If Danish Cartoonist and Rushdie were Wrong, So is Husain

Well-known Indian artist Maqbool Fida. Husain, who has been on a self-imposed exile, living outside the country for four years after his controversial paintings of Hindu goddesses led to widespread protests, was recently conferred Qatari nationality which he gladly accepted but the ‘secular fundamentalists’ (like Mani Shankar Aiyer, who describes himself as such) are up in arms demanding that the Indian Government fall at his feet, seek apology and facilitate his return.
Undoubtedly, Hussain brought glory to the country, notwithstanding his eccentricities such as the fad for Madhuri Dikshit but so did K P S Gill, former Director General of Punjab Police, who was a one-man army which demolished the very foundations of militancy in Punjab. And certainly his contribution was much more than that of Hussain. Now one may wonder, why the comparison between the two?
While Gill was the supercop who fought and eliminated the Pak-sponsored militancy, putting his own life to grave risk, his indecent pass on fellow civil servant Rupan Deol Bajaj was most uncalled for, so was his undemocratic style of functioning as the chief of Hockey India.
Now, just because Gill did a good job in Punjab, one cannot overlook his other indiscretions.
The same holds true for Husain. Notwithstanding his ‘greatness’ as a painter (he made tons of money but has not made any worthwhile contribution either for the cause of promoting art or any other social cause), Husain did err in painting nude portraits of Hindu Goddesses. Let us accept it and not just overlook it just because he happens to be from the minority community who is “under attack from Hindu fundamentalists”.
India was the first country in the world (even before Islamic countries) to ban Salman Rushdie because he dared to describe the Prophet of Islam in uncharitable terms. If Rushdie’s case does not come under freedom of speech and expression, how can protests against Husain be termed as an assault on freedom of speech and expression?
Iran had pronounced a death sentence on Rushdie and several crores of rupees were put on the head of a Danish cartoonist who dared to draw a caricature of the Prophet. While as a liberal, democratic society, one may not agree with the extreme reactions of some of the faithful, one cannot but agree that in a pluralistic, multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious society such as ours, freedom of expression cannot include freedom to offend anyone’s religious sensibilities.
Take the case of exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen, who in her book ‘Lajja’ (shame) dwelt at length on the atrocities perpetrated on the Hindu minority in the neighbouring country, particularly on the women folk. Yet, she was abused and attacked within India by groups claiming that she had offended the sentiments of Muslims. Rightly or wrongly, event the then BJP Government in Rajasthan expressed inability to provide her protection and the author has now been granted a non-extendable visa for one year now, despite her repeated requests for Indian citizenship.
Fair enough. Even if she has exposed the plight of minorities in her country, if she has in the process insulted any religion, don’t give her sanctuary in this country. But why cry foul when there are protests against Husain? Is it that Hindu deities can be insulted in the name of freedom of speech and expression and any criticism of other religions is unacceptable?
Unfortunately that seems to be the case. Interestingly, even Muslim organisations and intellectuals have not shown any sympathy for Husain’s cause but our professional secularists don’t think so. It is the attitude of such people which have given birth and legitimacy to the likes of Pragya Thakur and Praveen Togadiya in an extremely tolerant and liberal society such as Hinduism.
This country has bestowed honours on Husain no end. The Government has repeatedly offered to provide him all possible security. And last but not the least, except for some protests, so-called Hindu extremists groups unlike their Jehadi counterparts do not have the wherewithal to physically harm him. At worst, he may face some protests and that is quite legitimate in a democratic country. Now even the so-called liberal champions of freedom of expression cannot demand that there should not be any protests at all to ensure that the great painter returns to his homeland. That would be curtailing the freedom of speech and expression of some citizens.
Moreover, the intelligentsia in this country has all along supported Husain yet if he quitely accepted the citizenship of Qatar over some protests back home, fingers should be pointed at him not us as Indians. It is not India that failed him. He failed India. Several countries have offered citizenship to many of our leading artists but they continue to be proud Indian passport holders though they may be spending more time in those countries.
Husain’s acceptance of Qatari citizenship is not just a commentary on his patriotic credentials but also his opportunistic persona. There are credible reports that the Qatar Government has offered him a 60 million dollar project for a museum. Now that was too attractive a proposition for the maverick artist. One is reminded of the recent statements of Shah Rukh Khan, a Pathan who has been loved to the hilt by Indian fans, purely aimed at promoting his film in Pakistan though he himself did not select a player for his own team from that country.
Our artistic fraternity, which has hardly anything to do with popular sentiments and live in ivory towers of their own, have always practiced double standards. Take the great Anjolie Ela Menon for instance. This lady described Husain’s Qatar escapade as a dark day in India’s history yet when questioned whether the artist was correct in accepting Qatari nationality said without battling an eyelid “You know, artists are like nomads. They don’t believe in the borders or barriers”. If that be the case, why this hullabaloo? If Mr Husain is not bothered about Indian citizenship, why on earth are we bothered about it?