The battle over Husain has now become the battle of the stereotypes

For all those who have not been following the most recent developments in the MF Husain saga, here is a brief

rundown of the events of the last ten days or so.   Phase one: It is reported that Husain has become a citizen of Qatar. His son

confirms this and accepts that according to Indian law, his father will now have to surrender his citizenship of the country of his birth. However, he says, that the court cases and the campaign against him have left MF Husain with no choice.

 

Phase two: A storm erupts over the news. Artists and liberals appear on television to declare that Husain’s adoption of Qatar citizenship shames India. The great painter has been driven out of our country by the forces of bigotry. He faces so many court cases that it would be quite impossible for him to live in India. Besides, there are fears for his safety.

 

   As this orgy of self-flagellation continues, one painter appears on NDTV to declare that artists are motivated by no consideration other than the creative impulse. Sceptics who wonder about the commercial impulse that has rarely been absent from Husain’s work (and why should it be – he has every right to make a living) are stunned when she follows this up by suggesting that the only way that India can redeem itself is by making an exception to its own laws and offering Husain the option of retaining his Indian passport while simultaneously accepting Qatari citizenship.

 

   In the melee, the debate gets polarised between the India-has-let-Husain-down brigade and the Hindutva lobby which argues that by insulting Hindus by painting naked goddesses, he has brought this fate upon himself. More moderate voices which ask why it was necessary to renounce his Indian citizenship (he could have continued living in Dubai – or Qatar, for that matter – on an Indian passport) are lost.

 

   Meanwhile, home minister P. Chidambaram clarifies that a Supreme Court judgement has taken care of much of the nuisance legislation. Husain now faces three cases and these can easily be handled by his lawyers. As for protection, the government will give him any kind of security he requires. Chidambaram urges Husain to come home.

 

Phase three: Husain, who has been refusing to answer his own phone or to make himself available to the media, suddenly breaks his silence. He appears on NDTV on Wednesday to give his point of view. He has not left India because he feels insecure or because he is worried about the cases. He is aware of the Supreme Court judgement and hails it.

 

   He is working on three massive projects, he says, and he needed facilities and sponsorship to pursue them. The arrangement with Qatar seems to offer him a perfect opportunity. Besides, there are tax advantages to being a non-resident Indian.

 

   As for the claim that India has betrayed him, he dismisses that as a figment of the media’s imagination. He knows that 99 per cent of Indians love him and says that he is aware that only a tiny minority comprising people who do not understand the language of modern art is opposed to him.

 

   The following day, he appears on Times Now. Though he is considerably less comfortable and not as expansive, he sings the same tune. He is not staying away because he fears for his safety. He could come back any day. As for his citizenship, he is a citizen of the world. It is the media that claim that he is being driven away or betrayed by India. These are not his views.

 

   The same evening, he appears on CNN-IBN. Here, he chooses a different tack, referring once again to the cases against him and complaining about the harassment he endured while he was in India.

 

   Bizarrely, Husain’s statements make no difference to the debate. Those who said that he had been betrayed by India stick to their guns. Yes, he is staying away because it is not safe for him to return, they maintain. India should hang its head in shame.

 

   When they are questioned about how they can persist with this stand when Husain has acknowledged that there is a commercial and financial angle to his decision, they say that Husain’s motives are irrelevant. As for Husain’s own claims that he does not feel betrayed by India, they dismiss them. “He is just being gracious,” they say.

 

   So, who should we believe? Husain’s defenders? Or Husain himself?

 

   I think the answer to that one is self-evident but many people in the chattering classes would probably disagree with me.

 

"One of the problems with this debate is that it has become less about persons and events and more about symbols."

   I leave it to you to make up your own mind about where you stand on these latest developments. But I will make a few general observations about this episode of the Husain saga.

 

   Many Indians live abroad for a variety of reasons. Some of them accept the nationality of the countries they live in. Nobody in India grudges them their foreign passports. In fact, the government of India finds ways of recognising their Indianness. Those who do not want Indian passports are given PIO or NRI status.

 

   If Husain has chosen to accept Qatari citizenship because he intends to live there in the twilight of his life and because his work is facilitated by his presence in Qatar, nobody can grudge him his decision.

 

   The problem is less with Husain and more with those who claim to speak for him. Many of his defenders act as though he is an asylum seeker, fleeing an oppressive state. It is no longer possible for him to remain a citizen of India, they say, because of the manner in which we have behaved. He would have accepted the citizenship of any country, had it been offered to him, one such defender declared on television.

 

   So, the conflict is over two views of his decision to accept Qatari citizenship. If he has done it for reasons of convenience and commerce, then this is an entirely different motivation from those that his defenders are suggesting.

 

   A second observation. One of the problems with this debate is that it has become less about persons and events and more about symbols. The famous Saraswati painting that some Hindutva types are so exercised about first became the subject of controversy in 1996, two decades after it had been painted. For 20 years, it offended nobody. Then, it suddenly became a grave insult to Hinduism.

 

My question: would the Hindutva lobby have got so agitated if the painting had been the work of an artist who was a) Hindu and b) not so much a symbol of the secular establishment?

 

   My guess is that the reason Husain is being targeted is not because the painting really offends very many people but because it suits the Hindutva lobby to use him as an example of the secular establishment’s apparent lack of respect for Hinduism and the pseudo-secular willingness to let Muslims insult our goddesses.

 

   You and I might argue that this characterisation is absurd. But there is no denying its power or its efficacy as a symbol around which aggrieved Hindus can unite.

 

   Similarly, the secular lobby also looks for symbols on which to base the case against bigotry. No sensible person can deny that the vandalism and harassment that Husain was subjected to just before he left India was a disgrace. But the secular lobby wants to go further. It wants to use his renunciation of Indian citizenship to caricature India as a soft state where bigots run free, terrorising great artists and vandalising works of art.

 

   The problem with this caricature is that, in the Husain case at least, the facts are considerably more complicated. Husain is not really an asylum seeker. And even he is willing to admit that his motives are partly commercial.

 

   My worry in all this is that the battle over Husain has now become the battle of the stereotypes. It is Hindu fundamentalists vs secular fundamentalists. Both twist facts, make absurd statements and overstate their case.

 

   But such is the cacophony that the voices of reason get lost. Nobody is willing to listen to a moderate or a reasonable view that takes into account the complex nature of the facts in this case.

 

   As far as the Hindu fundamentalists are concerned, the issue must be seen in crude Hindu-Muslim terms. They will not listen to the voices of moderate Hindus. As far as the secular fundamentalists are concerned, it is all about the battle against communalism. Forget about getting them to listen to the moderates. They are not even willing to listen to Husain himself.