Can artistic freedom be absolute?

As beauty, obscenity too lies in the eyes of beholder said the High Court Judge, S K Kaul while absolving the celebrated painter M F Hussain from the charges of hurting public sentiments through his paintings.

The verdict came as a cool oasis for the exiled painter who has been living in continuous threat to his life.

The court hailed the charges against the painter as baseless and while aptly reflecting right to freedom of speech and expression, Justice S K Kaul said, “Tolerance is vital in large and complex societies like ours where people with varied beliefs and interest mingle.”

“In India, new Puritanism is being carried out in the name of cultural purity and a host of ignorant people are vandalizing art and pushing us towards a pre-renaissance era,” he added showing his displeasure.

In the same context, Justice J D Kapoor two years ago had opined that a person saddled with the unlimited freedom must be expected to bear the onus attached with it and not to indulge in malicious act to defame or degrade religious deities of any particular religion through objectionable, demeaning caricature or paintings. He said people must refrain from any malicious act which had the power to place unity and integrity of the nation at stake.

The court further said, “No option left with the court than to dismiss the complaints for want of sanction either by central government or by the state government.”

The Home Ministry in 2006 too had said that artistic freedom poisoned the air of peace and harmony by creating communal tensions as the heat was felt after the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad published in Denmark.

Nudity vs. Obscenity

There have been lot of hue and cry over artistic freedom and depiction of nudity. Some opined the vandalism of Hussain painting by so called Hindu fundamentalist as paradox or a handiwork of narrow mindedness.

The reason being cited that Kamasutra, erotic depiction of deities outside Khajuraho etc., are as part of Indian culture since time immemorial and resisting to Hussain's art leaves a sulky picture of pseudo culture or hypocrisy.

But it is also true that some people get offended by slight depiction of nudity while many find even the highly erotic images as a mere expression of artistic bliss.

May be the term obscenity is too high sounding word to be linked with Hussain's painting who has depicted naked Lakshmi and Saraswati, naked goddess Sita sitting on the thigh of naked Ravana, his painting of Durga which has been blamed for depicting sexual union with the tiger and most recently naked Bharatmata without hearing his testimonial on the same.

The difference of opinion exists as many find the tirade against him as communally biased but that too does not stand on a solid base as there are many cases which can negate this point.

Also the artists, some of who support the painter by saying Hindu god and goddesses have been portrayed as naked since long so what is wrong with Hussain doing it, while many challenge the nonagenarian by asking him to give the same treatment to the icon of Islam.

Why differences of opinion exist?

Is not the definition of artistic parlance a bit vague? Will the same artistic expression get the same support or voice if it be shown through electronic media or film? Why there is censor board to clip the scenes that looks obscene? Does not the scene depict the freedom of expression or artistic touch of director or producer of the film?

As once the same painter hanged white cloths in Mumbai’s Jehangir Art Gallery giving the event a theatrical touch.

Should Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie, Dwikhandita and Lazza of Taslima Nasreen and Paintings of M F Hussain and Prophet Mohammad cartoon published in Jyllands-Posten be not given the same treatment on the pretext of freedom of speech and expression?

Can freedom of expression be defined in absolute term? Perhaps not! As justice Kapoor said that freedom of expression also comes with responsibility hence it is up to the artistes not to prick the religious sentiments merely in terms of their artistic gratification as religion still remains the most vulnerable regime.

Had the paintings be not linked with religious deities, the treatment it got would have been different and Hussain would have been living here in India without any sufferings.

Also, Hussain was naive of the public reaction when he made his first painting of nude Saraswati but what led him to depict the same with other goddesses seems unjustified.

One cannot dictate his or her artistic sense to others and make them to find reason to like or dislike the aesthetic sense of the painting or any other medium of freedom of speech.

However, one must not take law in his hand to mete out justice on their own and vandalising and terrorising by the fanatics should be crushed by the legal machinery before it takes a monstrous shape.

Hussain, though Indian by birth is kept away by the dogmatic fundamentalist far away from his home irrespective of his wishes.

Albert Einstein has said, “Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.”

The person who is offended of blasphemy though has apologised for the same long back but no organisation that has been opposing him has come forward with a positive riposte which draw a question mark on the motivation of such opposition.

null