Please bring Hussain back

It seems that the barefoot painter has been conferred Qatari citizenship which he has accepted. Reactions to this news have been almost predictable. Copious tears are being shed by his supporters who again proclaim that this is another proof of how the liberal space in India has shrunk. On the other hand, the ‘moving-to-center’ Sangh Parivar has actually said that it ‘welcomes’ Hussain as an Indian citizen.

Leaving aside polemics, firstly, taking up or not taking up an alternate citizenship is Hussain’s personal choice. So many people around the world give up their native citizenships and accept that of other countries; Hussain is just one among them. So, why this brouhaha over an individual act? Anyways, for people who are proud of Hussain, citizenship does not matter for they themselves are ‘citizens of the world’ (as if there existed such a thing). More importantly, as Indians, we have a habit of embracing as our very own, any celebrity around the world, who has had the remotest Indian connection, be it a VS Naipaul or a Bobby Jindal. Compared to them, Hussain is much more an Indian, having taken birth and lived much of his life in India. His citizenship is incidental then. Taking an alternate perspective, he has been away from the country for long, in effect, not having any material connection with India. So, if this de facto state is changed to a de jure state, then what exactly is the problem?

Coming to the more serious point which should merit our attention, i.e., muzzling of artistic freedom in India which led the country to ‘lose’ its ‘jewel’. Hussain has been accused of deliberately hurting religious sentiments of a vast segment of Hindus though his blasphemous depiction of Hindu Goddesses. As a result, by various estimates, more than 900 cases stand lodged against him in various courts across the country. For the record, Hussain has not attended a single court hearing and has, on the contrary, taken refuge from law, in the welcoming confines of a co-religionist Nation.

Why do a vast section of Hindus believe that Hussain has offended their religious sensibilities? It is because he has depicted Mother Goddess manifestations in vulgar and hitherto unknown scenarios. So, a painting titled ‘Sita’ has a naked female figure rubbing her clitoris on the tail of a monkey. Another painting titled ‘Durga’has another naked female figure copulating with a predatory cat. How exactly can these paintings solely be taken as secular expression of an artist’s instincts is beyond me. People who proclaim that these paintings are only a continuation of our Khajuraho traditions, are either ignorant of what those temple sculptures contain or are completely ignorant of Hindu (read Indian) traditions.

Firstly, Khajuraho and Konark are only exceptions among thousands of Indian temples. Secondly, by liberal estimates, around 10% of total sculptures belong to the genre of erotica, the rest being devoted to more mundane aspects of a householder’s life or depictions of tales of Gods and Goddesses. Thirdly and most importantly, those sculptures which provide gist to the ‘liberal’ arguments, depict courtesans, demi gods and celestial nymphs; all the categories of which, in Indic traditions, are supposed to be libertine. Nowhere would you find a heretical depiction of God or the Mother Divine even remotely in the way which Hussain has depicted. Fourthly and let it be as loud as the final trumpet…as per the liberals themselves, times have changed so we must look ahead and mould ourselves to changing times; a noble and acceptable sentiment indeed. However, applying the same principles, India is not India of 1200 years back and the benchmarks for acceptance have changed. Centuries of Islamic and Christian rule in India has imprinted in a more conservative form of sexual morality and imagery in the psyche of the people and for an overwhelming multitude of Indians, even fresh Khajuraho or Konark like sculptures or even paintings would be sacrilegious; forget about permitting truly blasphemous ‘artistic expressions’. It is quite a commentary on the intellectual (?) dishonesty of this bunch, that it needs to use some artefact from that time as a certificate to further its arguments, when it  does not have time for the Indian past other than proclaiming it only to be an age of oppression and darkness.

Another point of defence for Hussain is that he knows his Ramayana better than many Indians and his depiction of Hindu Goddesses depict his love for Hindu traditions. At the risk of sounding repetitive, why is that that Hussain’s depiction of his own mother, revered figures from Islamic faith or even Blessed Teresa of Kolkata, are always shown is composed and compassionate situations, always fully covered from head to toe? Why is that that his love manifests in different forms for different religions?

Coming to the protests, what exactly have been the mode of protests? The more serious one has been attack on an exhibition which displayed his paintings. No one attacked or even attempted to attack him physically, nor have there been any attempted or real damage to his personal property (in spite of the canard being spread by his supporters). What have the people hurt by his paintings done? They have simply taken the route of decent law abiding citizens and lodged cases in courts, painfully aware that the Indian judicial system will not let them have justice. The way cases progress, it is very likely that Hussain will pass away before any of these courts bring him to justice.

What has been Hussain’s response? He left India for the cosy confines of another land. Till last year, he and his son would refute that he is in exile, pointing out that Hussain has been living in Dubai and London for years, only occasionally visiting India. However, why let go of any opportunity to demean Hindus who still hold on to their faith? So, his holiday sojourns have become forced exile.

Normally, people who leave their countries to escape the law are known as fugitives and it is any Government’s moral duty to ensure their extradition. Here we have a fugitive from law, who is being supported and feted by ‘liberals’ of all hues and the Government saying that it will provide protection to him. Protect him by all means. He should live and no harm should befall him, lest it gives more imaginary fodder to his supporters.

Certainly should a PIL be filed asking for his return to India. However, unlike Bhim Singh’s PIL asking for his feted return, a more apt one should be for a direction that he be brought back so that the court cases against him be expedited.

My Name is Khan

Now that the storm has passed and My Name is Khan (MNIK)’s collections have fallen very significantly, it will do good for us all to analyse the issue once again.

Getting the facts first:

• Shahrukh Khan, the co-owner of Kolkata Knight Riders lamented the absence of Pakistani cricket players from any of the IPL teams
• He further stated that Pakistan is a good, nay, a Great Neighbor to have. He was then honest enough to accept that his family comes from Pakistan and he still has his ties there
• Shiv Sena proclaimed these enunciations to be heresy and decided that MNIK would not be allowed to be screened in Mumbai and Rest of Maharashtra
• The State Government made massive security arrangements, rounding off more than 1,500 Shiv Sainiks and deployed around 23,000 securitymen to guard cinema halls
• The State Government withdrew security cover of some Sena MLAs and threatened withdrawal of the cover provided to the Sena President, Uddhav Thackeray
• Most cinema halls in Mumbai reported almost complete occupancy the weekend the movie was released
• Shiv Sena washed its hands off the matter berating the public for not being patriotic enough for watching the movie of a ‘traitor’ in droves
• The intelligentsia hailed the house full boards as Mumbai’s knockout reply to Sena
• The State Government was hailed for superb handling of the ‘bully’
• Reports suggest that the occupancy rates of the movie hover in the range of 30% now
• New reports suggest that all through the shenanigans, Shahrukh Khan and Karan Johar had maintained discreet contacts with Matoshree
• As per other reports, the movie is a colossal hit in Pakistan and Shahrukh’s stock has further risen in that country

Rather than going into conspiracy theories or speculating that the entire tamasha was an affair stage managed by the principal actors for their own gains, let us focus on the larger issue of an Individual’s Freedom to Speech and the State’s duty to protect it.

Here, we have the scenario of one of the leading lights of Hindi moviedom proclaiming his love for a State which has only given pains to India right from the time it was conceived in the minds of Rahmat Alis and Saiyyad Ahmad Khans of yore. This celebrity, who happens to be the co-owner of an IPL team himself, did not pick up any player from his beloved neighbor but lamented the collective action of all of the teams the next day. The movie in question is a bleeding heart testimonial to the goodness of the second largest religion of the world and discovers superhuman qualities in the hearts of a true believer. Well Well… to each man his own. As Indians, we are very accommodative to all who love our enemies. After all, our Communists did not become person-non-grata to our population inspite of their open and aggressive support of China during the Indo China war of 1962. Earlier still, Babasaheb’s Ambedkar support to the British Raj and his strong opposition to the freedom movement did not make him a traitor to the country. Then, we certainly should not grudge Shahrukh his sympathy to the Pakistanis or should we?
 

The problem here is not Shahrukh but hypocrisy of the intelligentsia. Shahrukh was simply speaking with a forked tongue when he expressed his anguish over non inclusion of Pak players in the IPL. Being the owner of a team, he could have very well recruited 4 people for his own team. Having not done that, he probably wanted to mollycoddle his Pakistani audience and hence the crocodile tears. However, Shahrukh, as an Indian citizen, was merely using the freedom provided by our Constitution in speaking his mind. Only, why should the intelligentsia troop to support a man who is only out to promote his business is beyond me. I wonder where exactly was this intelligentsia hiding when Kamal Rashid Khan’s movie ‘Deshbhakt’ on attack on North Indians in Mumbai was banned by the same State Government’s police to prevent ‘inflaming of passions’. Arguably, that movie was much more pertinent and just compared to some bleeding heart testimony to terrorists. Why was there no squeak of support for that movie, however badly made, on grounds of freedom of expression? Here, the State abdicated all its other responsibilities to ensure that a movie is screened when it was clearly a potential riot issue (as if that was the biggest issue in Maharashtra) and there, the state decided that another movie could be a law and order issue! Perhaps the other Khan lost out for he did not count the State’s high and mighty amongst his friends!

Coming to the more important issue of the need to separate art from politics or sports from politics, as our omniscient conscience keepers advised us…excuse me.. when exactly were arts or sports away from politics? Be it Sean Penn using the Oscar’s platform to make speeches for Gay rights or Arundhati Roy using her pen to peddle her thoughts, Celebrities have all along used and abused their status to push the political agenda they identify with. Closer home, Shabana Azmi and Mahesh Bhatt are now known more for their politics than for their art. And if Shahrukh was so keen to protect his movie from Sena’s backlash, why did he need to open his moth on issues which do not concern him. Be it defending Shoaib Malik’s apologies to Muslims worldwide after Pakistan’s defeat in the T20 World Cup Finals or his wearing his Islamic identity on his sleeve, Shahrukh has made it a point to be in the limelight as much as possible.  If anyone fights for a cause, one cannot logically be away from its repercussions. Boycott of celebrities and products which they promote is a part of the game. Who can forget the way Anita Bryant’s sensational singing career went into a tailspin ultimately leading to her bankruptcy, in face of resolute campaign by gay rights groups. Anita’s fault was merely having taken the lead in organizing the ‘Save our Families’ campaign in opposition to militant gay rights activism.

Coming to Sports, India was on the forefront of boycott of South Africa for its apartheid policies refusing to play the Nation for atrocities it was committing on its own people, i.e., actually meddling in some other sovereign country’s affairs. The same cheerleaders of that boycott want India to constantly engage with a country which has killed and maimed thousands of our countrymen!!! And if sports is indeed separate from politics, why is it that sportspersons are considered ambassadors of a Nation or why is that National sentiments over-ride sporting mores when teams don National colors on the field? Why is it that sportspersons wear black bands while playing or the triumphs of Jesse Owens and Muhammad Alis of the world were seen as potent political statements? Or, why are sportspersons pulled to make statements in political campaigns?

What is particularly galling is the tendency of Shahrukh to proclaim from rooftops that his father was a freedom fighter and so he cannot be a traitor. Who exactly is his father and why is it that that inspite of his protestations, we are yet to know anything about him? It does not take much for anyone to proclaim anything. There were a lot of instances where people jailed for petty crimes during the British Raj’s fag end claimed to be in jail for fighting for India’s freedom. For all we know, if the Senior Khan did go to jail ever for something remotely related to Nation building, it could be very well as a Muslim League member, demonstrating in support of Pakistan. We don’t count Mohammad Ali Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan as India’s freedom fighter, do we? Finally, one’s lineage alone does not determine the course of life for others. Quite a few of the ULFA terrorists have come from exalted families of freedom fighters. That did not or has not prevented them from running a war against the Indian Nation. This is not to insinuate that Shahrukh has the welfare of any other Nation at the cost of the Indian Nation in mind, but the logic presented by him can be as illogical as possible.

While violence and force cannot be condoned, boycott is a very legitimate form of protest, be it against publicity seekers or those who actually stand for a cause. It is a shame that our intelligentsia have been unable to find more reasonable causes to defend.