In defence of Hussain? No, not at all!

Tuesday, June 5, 2007
HUSAIN

In defence of Husain? No, not at all!
By BALVINDER

I myself being a painter, may be of a comparatively much deficient degree, (though apart from many other places my works are in the collection of the National Gallery of modern Art, New Delhi, Government museums at Chennai and Chandigarh and had reviewed local art activities for The Hindu?s Delhi edition for more than a decade), know pretty well about what distinguishes a common man from an artist. It is his penetrating sensitivity towards every nuance of divergent human activities and his ability to picture it in his own individual way.

We all know about this legendary story from Mahabharta. It tells about the deeply devoted concentration of Arjuna. While aiming at the eye of the bird sitting on the branch of a tree Arjuna, unlike his fellow shooters, replied to Guru Drona Acharya?s query, about what he was seeing at that point of time, that he was seeing nothing but a small black dot - the eye of the bird!

Artists, painters in particular, are quite opposite to this way of seeing things. For, in order to replicate his keen observations an artist cannot ignore the surroundings of his subject of interest or focus. More so because no thing or emotion can be explained or portrayed in a proper perspective without referring to its immediate environs or happenings. For instance a single dot, in complete isolation, can neither be big or small unless it is compared with a different sized dot.

All those persons, in the guise of artists, who try to put their creative outpourings without considering the important relative factors may succeed momentarily, that too for reasons other than artistic, never stand the ultimate test of time. Perhaps it is the well researched reactive use of relativity that makes a work of art pronounced, eternal and undisputed.

?Majhab nahi sikhata aapas main bair rakhna? (Religion does not preach enmity amongst one another) is a very popular and oft repeated quote by Allama Iqbal. However the history of the world is replete with examples that unmistakably demonstrate the sad fact that most of the bloody wars on this earth have been fought in the name of religion alone.

Paradoxically enough the so called secular India of today is divided largely on religious grounds. In the recent past, from Operation Blue Star, which culminated into 84-riots targeted exclusively against one particular religious community, a most heinous human tragedy of the past century to ill-fated Godara train tragedy and its bloody aftermath in Gujrat that too was aimed against a particular religious community, there have been endless examples of our religious intolerance. The often secretly politically-motivated but overtly religiously painted and ignited all such happenings adversely affect the ill-connected common people, most of whom in fact remain unaware of the ?emotionally-hurting? causes of the turmoil.

In this regard the role of the artists, in the broader sense of the word, has chiefly been limited to that of un-dated chronological recorders through their sensitively represented renditions. Thus artists need to tread on these dangerously laid paths rather with utmost caution.

However it is plainly painful to digest if artists, on the contrary, deliberately indulge in those activities, in the name of creative freedom, that set fire to highly inflammable religious intolerance.

That is why in the ongoing debate on Husain?s controversial paintings that have created quite a ruckus I would be the last person, despite being belonging to his fraternity, to defend him.

Before blindly defending Husain, portraying him as a victim of social suppression that curbs ones innate freedom of using artistic abilities for artistic expression, one should remember that it is the same Husain who once projected Indira Gandhi, during emergency that suppressed not only creative expressions but stifled every normal routine expression, as Goddess!

The most unfortunate outcome of the Husain controversy has been the sad goings-on at Baroda?s School of Art that have engulfed both young and budding artists and the hapless faculty members. For, while Husain, through all this ?hulla gulla?, would surely be benefited in the hot-world-art-market of the day, poor art students and art teachers, who have been on the receiving end, will be the ultimate losers in every respect.

More so because, no number of protests and debates would ever be able to turn politically polluted atmosphere of religious intolerance into a lovable sane environment. And this is historically true to the hilt.


10:05:53 PM
Posted By balvinder singh Comments (1) Arts
Comments
K.Venugopal Wednesday, June 6, 2007 2:57:45 PM
Because we are living in a world full of people with varying temperaments, it is incumbent upon all well-meaning people not to broadcast anything in public that would cause resentment or worse. However, the catch here is that unless the public is educated to reach out to greater heights of tolerance or acceptance, mankind would become fossiled in its thoughts and understanding. In this context, it is a task cut out for men of goodwill to seek to bridge the gap by cautioning artists not to seek to outrage unsuspecting public, while on the other hand seeking to educate the public to accept variant expressions as necessary for a broad-minded view of life and its possibilities. Mr. Balvinder Singh, you have done well in sharing your thoughts.