This article is being written in response
to certain questions raised at a social networking site. The principal question
was why Hindus find certain paintings of M F Hussain (MFH) offensive. The
paintings under consideration depict various Hindu deities in the nude.
Further, the inquiry asked for a justification for this feeling of being
offended in the background of sexually explicit sculptures in certain Hindu temples
and Sanskrit erotic literature.
Before these issues are addressed it is necessary
to set the context clearly so that there is no dilution or diversion of the
discussion. Artistic freedom is not the issue that is being discussed. Every
artist has the right to freedom of expression as long as he or she is not violating
the law of the land. Certain paintings can justifiably cause offence to a
section of the viewers, even if they are very obviously within the ambit of the
law.
Before getting involved with paintings of
MFH, it is also essential to understand in general terms what in a painting can
be offensive to a group of viewers. Sometimes images, icons or symbols depicted
in a painting represent persons or objects held in reverence or admiration by
the group. If the painting misrepresents
what these images actually stand for and denigrate the persons or objects
depicted then they will cause offence. Here a couple of clarifications are in
order. The finished painting is the complete product for the viewer group. The
viewer group is not concerned with what clarifications the painter may have
externally issued, nor is it concerned with how the critics have evaluated the
painting. The viewer group is only concerned with the response that the
finished painting invokes in a majority of the group members. The viewer group is
also not concerned with the intent of the painter, in the sense that whether
the painter intentionally desired to offend the viewers or not. The viewers can
belong to the public domain without knowledge of academic matters in art
evaluation. Absence of academic knowledge cannot rule out the viewer from being
a bona fide one. Hence the crucial question is whether there is reasonable justification for a
homogenous group of viewers to perceive the paintings as denigrating those it
holds in esteem or reverence.
It would be counterproductive to discuss
the issue taking the said paintings of MFH collectively. Each painting is
unique and can have different reasons for being offensive. Therefore this article selects one
representative painting from the lot for analysis. Other paintings of MFH can
be analyzed in a similar manner to assess whether they are justifiably
offensive to Hindus, and if so to what extent.
The painting being selected is titled
Hanuman in Flight. The painting has been sourced from the Internet. It is being
reproduced below for ready reference. The painting bears the signature of MFH
and this is being taken as evidence of it being a genuine work of MFH.
The status of Hanuman in Hinduism is well
established. Given the title and that Hanuman is a vanar, one can reasonably conclude
that the monkey in the center of the picture is a depiction of Hanuman. Hanuman
has several attributes, but two are relevant to this discussion. The first is
that he was an avowed celibate or brahmachari, which means that he eschewed
sexual contact of any kind. Yet in this painting MFH has depicted him between
two explicitly naked human figures, one a man and the other a woman. To Hindus
this would be a derision of Hanuman’s celibacy. MFH has shown no justification
for juxtaposing naked figures alongside Hanuman. There is no evidence from the
scriptures, mythology or folklore that Hanuman encountered such naked persons. In
the absence of any rationale for the naked figures, it is understandable for
Hindus to be justifiably offended by the painting, which beyond doubt
misrepresents the celibacy of Hanuman.
The question that automatically arises is
whether these two nude figures represent any nudes or specific personages. It
is here that the second attribute of Hanuman becomes important. Hanuman was an
ardent devotee of Rama and Sita. Whenever he has been depicted in painting or
sculpture with a couple, that couple has been Rama and Sita. One of the most iconic representations of
Hanuman in Hinduism is of his tearing open his chest to reveal Rama and Sita in
his heart. MFH has himself depicted this in one of his paintings. In the
absence of any other explanation it would be normal and justifiable to perceive
the nude couple in this MFH painting as Rama and Sita. If seeing Hanuman with
naked figures would be offensive, then the feeling of being offended would be
compounded manifold when the naked figures are Rama and Sita, whom Hanuman
revered as his Lord and Mother respectively.
Naked figures of Rama and Sita,
particularly Sita, would directly offend Hindu sensibilities as well. And there
is justification for this. Hindus worship Sita as the paragon of fidelity and
to see her depicted in the nude will hurt. And to add insult to injury, the
depiction in the MFH painting is crass and provocative. It can be argued that
in so many years of marriage Rama and Sita must have had their moments of
intimacy. But the fact remains that no credible narration of Ramayana depicts
any moment of intimacy in this explicit manner and any such intimacy is not
crucial in the events in the Ramayana. And do not forget that Hanuman is
present in the painting, which in fact is named after him, and this puts an end
to any argument of personal intimacy. Therefore on several counts icons have
been misrepresented and the feeling of being offended is more than justified.
The issue of erotic sculpture and
literature must be addressed. Again one cannot deal in generalities. This
painting depicts Hanuman, Rama and Sita and therefore it is essential that the
depiction of these three characters in sculpture and literature be examined. There
are temples with sexually explicit sculptures. Most of these sculptures portray
the normal humans. Some of them would also portray deities and events from
Hindu mythologies. However, no such sexually explicit depiction of Hanuman,
Rama and Sita has been generally reported. One cannot justify depiction of a
particular deity in a particular manner simply because some other deity has
been depicted in that manner. As explained earlier, each deity has his or her individual
characteristics and attributes and mythologies.
Again, while discussing Sanskrit literature
one has to look at specifics. The passage that immediately comes to mind is
Ravana’s description of Sita in Valmiki Ramayana, in which her figure has been
explicitly described and praised. This is a reflection of the lustful desire of
Ravana. The MFH painting in question is in a different setting. To use this
passage or others like this to justify a naked a depiction of Sita totally out
of context cannot be considered reasonable by any stretch of imagination. The
fact remains that there is no basis whatsoever for the painting and it
misrepresents the attributes that Hindus hold in Hanuman, Rama and Sita. It is
natural for these misrepresentations to offend Hindus.
In conclusion, a discussion on how the
offended Hindus should react is in order. The best option by far is to ignore
such provocations. If one has faith in one’s religion then such
misrepresentations, whether malicious or unintended, should not become a
disturbing element. If at all some reaction is warranted then that has to be
within the ambit of law. Several lawful options are available. Threatening and
inciting violence is a symptom of immaturity and just because groups from other
religions have resorted to it in the past, it does not mean that the Hindus
should follow suit. If the offended Hindus do not respond or respond in a mild
manner, it does not imply that there is no offensiveness in the painting. That
exists independent of the response adopted.
