Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 17, 2007
Introduction: Perverse defenders of perverted
art
In asking the University Grants Commission
to "investigate" the alleged "moral policing" at Baroda's
Maharaja Sayajirao University, Union Human Resource Development Minister Arjun
Singh is back to playing wilful and perverse politics. Coupled with strong
protests by CPI and CPI(M) MPs - the voluble Mr Sitaram Yechury has called
it an infringement on an individual's fundamental rights - Mr Singh's action
would indicate a strong stand against censorship of contrarianism. In reality,
it is nothing of the sort. The maverick art student Chandra Mohan's pornographic
representations of Jesus Christ and Durga, among other icons, would have been
deemed objectionable almost anywhere. Obscenity is often a subjective matter.
Blasphemy, however, is far more rigorously defined. In Britain a few years
ago an artistic representation of Christ, similar to the one made in Baroda,
was deemed outrageous and its exhibition prohibited by the Government. The
matter went up to the European human rights authorities and the ban was upheld.
The principle outlined was that free expression and freedom to articulate
individual opinions - in textual or artistic form - is not a licence to indulge
in abuse. It was this cherished social contract that Chandra Mohan and his
obdurate teacher, Prof SK Panniker, dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts, MS University,
violated, leading to protests by Christian and Hindu groups in Baroda and,
finally, police intervention. Prof Panniker went one step further. Two days
after Chandra Mohan's exhibition (and exhibitionism), and ignoring entreaties
and orders from the university management, he organised an impromptu exhibition
of nude paintings under the pretext of showcasing medieval Indian art. In
normal times, such an exposition would not have been a problem. Coming two
days after a stormy incident, with the mood in the city decidedly charged,
it was designed to hurt sentiments and raise passions. If nothing else, it
was irresponsibility unbecoming of a senior academic and the university authorities
were perfectly justified in taking disciplinary action against Prof Panniker.
It would be relevant to point out that both
the Government Mr Singh represents and the Leftist MPs and fellow travellers
had objected to caricatures of Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper a year-and-a-half
ago. The protests in India, descending to street violence in Lucknow for instance,
had been explained as an angular manifestation of genuine anger. In Baroda,
on the other hand, there was no violence, Chandra Mohan faced abuse and was
shouted at, but was not physically threatened. His paintings and installations
were not damaged, neither was university property. Yet Gujarat-phobic elements
in Delhi were quick to use the incident to denounce the Narendra Modi Government
and had objections to the idea of Hindus feeling anguished. The content of
the artwork and the fact that Christians had formed part of the protests were
conveniently ignored, buried by a section of the media with its own, peculiar
notion of neutrality. If Mr Singh and Mr Yechury feel so strongly about the
whole business, why don't they offer to exhibit depictions of Christ's penis
and Durga's vagina - the subject of Chandra Mohan's 'creativity' - in Delhi
and Kolkata, supported by, respectively, the UPA Government and West Bengal's
Left Front regime? If they don't have the courage to do so, why do they expect
such permissiveness from Gujarat?
