Images: M F Husain:
Pictures courtesy: Copyright Sotheby's.
Freedom of expression is an easy term to understand, but defies definition in today’s times. I have always wondered why people – whatever the persuasion, left, right or uncommitted – have a hard time understanding the concept. Is it because if you have an agenda you are unable to comprehend what it stands for? Or is it because people with closed minds have no freedom any more to think independently?
Expressing oneself by speech or in writing or by artistic endeavour or through a play or even through a camera lens is a basic right in a democracy such as India.
It’s a shame that writers, artists, playwrights, filmmakers and others with creative minds have been victims of hate speech and terrorist threats. The recent incident of Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen having to leave India for an unknown destination does not say much for India’s avowed secular credentials.
In 1989 when Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses created more than a stir resulting in a fatwa by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, India sat on the fence for a long time for fear of offending the Muslim vote. Rushdie is India-born, though in his later years he studied and lived in the UK and currently resides in the United States.
The most enduring example over the past decade of course has been 93-year-old Maqbool Fida Husain, who has been at the receiving end just because his paintings do not appeal to a certain section of his audience. He cannot return to the country of his birth because some obsessed Indians have decided not to let him.
Born on September 17, 1915 in Pandharpur, Maharashtra, it’s not Maqbool Fida’s fault if he was born Muslim. Is it a coincidence that all these earlier aforesaid folk were born Muslim? Or, does the Indian milieu have double standards in India and elsewhere?
The Battle of Ganga and Jamuna 12, an oil on canvas dipltych (74-3/4” x 107-3/4”) that was bought for US$1.60 million in March in New York by an anonymous buyer, creating an auction record. No mystery here. Auction houses routinely avoid mentioning names of owners unless the buyer or the institution agrees to have it mentioned.
This set of 27 was formerly housed in the Chester and Davida Herwitz Collection at the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts. But, Hindu activists can take comfort that none of the warriors or women in the original Kurukshetra battle between forces of right and wrong were depicted nude. The painting depicts goddesses “Ganga” and “Jamuna”, personification of the holy rivers as conjoined with labels in Sanskrit on both sides of the split while representing conceptual strife between warring factions of the Kuru lineage, the Pandava and Kaurava cousins, each descended from river goddesses. (Courtesy: Husain: The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Bombay 1998.)
Apart from this expensive piece at Christie’s, several of Husain’s paintings won top drawer price such as his 1997 Mother Teresa (63-1/4” x 32-1/2”) that sold at $205,000 which was bought by an American bidder, and across town at Sotheby’s, his Untitled 1953 piece (47-1/2” x 47-1/2”) was bought for $409,000 by an Indian trade buyer.
During Christie’s sale in mid-town Manhattan in March, two groups – Indian American Intellectual Forum (IAIF) and Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, protested against Husain’s work saying he was insulting Hindus and what Hinduism stood for. His work had drawn protests even in 1998 in the Chelsea area of Manhattan.
Groups of varied hues have protested over the past several years in London as well, not to ignore the vandalism subjected to some of his works at home by vested interests. But Husain’s creative works continue to be bought and resold at constantly rising prices.
Husain’s artistic skills and interpretations cover the gamut of free expression ranging from the Mahabharata series to scantily-clad women to horses (his favourite) to religious Indian icons.
What gives the ruling administration, those speaking for the art establishment, right wing leaders or opinion-makers and politicians in India the right to criticise, denigrate and demonise an artist for his work? When did the government and the people in power become arbiters of art? If the government changes, knowing the vagaries of politics in India, will Husain be accepted by the other side? Or is he doomed forever?
Not many people are aware that among the doyen’s masterpieces is a series of 27 paintings that he completed in 1971-72 for the 11th Sao Paolo Biennial on the epic Mahabharata.
There is a breed of men and women (let’s call them “facilitators”) who revel in and encourage people on the fence to take sides. Regrettably, there are also men and women with an agenda, hacks who write for money. Several decades ago it was mercenaries who accomplished favours for money. Now, with brand management and public relations a successful industry in India as well, everything is a brand – whether it is an artist, a politician, a fashion model or even a novelist.
Any artist is conscious of the provenance of his or her work, and so should others who view, comment on or buy art. The place and time-period when an artist creates his/her piece becomes critical, especially if the end product qualifies as an investment.
At the time when artisans and artists created Khajuraho frescoes and artefacts between 950 and 1050 AD one wonders if self-styled “monitors of art” existed who could and would cry “foul”.
Activists who want to bring down an artist now are obviously in a different mind-set, not necessarily conscious of subtle nuances of art or art appreciation. Many of the misled volunteers ready to torch a piece of art will perhaps stop being activists if they are told precisely what that art represents and stands for. The price of success for an artist seems to be the wrath of the art monitors.
It is ultimately Husain’s fault that he acquired fame just as Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasreen. Let’s face it: there are many artists who continue to portray nudes, but since they have not yet earned fame or notoriety, they are “safe”.
In the 50’s and 60’s, Husain had the moral and financial support from the likes of the Herwitzes – Chester and Davida – and Tom Keehn, who worked in a non-profit organisation for Nelson Rockefeller between 1952 and 1961 in Delhi.
Keehn, who is also 93 and very close to the Husain family said, “last year, when Husain visited New York, the artist had produced “Two Horses” within just 75 minutes with about 20 people watching.
In 1947, The Progressive Artists Group was formed by artists Francis Newton Souza, S H Raza and K H Ara and Husain was an early member. American, European well-wishers abound and now successful Indian financiers have taken to promoting Indian artists.
These days artists too are savvy about their financial potential and know that a mix of hard work and creative juices will be a winning combination for them, specially with many Indians with purchasing power ready to invest in realty of the artistic kind. One fears however that promotion of artists by some interests may not be necessarily altruistic. One hopes artists do not become art factories in the name of potential, fame and riches On the other hand, with Indian authorities reportedly waiting for Husain to show up in India, it was in his interest not to flee to Dubai or London. He has made it more difficult for himself by feeding more fodder to the rumour mill that he was allegedly being supported by financier Guru Swaroop Shrivastava for 100 paintings.
Husain has been working on a project for the last six months under the patronage of Her Highness Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned, wife of Shaikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar. According to
The Peninsula paper in Qatar, Husain has said, "there will be 99 paintings as there are 99 names for God. It will be not only Islamic history but also pre-Islamic, which will include Christianity, Judaism etc, mostly the Arab part of it.” Husain will be using contemporary style of drawing because according to him “the visual form can be understood by anyone, even children.”
While the artist became controversial for his nudes, it ought to be mentioned that he has also drawn young Muslim children reciting the Quran with a Muslim teacher who appears to be blessing the kids. The painting done in 1953 is called The Teaching (in translation, it was actually Untitled). He has also painted Mother Teresa resemblances evidenced by her typical blue-border saris.
How does one reconcile this current intolerance with the fact that India and Indians have long been exposed to nude artefacts, of buxom women sketched by artists who follow other faiths such as Hinduism or Christianity; of nude men from certain Hindu sects parading their bodies in the name of being pure, religious and unattached to mortal creations (read clothing)?
Its perhaps speculative but worth exploring that if Husain was not born Maharashtrian, would he have taken up with Madhuri Dixit, a fellow Maharashtrian? After all, he has mentioned that she was the inspiration behind his 2000 film – Gaja Gamini that also starred Shabana Azmi and Naseeruddin Shah.
While Husain’s freedom of expression is under threat within India’s shores, the soaring prices of contemporary Indian art is a growing phenomenon that is here to stay.
A New York based trend writer, Raj Rangarajan reports on the art market and has contributed to publications in the United States, Canada, Australia and India. He can be reached at raj.rangarajan@gmail.com
