Yesterday I received a mail with some supposedly controversial M.F. Hussain paintings of Hindu deities. I felt that it was important for me to make my stand clear, so despite it being a spam, I replied to the mail. What resulted was a debate which I am reproducing here as is.
My intention is not to pass a judgement on M.F. Hussain or his work but to raise some issues which I feel are critical for the functioning of a secular democratic system and my views on culture.
(I am not posting the names of people to protect their privacy)
Original Mail Text:
it is a kind request if u hav an inch of respect on the religion u r born and the almighty god u that u worship ….plz think for a while and introspect and take decision on your own ..and forward this to countless people u know and with a bare minimum of 10 people u know.
and reply………
(Me: Attached with this were some paintings whose captions had been deliberately worded to influence people so that the phrase ‘take your own decision’ was really not useful!)
My Reply to original sender and the mailing list:
I would not have normally replied to this mail but given the fact that this is not merely spam but something much more dangerous because it evokes communal feelings, I felt compelled.
I do not find anything offending here as my respect for a religion or God is not dependent on whether someone else depicts them with or without clothes.
I believe that in a free democratic country, everyone has the right to freedom of ‘peaceful’ expression. At least as educated mature people, we should understand that artisitic freedom is important for growth and enrichment of our culture.
Also, whether or not M.F. Hussain or anyone else has respect for my beliefs and faith does not, in anyway affect me unless he/she forces his views upon me. Similarly, I should not try to force my views upon M.F. Hussain!
I have as much respect for a fellow human being as for any religion.
I am sure M.F. Hussain is not going about sending mails or barging into people’s houses with his paintings and forcing them to see his work. You can choose to criticize his work but please don’t turn this into a communal issue.
In any case, we are all born naked, aren’t we?
Thanks,
Tushar
Reply (From someone in the ‘To’ list, not the original sender) to my mail:
you have done a good job indeed but it is the diversity of that vibrant culture in which we all are born which allows us to express our feelings like you expressed.But dear there are some ethics ,morale and code of conduct which should be maintained by everybody .
No one would allow any artist such a freedom making xyz mother’s nude pictures in a derogatory manner whosoever he or she may be just because he is an artist .It is not the first time he has been summoned by court ,in 1970 .1990,1996 simillar cases were registered against him.
As you rightly said it is not the God who feels weather He is presented in any nude form or not & He will never feel bad even if we pray him by spitting on him rather it shows our perception & thinking how do we pray Him ???and this is why we pray by closing the eyes.by assuming certain picture in our minds
when the sensibilities of million of hindus are hurt and soft targeted and also if it is peacefully protested even through mail by allowing them taking their decision on their own people call it “COMMUNALISM”
it is critical situation where in secularism does not takes care of hindu sentiments,if it takes it is ornamented by the “communal” word
.lata mangeshkar is also a great artist but she never hurt anybody’s sentiments.
i remind you art is a beautiful creation of God like human beings . a real artist
always takes note of this. and always respect other religious beliefs.
dear,it is merely a childish perception culture never enriches by nudity rather it deteriorates
if he is a real artist why he fled away???? he has not even send an apology letter .He is only a born indian because he has outrightly denied the trials and Democratic Indian Law and is living in dubai and Dubai Govt and many extrimist org has awarded him for this act and he has recieved it wid full pleasure
think before you write…….
My Reply to above mail:
I have written after I have thought well and I stand by what I have written.
There are more important reasons in this world to worry about, for me, then to be worrying about what one particular person does or feels. There are millions who die of hunger everyday, millions who are rendered homeless, not only in our country but around the world. I’d rather worry about them.
“It is a childish perception… culture never enriches by nudity”
What is culture, and what it is enriched by, is not limited by what you and me believe. Culture is all encompassing. There are good and bad aspects within a culture so that people can make choices. You can not disrespect people’s wisdom by making this choice (of good and bad) for them. Moreover, what you see as wrong may be right for me. For an example, I do not believe depiction of nudity is bad.
I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. Terming somebody else’s perception as ‘childish’ is disrespecting difference of opinion and doesn’t lead to a healthy debate. And difference of opinion is vital for democracy to exist.
As for M.F. Husaain’s fleeing the country, I believe that is a matter of shame for our country that an artist had to flee because he could not pursue his art freely in a democratic country.
“Many extremist organizations have awarded him”
What proof do you have? Please do not accuse anyone without ample proof.
“No one would allow any artist such a freedom making xyz mother’s nude pictures in a derogatory manner whosoever he or she may be just because he is an artist”
Absolutely not. Did I ever say that an artist had the right to make personal attacks against a fellow human being? Please do not extrapolate my words.
My intention is not to defend a certain person. If M.F. Hussain has done wrong, let him be brought to justice but let it happen under a court of civilized law and not under a court of religion.
“When the sensibilities of million of hindus are hurt and soft targeted and also if it is peacefully protested even through mail by allowing them taking their decision on their own people call it “COMMUNALISM”
Religion is and should be a personal matter and not one of the society or country. Who are I and you to decide if ‘Millions’ of ‘Hindus’ were hurt. Did they come and tell you so? Let us not impose our opinions on others. If you feel hurt, you have every right to go to a court of law and demand justice. You have the right to speak for yourself but not for so called ‘millions’.
Let them speak for themselves.
What I am against is intolerance and disrespect for difference of opinion. Without these, it will be impossible to sustain a democracy.
Thanks,
Tushar
[...] Copyrights & Disclaimer The Naked Gods… [...]
Saw your blog and I see that your opinions are still as liberal as always!
But I would disagree with your statement “Religion is and should be a personal matter and not one of the society or country. ” IMHO this is a Utopian concept and the reality is far from it.
I think of it this way; religion was created as a means to bring people closer together (maybe for a cause or for societal purposes). When people identify themselves with a religion, they identify themselves with a common cause or a set of beliefs. Saying that we are free to pursue our own versions of the religion does not make sense at all! When you are indoctrinated into following a religion, you are expected to rise above your personal beliefs and think as a group (for better or for worse).
I agree with you completely when you say that “Who are I and you to decide if ‘Millions’ of ‘Hindus’ were hurt.”. But I wonder how one would say if something is in accordance with _religious beliefs_? I believe that this is an open question and would be best answered by Sociologists.
For one, I believe in utopia!
Perhaps you are right about the history of religion but even if religion was devised as a means of bringing people closer, I’d like to think it has largely failed it’s purpose!
For a ‘Secular’ country to remain secular it is important that the society does not don religious inclinations.
Glorifying the role of society is the cornerstone of socialism and I believe socialism as a system does not work well with democracy. Capitalism does.
(I am assuming a broader definition of ‘Socialism’ and ‘Capitalism’, extrapolating them to non-economic aspects like religion so that in this context, ‘Socialism’ would imply that religion should be a function or attribute of the society while ‘Capitalism’ would dictate that it be a personal matter).
Freedom of ‘individual’ choice, which is so at the heart of democracy philosophically, is in direct conflict with decision making for ‘collective’ or ‘common’ good on which socialism is based. Since socialism does not give individuals the freedom of choice, it also can not make them responsible for their actions.
Culprits (on either side) of Godhra, Babri-Masjid and Mumbai riots were never held accountable for their actions because the responsibility was never upon individuals but upon ‘mobs’ or sections of society and society is faceless.
Now, I’m not saying that socialism is bad. I do not have conclusive data to proclaim that! It may work beautifully under autocratic regimes like oligarchies, dictatorships and communist states (The only place I know of where socialism seems to have succeeded is China, a communist state). But it doesn’t gel with democarcy.
The problem is that the preamble of our constitution declares India as ‘Secular’ ‘Soclialist’ and ‘Democratic’. Therein lies the conflict!
“Freedom of ‘individual’ choice, which is so at the heart of democracy philosophically, is in direct conflict with decision making for ‘collective’ or ‘common’ good on which socialism is based.”
For once, I completely disagree with this statement. Democracy was created with an aim to give voice to the _majority_ of the people and not to an individual.
Perhaps it is the closest we could get to so called _individual_ choice, but note that decisions (what is right/wrong, good/bad) cannot be _individual_ but are out interpretations of what the society has taught us. In essence, it is the society that is influencing our decisions more than we ourselves are! Why a Hindu should detest beef, is a decision that is made for him by the society and not by the person himself.
Regarding the unfortunate (or deliberate) instances highlighted above, those were instances of manipulation of the society as a whole by a group of selfish people. It was the effect of group thinking (religion) that led to such incidents.
If I understand correctly, you mean to say that democracy secularism and socialism cannot go together. It is not entirely possible to achieve one without the other and that is why these principles were put together in one sentence in the Constitution. How can you have a democracy if you would forego secularism and decide who votes on the basis of religion?
Decision making based on ‘consensus’ or ‘majority’ opinion on issues of public interest (again, I believe faith and religion are not issues of public interest, roads, water, electricity, oil-prices are!) is an implementation detail and is at a different level from the more fundamental debate between the ‘capitalistic’ and the ’socialistic’ way of making choices, which is, whether every individual makes a choice for himself or whether he makes a choice for the society.
A ‘majority’ in a capitalistic system is a ‘Bottom-Up’ majority while that in a socialistic system is a ‘Top-Down’ version.
“Regarding the unfortunate (or deliberate) instances highlighted above, those were instances of manipulation of the society as a whole by a group of selfish people. It was the effect of group thinking (religion) that led to such incidents.”
Exactly, that is what I mean when I say that fixing responsibility is difficult under a socialistic system because actions are attributed to ’society’ and not to individuals.
“Why a Hindu should detest beef, is a decision that is made for him by the society and not by the person himself.”
Aren’t there a lot of Hindus who don’t detest beef because they ‘choose’ not to? I know at least a few. (Of Course, an extremist can argue they are not hindus!)
The point is, in a democracy, an individual is and should be free to make his own choices as long as he doesn’t encroach upon somebody else’s right to do so. And when that happens, democracy provides a conflict resolution mechanism in the form of judiciary.
“If I understand correctly, you mean to say that democracy secularism and socialism cannot go together.”
Democracy and Secularism are completely coherent. That is exactly my point. What I said was Democracy and
Socialism don’t go together
Forgive me, my expression may be poor, my resentment isn’t
Do I get to write derogatory things about someone in the name of freedom of speech, in the name of freedom of expression?
You wouldn’t have asked this question if you had read the entire post (and perhaps the comments) carefully.
The short answer is No.