslim norms, committed
an act of blasphemy. This made the book a potential
cause of disturbance and was rightly banned under the
Indian Penal Code. Indeed, the very fact that so many
people died because of the book is the strongest possible
case against unlimited artistic expression.
As far as I can see, there is one major difference bet-
ween Salman Rushdie and M.F. Husain. That Rushdie fully
intended to make fun of Muslims is clear from his mechan-
ical subversion of the Quran in the Jahiliya section.
Although he has hurt the sentiments of a few, I don't
think Husain intended to cause hurt. So while what he
has done is shocking to the average middle-class Hindu, I
don't believe that he should be sent to jail for it.
Personally, I find the erotic depiction of Saraswati
distasteful and the argument of its defenders - that
Hindus have been sensuous throughout history, and it was
only the British who came and imposed their puritanical
views on the country - greatly flawed. Khajuraho and
Ajanta - the examples which are always summoned when this
issue arises - belonged to the pre-agrarian, or at lat-
est, the agrarian period. This was a time in India when
there was a great deal of geographical isolation. And
even as these temples and works of art were taking shape
in pockets, it could hardly be said that the postures of
Khajuraho and the Kama Sutra was being Practised all over
the country.
>From the 18th century onwards, urbanisation, an off-
shoot, of the industrial age, swept the country. In
cities the dominant class is the middle class which by
its very nature, is puritanical. After all, to make
money and come up involves behavioural conformity. So,
thanks to the growing commercialisation of the Indian
middle class, Khajuraho and Ajanta became passe.
The respect for knowledge in this growing civilisation
became enshrined in Saraswati who lost her sensuous
elements and became a goddess through whom knowledge was
worshipped. Given the metamorphosis of Saraswati and the
behavioural conformism of the Indian middle class today,
it is very artificial to summon up Ajanta; and Khajuraho
to justify Husain's painting.
Also, this entire episode should be viewed keeping Hu-
sain's background in mind. Husain has always thrived on
sensationalism. During the Emergency, for example, he
painted Indira Gandhi as Durga because, as he once told
me, he viewed her as "a protector of the minorities".
Then there are his recent cavortings with Madhuri Dixit.
Such gambits to remain in the public eye are not only
tasteless, but also dangerous. After all, you cannot
prevent today's religious conformists - be they Hindus or
Muslims - from taking the. law into their own hands.
So where does one draw the line? There can be no general
rules. Each artist must look into himself, face himself
and then set his limits. If Husain faces himself - which
he has probably forgotten to do - he will realise that
his painting has caused serious hurt. He will realise
that while he can afford to play around with Madhuri
Dixit, he should leave Saraswati alone.
