The following is my reaction to a chain mail that I received some time back. Marked in red is the mail I received. Below the red script, are my reactions to the received mail.
If a Danish journalist depicts the Prophet of the Muslims , Muslims all over the world rise in anger, there is violence, a booty on the head of the Journalist - Muslims are not criticised for being communal and intolerant, If MF Hussain draws paintings depciting Hindu Gods and Goddesses in sexual positions (which relations are not borne out by ancient texts at all ) and Hindus merely protest , they are called communal, intolerant and taught lessons in secularism by one and all. The problem apparently is not with Sikhs and Muslims, it is with Hindus , because we are not violent, we accept what ever is dished out to us , we do not have the guts to say that this is wrong , we seek acceptance from outsiders rather than from our conscience. We worship the same GOds and Godesses but dont stand up for them when the time comes.
I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with you (Kavita) and I would never so much as think of forwarding that message to anyone.
First of all, the interpretations of the painting seem to be coming from a person who obviously takes pride in instilling the sentiments of hatred, communalism, violence and intolerance among the gullible population. In the package prepared for us, two kinds of pictures are put next to each other. A painting is appreciated or understood for what it is and what it itself depicts. If an artist means to exhibit a collection of paintings, she does so because she sees a link between all of her paintings; it could be a theme, a common technique etc. But when a self-proclaimed connoisseur puts together a collection of paintings painted by someone else, she usually does so to project her thoughts into the open with the aid of this collage/collection. These thoughts could be interesting, they could be dull; they could be revolutionary or they could be dogmatic; they could be original and eye-opening or they could simply be manipulative and deceitful. In this case I believe, dogmatism is the leading force and manipulation is the intent. She has put paintings of naked Hindus on one side and the clothed Muslims/Hussain's relatives on the other. This contrast aims at creating a sensation among the population that is marred by conservative Indian sensibilities. Sensitive Hindus are forced to read this information as a projection of bad, impure, primitive Hindus v/s. good, pure, elite Muslims. Has there been an extensive research done on Hussain's paintings before the composing of this mail? Have the Hindus always been pictured naked in all of Hussain's paintings? Have the Muslims always been pictured fully clothed? And even if they have, has anyone bothered to understand the meaning of nudity/fully attired in the eyes of Hussain himself? Have his intentions been tested before the sending out of this inflammatory email that can easily result into a communal discord? The remarks under one of the pictures suggests that Hussain said that Hitler has been projected as naked because he deserved it and now he says nudity is purity. Has anyone bothered to find out the time gap between those two statements? If he has changed his mind about nudity, it is not necessarily hypocrisy, it could be development or changing of an opinion about a concept which happens to all of us because we constantly grow, learn, see and explore and thus we evolve. If circumstances change, if more knowledge comes to hand, if indeed your mind is open, an opinion can change in a day.
Another remark that sits beneath the same picture suggests that Gandhi is decapitated and Hitler is naked. I am not a painter, neither a painting aficionado nor a painting epicure but I can still see possibilities of various other interpretations, angles and ways of reading into it. It may simply mean that Hitler has beheaded Gandhi and thus the ideas of non-violence and tolerance. May be, Hussain wants to project Gandhi not as a figure, but rather as an idea of everything that Gandhi was and Gandhi taught. May be it's a painter's poetic license or an aesthetic device to show Gandhi without his head because Gandhi's attire and his 'lathi' (cane) are symbols of Gandhi and his ideologies.
Finally, may be I am wrong and you are right, may be Hussain is a hypocrite and Hindu-hater, may be he IS communalist. Even then, if what you are saying is right about how the Hindu community reacted to the controversial paintings; that they decided to keep their views to themselves and that they did not call a 'fatwa' against Hussain, hats off to Hindus. I am truly proud of them. Hinduism, as I have understood since childhood has always been about giving the fellow citizen a freedom of speech and expression, it is about tolerance and it is about acceptance. Throttling an individual to death for what she believes in or what she says or what she writes has never been a Hindu ideology as I have understood it. A Hindu can be a Hindu even if he doesn't practice it; to the extent that even an atheist can be a Hindu. If Muslims and Sikhs go over the top about trivial matters and Hindus tolerate and accept another person's opinion, it is not cowardice as you put it, it is exemplary behaviour; it is the lamp that will hopefully light the world.
Ruchi
No comments:
Post a Comment