Open Forum
New Delhi, 5 March 2010
Of Taslima &
Hussain
ENOUGH OF DOUBLE STANDARDS
By Prakash Nanda
There are two
different stories having a common India link. One is of the
Bangladeshi novelist, Taslima Nasreen, who has been living in exile,
partly in France but
mostly in India.
She wants an Indian citizenship because she is perhaps the most-hated
person in Bangladesh
because of her liberal views and moderate interpretation of Islam.
The other story
involves Maqbool
Fida Hussain, who, until recently, was arguably India’s most-celebrated and richest
painter. On a self-imposed exile over the past few years and shuttling among London, Riyadh and Dubai, last fortnight he accepted the citizenship of Qatar. The 95-year-old
Hussain, whose family members live otherwise very comfortably in India, left the country when confronted with
uproars among a section of Hindus and a series of criminal cases in
various courts of India
over his controversial paintings of Hindu Gods and Goddesses.
However, the parallel ends here. Taslima wants to settle
down in a pluralist, secular and democratic India. But Hussain has opted for an
“Islamic monarchy”. Secondly, Taslima
got her name and fame outside her country. But in the case of Hussain, his
celebrated status and unimaginable wealth were earned in India.
It is doubtful if Bangladesh will ever welcome
Taslima back. But here in India,
Hussain has such support that on Tuesday last, Home Minister P Chidambaram
assured him not only safety but also every possible help in fighting his legal
cases. However, Chidambaram failed to add how Hussain could return to India when he no longer is an Indian citizen and
India
does not allow dual-citizenship. Perhaps, Hussain can be given a Person of
Indian Origin (PIO) status and visa for an indefinite period.
Thirdly, Taslima has invited the wrath of conservative
Muslims for her views on how in the name of Islam women are being ill-treated
and how things like forcible imposition of burqa
is not mandatory under Islam. So much so that on Monday last, as India
was celebrating Holi, Muslim extremists in Karnataka were indulging in riots
over the publications of her old writings in some vernacular newspapers,
that too without her consent. The timing was significant, since it followed the
Government of India granting a fresh extension of six months to Taslima’s visa.
On the other hand, Hussain’s paintings seem to have hurt
Hindu sentiments. Despite repeated Hindu anguish, the painter did not stop displaying
consistently Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude. For example in one of
his paintings he shows goddess Sita stark naked, masturbating on the long tail
of God Hanuman, whereas Hindu mythology contemplates a very pious relationship
of mother and son between goddess Sita and God Hanuman. In another painting,
she is sitting naked on the thigh of naked Ravana. Imagine a bull copulating
with goddess Parvati and God Shanker watching the act on Shivratri festival. Or
Goddess Durga in union with her lion!
Hussain’s countless liberal supporters say that he, while
painting Hindu Gods and Goddesses, was expressing his artistic and creative
freedom and that there was no communal motive behind. Besides, they further
argue, nudity in paintings and sculptures has been a part of Hindu cultural
tradition, as displayed in the magnificent temples of Konark, Khajuraho, Elora
and Bhubaneswar
sculptures.
But these supporters miss the point that nowhere in the
above sculptures the main deities were displayed in the nude. The problem with
the paintings of Hussain has been the fact that he does not allow the people
much scope to imagine over his work; he invariably wrote “Sita”, “Laxmi”,
“Parvati” and “Hanuman” etc. below his paintings to make it abundantly clear
what he meant. And that is really offensive. In fact, in one of his “much
acclaimed” paintings, he drew a naked woman in the shape of the map of India and displayed it as “Bharat Mata” (mother India)!
Significantly, whenever Hussain has painted celebrities
belonging to Islam and Christianity, he has displayed utmost sensitivity and
ensured that all of his figures are properly dressed.
Last but the most significant difference in India between
the Taslima and Hussain episodes is the sheer inconsistency that the Government
of India and the so-called liberal secularists have displayed. While
every attempt has been made to overplay the ominous implications of Taslima’s
stay in India,
no stone has been left unturned to bemoan over Hussain’s departure and
facilitate his return to the country. In fact, some have even gone to the
ridiculous extent of suggesting amending the Indian Constitution and granting
dual-citizenship status to Hussain as a special case.
Sadly, this brings the factor of politics to the fore behind
such inconsistencies. No government in India dare annoy the religious
sentiments even on most unreasonable matters, as doing otherwise will adversely
affect the so-called vote banks or “identity politics” of the political
parties. It is this “identity politics” that erodes liberty.
Fearing over the loss of support of Muslims, the West Bengal government led by the Communists, supposedly
most secular and rational, have banned all of Taslima’s books and refused her
permission to live in the State. Worried over the backlash of the Christians,
who are extremely important in the politics of Kerala and Northeastern
States, the government banned the
screening of the religious thriller The Da Vinci Code, a highly
successful film in the United States
and Europe.
Clearly, in India
is common to succumb to the threats of protestors against creative persons, be
they writers, artists or filmmakers. Books and plays questioning some of the
thoughts and actions of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and BR Ambedkar have
evoked passions, and some of them have been proscribed. Rushdie’s Satanic
Verses and Arun Shourie’s Worshipping False Gods have been banned.
Few years ago, the government decided to stop BBC from filming Rushdie’s epic, Midnight's
Children, because somebody in power feared that the sentiments of some
community might be hurt.
Hence, it is no wonder why there are double standards in
political and intellectual circles over matters pertaining to Taslima and
Hussain. If those who advocate the restrictions are from the so-called
“Right-wingers” or “Hindutva” side, then the so-called liberals and secularists
will go to any extent of condemning the move, as evident in the case of Hussain
and the shooting of the film Water that exposed the ill-treatment of
widows in temples. But if there are demands for the ban against the
creations of “Right-wingers” (like Worshiping False Gods), then they go
to every extent of rationalizing it.
However, it so happens that the “secularists” and
“Leftists”, who dominate India’s educational and cultural infrastructures, have
tolerated more incidents of banning of and restrictions on ideas than any one
else. In fact, they are more intolerant of others’ views. They can
rewrite and reinterpret history books (as they did under the Congress regime,
particularly under education ministers such as Nurul Hasan and Arjun Singh),
but they denied the same right to the “Rightists” under the Vajpayee
regime.
Let us remember what the great philosopher-poet Rabindranath
Tagore had written. His magnificent vision of India was that it would be a country
“Where the mind is without fear”. Let us allow the authors and artists the
right to express whatever they want so long as it isn't libelous. This is the best
way to fight intolerance, ignorance and enemies of reason. But keep in
mind the key here is a thing called consistency.--INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|