Adieu to you
Adieu to you Maqbool Fida Hussain breathed his last In distant London, far far away from his homeland. I bow my head in his memory… And at the same time I hang my head in shame. Hussain, all of 95 years, was an Indian. His paintings portrayed the life and times of India, Its history too, in its myriad colours. He lived an Indian, every bit of it. But, He couldn’t die an Indian… We didn’t let him die an Indian… We didn’t want him in his own country And die here, this nonagenarian. Obituaries will flow out in hundreds From VIPs and VVIPs, Discussions will abound in TV studios, Editorials and lead articles will be aplenty All extolling his brilliance, his creativity, his originality. All will condole the demise of a celebrated artist All crocodiles will crowd the media rooms today As though Hussain was never let down. But then Why did no one want him in India? Why did the media keep quiet? Why did the Civil Society put the ostrich to shame? Where did the political voices disappear? Where did the secularists vanish? Whatever happened to the Preamble and the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution Which proclaimed a Secular Republic Which stressed the right to freedom of speech and expression? Why did the Courts of Law not take suo motu notice of the threat to the life of this 95-year-old man? What did the government do to secure for Hussain his right to freedom of expression and right to life? We will never get any answers from anyone, bar the meaningless eulogies. Pray, tell me, With what face will the Members of Parliament Pay homage to Hussain, a member of their tribe, Who couldn’t set his bare feet on his mother earth? The same bare feet which walked the corridors of Parliament After having been nominated by the President of India For his countless contributions to national life… Conferred Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan And What did the very same State Do To let him walk his beloved earth? No, no one did anything, For, Hussain was politically inconvenient for everyone Collectively, They let him die in a foreign land. Today, They will issue the mandatory messages I bow my head to Maqbool Fida Hussain. And I hang my head in shame For I too didn’t raise my voice for his cause…
And
And heave a sigh of relief.
I have respect for his work as an artist, but not for him- I think he was a hypocrite.
1To assume that all those who support/appreciate Hussain, “understand” his art “correctly”, is also an assumption. Needn’t even be challenged to see the faultline. The basic premise in this assumption is that “Hussain can never be wrong”, which we should avoid. This is why I said, those who support Hussain blindly, are equal to those who oppose him blindly.
2Dear DK
I am in total agreement with your sentiments. I too felt sad about him. Criticizing Hussain has become a fad in India. Every art needs patience and one has to learn its language to appreciate it. Once you understand it, a whole new world will open before you. Without understanding its language, it is absurd to criticize a work of art. All arts are powerful mediums of expression . There is a way Hussain became the great Hussain. Try to traverse through that way and one’s eyes will open to umpteen number of things that hitherto one viewed as meaningless and senseless. I wish the critics of Hussain had new eyes
PGR
3Art is a religion. Those who understand that are at peace everywhere. M.F.Hussain must have died in peace. It is people who tried to change him who are defeated.
4HE is great but controversial artist;A man for riches…….can a common man afford a HUSSAIN’S painting ?I have no idea about his contribution for the cultural upliftment of the poor as he was a man of billions.Christi auction house will miss him .
5Came back to read any new views on your blog, as I have checked many columnists’ views on this topic too.
As I said, in MF’s case nudity was not the problem. The problem was in the old man’s mind. Since now I am certain from multiple sources that no one knows some of his art where he painted figures from some other religion in the nude, (in fact he painted them, but fully clothed!) - it brings me to a logical conclusion.
Those who say no artist should be questioned, are also purists by definition. These guys can also get a “tag”, just like they tag anyone who opposed MF as “saffron” or in a “group”. What say?
It is just that they consider art as sacrosanct, while MF’s opponents consider his act as perversion. No Hindu group has tried to destroy Khajuraho – it proves that the Hindu groups are not puritans/moral-police. The guys who want to give rights to a painter to paint all Hindu gods in the nude, are actually the moral police. Any objections?
I planned to write an entirely different perspective on MF controversy. Let us see if I find time this weekend. That would change the game
Warm Regards and best wishes,
6Well said. Was reading Think Tank’s comments too. I guess there are many with that view point also. But no can challenge the fact that MF was a phenomenal artist. And thats that.
7Very well said DK. But those who hated him have a the right to their point of view, but not at the cost of doing physical harm and issue death threats… The same people who love Tasleema and love Salman Rushdie and they love that Danish cartoonist… but they can’t take it when it comes to something closer home. Do I see double standards there? Hindu deities have been painted/sculpted nude for centuries, big deal. Even historically speaking… most women went topless during the BC phase… read any History book, there were no blouses then!
There was a very funny Hindi movie back in the 1970s, called Lok Parlok which showed the escapades of Yamaraj and his sidekick Chitragupta getting rogered in modern day Bombay, because they had no clue that the world has changed. I wonder if someone would be able to make this movie now. I am sure certain theaters will be burnt and lot of people will “fee hurt”. Especially the curious and now famous breed called the “Internet Hindus”. Ha!
But what to do mate, it is impossible for certain groups to understand art. They seek morality in art. Picasso had said… “Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art. ”
People who understand what Picasso said, will understand your emotions too.
I too feel ashamed.
8Freedom - Forgiveness - two words that should cease to exist from now on.
9I can understand the feelings of those who felt slighted by his portrayals - but were they genuine or just because he was not of the same feather? I think the Gods will be more forgiving than humans - cause a parent will always forgive the child - and we should learn a lesson from that. DK you said it best in your lines.
That is perfectly alright. I don’t necessarily want you or anyone to change opinions. Afterall, all of us with our differences in opinions make a “balance of power” in this world. I think that is very necessary.
I have my objections to MF Hussain’s way. I have some very specific points too. E.g. in case you know of any of his paintings where he made nude presentation of some religious figures other than that of Hinduism, please let me know. I have asked this to some other friends/columnists, and am yet to get a reply. Our views change with discovery of new facts - we should be flexible. But so far the facts about MF have not changed my view. Anyways, if you come across some of such art, please let me know (link etc). Thanks a lot…
10Hi Rahul, I accept your right to your line of thinking on MF Hussain; let me add, I stand by my views. Thanks. dilip
11Well, the fact is that he ran away after seeing a “non-bailable warrant”. He cared a dime about Indian legal system (and hence India), all he cared was money and fame, which since he could still get after migrating to some other country, he did that. And here we are feeling sorry for him.
The problem in MF Hussain’s case was not with ‘nudity’, because Indians are comfortable with it. The problem was the way the nudity was presented. His paintings were not only presenting nude pictures of Hindu deities, but also were ‘suggestive’ in nature (Sita sitting near Hanuman, and some others). He was a pervert by all definitions. And his art only represented it.
I think a few persons like MF Hussain attained to do what so many Muslim invaders couldn’t do – to provoke Hindus to the extent of comfortably labeling them as ‘intolerant’. Hindus and Indians are tolerant by nature. But everything has a limit. Hussain discovered it a hard way.
I find no words to praise the ‘mahatma’ MF Hussain. I call him mahatma – because columnists and so called intellectuals are bound to make him appear him like having a ‘halo’ around him. He painted for money that he earned in abundance. He gained popularity by painting on controversial subjects. He was not a law abiding citizen – he ran out when served with a non-bailable warrant. I don’t want to touch his personal life and infatuations. At an age where he should be graceful to inspire the youth, this pervert was running behind Madhuris and Meenakshis (which was more than merely an artistic expression). Hardly a figure to inspire any respect.
I support freedom of art and literature, but what if one runs to provoke and paint honourable figures one after the other, from a selected target? Show me where Hussain has painted some Islamic or Christian figures, in nude, and in suggestive gestures? Why only Hinduism? This point alone makes him unprotectable.
We shall remember Hussain as a painter who earned fame but lost respect, in his life. Hardly an inspiring life. He didn’t deserve any citizenship.
12Been observing some of your blogs, be it MF Hussain, Field Marshal Manekshaw, a simple Sepoy Karam Chand, or a friend Rojamma…….Guess I learnt a few things from the way you handled each post.
13It was sad very very sad
14I couldn’t agree with you more, Dilip.
15