M.F.Husain: Heaven can't wait...

There's no looking back

M.F.Husain has taken off on his paint brush into the other world. Age 95. Dead. Obituaries are tricky. I think about the ceiling of his house; he had sketched stars – black on white. I sat on a chair waiting for him to turn up. He did not. His wife said no one knows when he comes and when he goes. I disliked him, anyway, and my conversation would not have been about him walking without shoes.

He was surrounded by women, the kind we rather disparagingly refer to as society dames. What could he find so entertaining, forget enlivening, about them? For them he was Fame. At one of their homes I saw a painting by him that was unspeakably sad. Fine crystal shone below it on a mantelpiece. I smirked. Then one day many years later I saw shards on the floor…and experienced the sadness of broken crystal.

Husain, for reasons I have been unable to fathom, continued to look like an arriviste, despite all the celebrity, the money and the artistic talent. We all perceive art in different ways – for me he was more skill than soul, and not many possess that kind of skill, the adhesive-like hold on the imagination of the artistic fraternity.

Curiously, I got a note yesterday from a person of the rightwing persuasion questioning me about his portrayal of nude goddesses that I had tried to explore in an earlier piece. This is what he became known for – not the works, not the ideas, but the controversies. He was restless, but not a gypsy. He was the nomad who had luxurious homes everywhere he went. It won’t be much different now.

duniya ne hum pe jab koi ilzaam rakh diya

hum ne muqaabil us ke tera naam rakh diya

ik khaas had pe aa gayi jab teri berukhee

naam us ka hum ne gardish-e-ayyaam rakh diya

- Qateel Shifai

- - -

Here is an old piece I had written in my Rediff column of October 27, 1997, well before they started stoning galleries where his works were displayed:

The unmaking of a maverick

M F Husain has a major problem. If we start with this premise it would be far easier to approach his persona. And the problem lies not with what he is, but what he is seeking to be.

Today, few talk of Husain as an artist – he is either the showman, the maverick, the risk-taker and, finally and conclusively, a product. His market value is under discussion rather than his palette's wild guesses and sometimes calculated conundrums. It is very likely that he feels trapped and is now seeking to assert his independence. No artist in his right mind would rush from one canvas to the other to show the onlookers the process of painting, as Husain claims to have tried to do. But, at this point in time, he is not in his right mind. He is on a binge to negate his art by harking to his hoarding-painter days of relative freedom. The days when he could paint the other icons of cinema, without having to worry about whether his unshod feet would gain celebrity status.

Husain' painting on the Mumbai blasts

The very concept of being a celebrity can be difficult to handle, its reality even more so. Husain's position as a product has to do with his being many other things. As a showman performer, he is expected to toe the classic 'I pretend, therefore I am' line. This includes massive image-building. But the man about whom it was made shows all signs of not being at peace with himself. The result is whimsical behaviour. The charitable will call it maverick moods.

But why would a man already on the pedestal want to be a maverick? It cannot be to get attention. Not a genuine desire for experimentation either, so the possibility of his sense of boredom at being 'known for being known' cannot be ignored.

To this end, the artist has begun taking risks, not so much with his work but with his reputation, which has been the cause of most of his ecstasy and all of his anguish. Kierkegaard put it beautifully when he analysed, "It lays a prodigious burden on a person to have to support the weight of everyone's eyes." Even a Husain work is merely a work of Husain. Snapping the chain with his offbeat acts, he has in effect put the ball in the court of his 'audience', the subliminal message being, "Since you have made me, you might want to unmake me. But before you can do that, I will do it myself."

Therefore, the new Husain is essentially the old one trying to come out clean, but not without attempting to kill two birds with one stone – by hankering after his freedom and at the same time (and perhaps because of it) making sure that the public does not run after someone else. This is the hallmark of a celebrity. Or an insecure man.

- - -

Updated in new post here

News meeows - 21

Houses get destroyed. A temple and mosque survive the landslide. What can I say? I am the faithless. Faithless in terms of organised religion, if there is anything organised about religion at all.

Mid-week, in one of the suburbs of Mumbai, the boulders from a hill came tumbling down with the fury of the rains. A temple stood untouched; all the hutments in the area were crushed. Four years ago, there had been a terrible deluge. In the same locality 112 such tenements were destroyed, 83 people died. A mosque stood amidst the rubble without a scratch.

I am amazed about how people have reacted. Apparently, these holy structures have given shelter to those displaced. A local politician said, “This is nothing but a miracle. It has revived our faith in god during these tough times.”

Revived faith? Is faith about a structure? I am glad there was a temple and a mosque. Now, there is talk about how people of all religions are praying at these places. If I know my city well enough, those from the lower strata have always been quite democratic in their beliefs. Every god is good enough.

But the real miracle would have been if the landslide had spared the homes of these people. If god is everywhere, then god does not need a home. People do, and they build it bit by bit, with hope for a better morrow. The even bigger miracle will be when people stop constructing places of worship in every lane and start building hospitals and proper homes and make sure that every year the financial capital of India does not make the city go haywire with one rainfall.

The gods are extremely partial and save their own homes. Sorry, this one’s not biting the bait.

- - -

I do not know how an Army Chief is supposed to behave, but General Deepak Kapoor’s statement about ceasefire violations by the Pakistani army to enable militants to infiltrate into India and “disrupt” the peace in Jammu and Kashmir don’t give out the right signals.

It makes us look as though we cannot deal with such violations.

“Firing is used as a diversionary tactic,” Kapoor said, adding that the only goal is to push in more and more people. He, however, said the Indian troops are alert and have foiled many such attempts at the borders.

Ok. So the Pakistani army uses diversionary tactics, we know about it, we are alert and have foiled many such attempts. This is a matter that should be discussed internally, at the army headquarters and with the defence ministry, and not be accessible to the media, the public and the Pakistani army.

The armed forces are about pugnacity. It is no occasion or reason to try victimhood. Or large-heartedness about how we will honour the ceasefire pact. Are we being given points on good behaviour or something? And by whom?

- - -

While ordinary Dalits strive to get accepted, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati is becoming larger than life. In an exhibition in Lucknow, she has been painted as a goddess, the ‘Dalit Devi’. Some fine arts student decides to get some reflected glory, but she ought to have better sense.


The concept of gods and goddesses are rich pastimes and certainly not for Dalits who have had to battle the faith itself. It is hugely ironical that Mayawati is not objecting to such deification; the statues are vanity and maybe to prove a point. There is one painting in which she is nestled among lotus petals with Kanshi Ram on one side and Dr. B.R.Ambedkar on the other. It is time for her to take a reality check. The lotus is a flower, our national flower (whatever that means), but it is also the BJP symbol. And this image represents Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. This is sheer mockery.

- - -

Huh?

TOI caption: Ramzan shopping is in full swing at Bhendi Bazaar

This is from The Times of India. Find a group of women in veils, in Bhendi Bazaar (where else?), and assume that they are carrying bags so they must be shopping for Ramzan. What does that mean? They are buying dates, fruits, kebabs for the evening? A little education: Muslim women can shop for other things for daily living. And if you want to emphasise the festive nature of the shopping, then it is for Eid, which is at the end of Ramzan. And women and men who practise the faith will not shop before the Eid moon is sighted.

So, stop getting excited and brush up on some basics.

- - -

Poll results:

Jaswant Singh’s book makes you:

understand Jinnah - 5%; understand past Indian leaders - 10%; understand Partition - 15%; understand Pakistan - 5%; understand BJP - 31%; understand Marketing - 26%; understand Indo-Pak current problems - 10%; What book? - 26%

So, hate me as much as you will, but most of you are with me. That the book reveals more about the BJP and marketing than about Jinnah!

The Saudi Genie and Goddess Lakshmi

I am not sure if djinns have a nationality but this is hilarious. No rubbing of lamp or anything here. No friendly little smoky figure leaping out and granting three wishes. This one is quite a demon.

A family in Saudi Arabia has taken a genie to court, alleging theft and harassment. The lawsuit filed in a Shariah court accuses the genie of leaving them threatening voicemails, stealing their cell phones and hurling rocks at them when they leave their house at night.

What can the Shariah court do? Theft brings upon the robber a punishment of limbs being chopped off. How will they catch the culprit and see that justice is done? Has the genie been named? What can genies do with cell phones? Sell them in the grey market? But won’t Saudi Arabia have some laws against that as well? And the whole family goes out that late? Whoa. Did not know they had such a rocking night life.

Now if only those rocks were solitaires.

- - -

Goddess Lakshmi prefers gold, but she sure as hell would not like to be shown sitting atop a stacked bun, even if it is by Burger King. Such royal nomenclatures do not carry much weight, only calories.

A report tells us that the food chain ran a print advertisement in Spain depicting “Lakshmi seated atop a meat sandwich and other foodstuffs with a catch phrase, ‘A snack that’s sacred’, written in Spanish.”

It is such poor copywriting skills besides, of course, not even possessing basic knowledge about eating habits. This is fast food. People go there for a quick bite; this is not some offering at a place of worship. I know, I know, it is said that the stomach should be treated like a temple, but then one would go for some seven-course little French itsy-bitsies that make you feel chaste and starved and think you are close to nirvana because you automatically transform into a ‘seeker’.

Here we are talking about humongous portions with mayo dripping down and lettuce and onion and tomatoes fighting for space with the patty. It is one big act of jugglery to stuff the thing into the mouth as it opens up in indelicate and primal ecstasy.

These guys have lost it. However, the sagely opposition is off-the-mark when it states, “An advertisement knowingly and intentionally using sacred symbols, especially those of another religious tradition, for purely commercial purposes can be offensive.”

An advertisement is used only for commercial purposes. Goddess Lakshmi represents wealth and people do worship her for precisely that. So, if we cut out the hypocrisy and talk practical stuff, this ad is offensive because it makes no sense.

Honestly, the genies and the burgers keep me occupied. What would I do without some religious and superstition-induced stimulus?

Of naked gods and the cover-up jobs

Another nude portrait, another outcry.

The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti forced artist Nitai Das to withdraw a nude portrait allegedly resembling Lord Shiva from an exhibition at Jehangir Art Gallery.

We are back to the same old argument about freedom of expression. The artist has gone on the defensive saying that his untitled oil and acrylic painting was not of the Hindu God but just an anthropomorphic image of God. “My thoughts have been expressed through these paintings. People have a right to disagree with my work but my right to express my views cannot be curtailed. The work is untitled because I want people to interpret it on their own.”

With this statement he is handing over to the protestors a long rope to hang himself with. For, by his logic, their interpretation is valid, too. I don’t understand how giving a title can prevent people from interpreting a work as they wish. Do artists assume that if they title their works, then only their interpretation must prevail?

People have already commented on how the cult of Shiva has nude images, including the blatant worship of the Shiva lingam (Shiva’s phallus). These have mythological, and symbolic, meanings. No one is going to destroy the temples because of these depictions and no one has a problem that the works are titled or understood to be clearly what they are.

There is this rather silly notion that because India has given the world the Kama Sutra it is a more liberal society. These texts were written in ancient times when tribalism was the only culture. The refinement of material aspects of life has led to a different sensibility. The sculptors of temples were not thinking about metaphors the way contemporary analysts do.

Interestingly, the same analysts will see a real nude on the centrefold differently, perhaps even with disgust over how gauche it is, quite forgetting that a real woman or man has posed for it. Therefore, what does freedom of expression really mean, then?

Artist Atul Dodiya’s words, “India is a country with diverse traditions which is why certain people may find some things disturbing. But as long as the intent of the artist is correct, it must be understood. Artists, on their part, must not paint to offend, shock or provoke the viewer” are completely off in this context.

Who is to define the intent of the artist and its correctness? And what does he mean by an artist “must” not offend, shock or provoke the viewer? Are the viewers a single body of people with identical thoughts and ideas? What is wrong with provoking? Without provocation there can be no further exploration. Must the viewers be spoon-fed and swallow only the artist’s version?

Even calendar art makes people react differently as does the concept of beauty.

If the artists owe any responsibility to, it is to their idea of aesthetics and their ability to stand by it. There ought to be no room for scurrying away with a weak ‘untitled’ and use that as an excuse.

Had Das been upfront and said, yes, his work could be seen as Lord Shiva, he would have made more sense.

No one has seen god and god ‘creates’ us naked. So, is god offending, shocking, provoking the maternity ward, the first viewing gallery? Is god exploiting the human?

- - -

Image 1 is of Shiva in the Nataraj pose in the bare miniumum

Image 2 is a sculpture from the Chitragupta Temple

Dis n Dat

Hah…

The political wing of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency which used to spy on politicians and rig elections has been disbanded and will now focus only on internal security issues.

Someone please tell those who are getting all excited about this bit of news that internal security issues often have to do with the activities of politicians. Has any foreign power been responsible for the killing of its leaders?

Oh…

Ramosana, a small village in Gujarat’s Mehsana district. Since the last 15 days, 3,000 priests have been chanting hymns to invoke divine intervention to tackle the global financial crisis.

The globe does not know about Mehsana, Mehsana does not know about the globe, much less its financial crisis.

Now comes the fun part: This yagna will continue for the next two years (gosh, these priests sure know about market trends) and will cost approximately Rs 150 crore.

Who is paying for it? Don’t tell me some poor traders in Mehsana have been roped into believing that all this stock diving is going to affect their daily lives and they must cough up money? This is utter nonsense.

What is the point of going to the moon when we are still trying to appease god and goddesses for various crises? With this money, they could construct houses for the poor, or small industries and employ people.

What is Narendra Modi doing? Is this his idea of going global?

Aah…

You can rise in Australia. Join The Australian Sex Party. This is a political party and its slogan is “We are serious about sex”. The target voters will be its four million citizens who access pornography.

Its policies will include a national sex education curriculum, reducing censorship, abolishing government’s proposed Internet filter and supporting gay marriage.

These are honourable motives. Am wondering though whether being serious about sex means no laughing, no tickling, no flippant acts of feather caresses or popping bubbles…no kangaroo jumps…

Aha…

The Dalai Lama could be a good model for the Fevicol ad. Says he:

“There is no point or question of retirement. It is my moral responsibility to lead the Tibetans till my death. My whole body and flesh is Tibetan.”

So were those who were killed a few months ago.

And he is now even willing to give up the Dalai Lama position after he is gone!

“There are various ways of doing it (having a successor). The point is whether to continue with the institution of the Dalai Lama or not. After my death, Tibetan religious leaders can debate whether to have a Dalai Lama or not. I may be the last Dalai Lama…My successor can be a young boy or a girl. Girls show more compassion. Also, women are dominating things all over the world.”

I think spiritual leaders should make up their minds whether they want to be politicians or god’s middlemen/women. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

Ouch…

John Lennon has been forgiven by the Vatican for his remark about the Beatles being “more popular than Jesus”.

What is the use? It has been 40 years. The Church is still around, so is the memory of the Beatles.

The Vatican’s official newspaper said:

“After so many years it sounds merely like the boasting of an English working-class lad struggling to cope with unexpected success”.

It should have hit them on the head way back then. It does not have to be success going to his head, just refusal to believe in institutionalised religion or wanting to create a new world through music. That the Church even objected is puerile.

All Lennon said was:

“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink We’re more popular than Jesus now — I don’t know which will go first, rock and roll or Christianity.”

Why did the Church want Jesus to be ‘popular’? And this sudden forgiveness business is a bit silly. Instead of regurgitating 40 year-old comments, they should have gone and stopped that Michael Jackson from converting to Islam. There is still time for them to take him back.

They will save two religions for the price of one.

The goddesses of small links

Maverick: The goddesses of small links
By Farzana Versey
Covert, November 1-15

India’s first woman saint. Jain women take diksha. Muslim woman leads prayers. Impressed? Does it mean that women are breaking through the male preserve? Are we hypocrites when we applaud those who reach the top in careers because of their commitment to their calling and smirk when it comes to the call of god?

No. As a woman I find this sainthood business designed to keep women in their places; it isn’t a simple ladder they have climbed. They are transformed into puppets of a god that is clearly male. What message do we get from Saint Alphonsa’s statement that she put her foot on burning embers when there was a marriage proposal because, “If my body were a little disfigured no one would want me! I offered all for my great intention’’?

The great intention was that at age seven she had declared, “Jesus is my only spouse, and none other.’’

This sentiment echoes in Meera’s bold assertion to her husband, “I am no more Queen than you are King. There is only one King and my life belongs to him.”

Does upholding the existence of only one man-god convey an assertion of choice? She married Rana Bhojraj because he understood her piety. She had developed an instant loving attachment to the idol and began spending most of her time in bathing, dressing and worshipping the image as though it were real. She danced about the image in ecstasy. She sang beautiful songs to it. She talked to the idol. She slept with it.

She was using one patriarchal structure against another. Although trained in warfare, as was the royal custom, and adept at archery, fencing, horseback riding and driving chariots, she chose the protection of the male. Would she have been able to go it alone without the name of Krishna attached to her?

Lord Krishna once intervened in her dream to advise her, “If the gopikas could do their duty to their husbands, tend their families and above all be totally devoted to me all the time, you can do the same thing. Do your duty. I shall not leave you any time.”

It is true there are male saints and men who abjure worldly desires, but the dynamics differ. Even where worldlier aspects are concerned that have to do with religion there is a toeing of the line that women wilfully adhere to. What is there to applaud about a mother doing the kanyadaan of her daughter when it means ‘giving away the girl’? How progressive is it? How progressive is it that a woman leads a bunch of men to a public namaaz when she is the mere medium? Would a Muslim woman be able to assert her rights in matters of divorce or property, rights that are in fact enshrined in the Quran?

Pope Benedict XVI said, “Sister Alphonsa’s heroic virtues of patience, fortitude and perseverance in the midst of deep suffering remind us that God always provides the strength we need to overcome every trial.’’ That is not why she was sainted. The Vatican canonises only those who have performed miracles, and a committee is set up to ascertain these. Patience and fortitude are experienced by ordinary people too. The Indian government plans to bring out a coin to commemorate the saint. It would do well to visit the refugee camps in Orissa; the miracle is that many are surviving there.

Ordinary people are not on ordinary people’s agenda. It surprises me that liberals get excited about religious gimmicks. Kerala was known as a matriarchal society; today it has given us a female saint.

This keeps men happy because they are seeking a higher cause like god. Every woman outside this fold reveals their basic instincts. To avoid guilt that comes as a package deal with all belief systems they want to feel ‘desexualised’ and for those few minutes be ‘connected’. I find this dangerous. The male, having experienced saintly unobtrusiveness, would expect the living woman in his life to be as sublime.

Television soaps work on this. The best-selling woman is called Tulsi, imprisoned in a metaphorical planter-pedestal. The lords of the house make occasional trips to the courtyard to court the goddesses of small links.