Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Organiser
Date: May 27, 2007
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=185&page=4
The concerted nature of the attack in fact
proves how orchestrated it is. Father Jolly Nadukudiyil, who runs a school
in Vadodara, threw the first salvo, asking why "Hindu radicals"
(whatever that means) do not oppose nudity and sexually explicit scenes in
some ancient paintings. The usual anti-Hindu suspects, from the publicly-funded
Sahmat to Arundhati Roy, Anjolie Ela Menon, Nandita Das, Sitaram Yechury,
and others quickly jumped into the fray.
No matter how much some sections of the media
'balance' the Maharaja Sayajirao University art scandal as a multi-religious
assault, the fact remains that the controversy has emerged in the public domain
as a purely 'Hindu' affair. This is because Christian activists who are prone
to seek media publicity for every alleged incident involving Hindu opposition
to conversions have been embarrassed by the suo moto objections of local pastors
and have asked them to shut up.
The All India Christian Council has doggedly
refused to join the controversy on grounds that it is a local issue. All prominent
Christian leaders are conspicuous by their silence. This raises critical questions
regarding the religious affiliation of impugned student Chandramohan, and
of the institutions that are funding his studies in the country's most prestigious
art college.
An attack on the religious icons of a community
can be either intra-religious or inter-religious. Artist M.F. Husain's obscene
portraitures of Sitaji, Bharat Mata, and other Hindu deities falls in the
latter category; author Salman Rushdie's profanity about the Prophet's wives
(Satanic Verses) falls in the former. Both are objectionable and have been
rightly condemned by orthodox Muslims and liberal Hindus. It is only when
it comes to cultural assaults upon Hindu dharma that the Lib-Left Hindu activists
have a problem.
In the present controversy, Andhra native
Chandramohan painted a huge cross with a nude Christ apparently urinating
into a commode. Since Christ on the cross has traditionally been depicted
in a loincloth, the painting caused consternation when seen by members of
the public who had come to make purchases to patronise and encourage the budding
artists. Shocked Christians like Catholic lawyer Mariam S. Dhabi and Methodist
pastor Rev. Emmanuel Kant joined the Hindu community in protesting the paintings
on May 9, 2007, but found little support from the politically-savvy community
leaders at the national level.
Thus, the BJP's Niraj Jain was left to bear
the brunt of nation-wide liberal anger alone when he objected to a painting
that showed the goddess Durga delivering a child. Vadodara police had no choice
but to arrest Chandramohan for misusing religious symbols and causing religious
offence once her and Prof. S.K. Pannikar, Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts,
refused to remove the paintings from the public domain.
Prof. Pannikar added fuel to the fire by arranging
an impromptu exhibition of nude paintings, to make the point that Indian (especially
Hindu) art had always been sexually explicit. This, in turn, raises serious
questions about the political and ideological affiliations to Prof. Pannikar
(since suspended by the Vice Chancellor), as every iconoclast in the country
is busy trying to equate the unity symbolised by the Mithun concept in Indian
philosophy and art with playboy-type vulgarity.
The concerted nature of the attack in fact
proves how orchestrated it is. Father Jolly Nadukudiyil, who runs a school
in Vadodara, threw the first salvo, asking why "Hindu radicals"
(whatever that means) do not oppose nudity and sexually explicit scenes in
some ancient paintings. The usual anti-Hindu suspects, from the publicly-funded
Sahmat, to Arundhati Roy, Anjolie Ela Menon, Nandita Das, Sitaram Yechury,
and others quickly jumped into the fray. Others like Romila Thapar and Deepak
Nayyar have asked President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to intervene in the matter.
And not to be undone, HRD minister Arjun Singh has asked the University Grants
Commission to see if it can fish in troubled waters.
While Thapar, Nayyar, Shabnam Hashmi and Singh
can plead artistic ignorance if cornered, there is no excuse for the self-proclaimed
artists who are defending Chandramohan and Pannikar. Indeed, the authorities
at Maharaja Sayajirao University need to explain to the nation the nature
of the course content taught at the university and the calibre of the faculty.
This is pertinent because art is first and
foremost about understanding the meaning of the symbols of religion and culture.
This involves deep immersion in the culture and philosophy of the tradition
one is studying. An art college would teach students about such symbols and
their meaning and usage in all world cultures, and would also teach them not
to mix or impose symbols from one culture upon another. Respect for each cultural
tradition and art form would be inbuilt into the programme, and would be expected
to be inbuilt in students professing a desire to become artists.
What we have witnessed at Vadodara, however,
raises serious questions about modern India's human and academic resources.
Far from showing any sensitivity and shame for the controversy, the art students,
no doubt instigated by a section of the Faculty, staged a dharna like trade
union activists and ranted about 'freedom'. I am at a loss to understand how
such culturally impoverished and morally bankrupt young men and women could
be enrolled in an art programme in the first place.
Much noise has been made in the media about
Chandramohan's origins as the son of a poor carpenter family from Andhra Pradesh,
a state whose Seventh Day Adventist Chief Minister actively encourages missionaries.
Chandramohan's religious affiliations have been carefully concealed by the
media. Yet, whatever these may be, a person from such a humble background
would normally be expected to have a far more reverential attitude towards
the religious symbols and icons of the various communities. Some have suggested
that he hails from a Naxal-prone region of the state, and this may suggest
a certain ideological orientation.
The Vadodara incident must receive zero tolerance
from Hindu society because it marks a dangerous trend - of bringing into India
the attempt by certain western Christian corporations to denigrate Hindu dharna
by depicting Hindu gods on toilet seats, shoes, paper napkins, etc. The concerted
silence of all Christian denominations in India on the offensive portrayal
of Christ (which they will privately ensure will not happen again) gives the
game away.
