HVK Archives: The question of artistic freedom
The question of artistic freedom - Deccan Herald
Keshav Rao Jadhav
()
January 31, 1999
Title: The question of artistic freedom
Author: Keshav Rao Jadhav
Publication: Deccan Herald
Date: January 31, 1999
If there is one industry which has most unabashedly used
depiction of sex to market its wares it is the Indian film
industry. Such depiction now is not only titillating but also
violent. heroes now behave as if they are villains. This
villainous behaviour is shown as depicting the hero's intense
"love" for the heroine!
The art-film makers, not to be seen lagging behind, have now
joined the race. Questions of decency, religion and Indian
culture are being raised by those who claim to represent the
Indian society and its cultural values. The Censor Board too has
become active or has been activated by the developing
confrontation. The judiciary is also being called upon to decide
on matters which are outside its domain.
Culture war
A war is now raging between "upholders" of Indian cultural -
values and others, who claim to have knowledge of the inner
workings of the Indian society, not to speak of its ancient past.
Shanker, the greatest Indian cartoonist of our times, had once
written that the significance of Emperor Ashoka in Indian history
is that a five star hotel in our age has been named Hotel Ashoka!
Thus in a reversal of roles the present creates the past!
Politicians who attend parliament for their daily allowance, used
this controversy to create commotion so that the chairperson was
forced to adjourn the House and everybody could leave with a
clear conscience on more important assignments!
We will first take up Fire and Bandit Queen and try to understand
how "artistic" film-makers look at women's lives. In the picture
on the life of Phoolan Devi, who is very much alive, the 'bandit
queen,' is shown as having sex, with a clear view of buttocks, et
al. That the scene has noticing to do with the life and
sufferings of Phoolan Devi is obvious to anyone with a little
common sense, even if they are so unfortunate as not to have any
"artistic sense"! Yet the director has done it though there is
no artistic compulsion.
Why? If such a scene is shown about a fictitious character.
which has nothing to do with the development of the story nor
"artistic" requirements, it is bad enough. But such a scene
about a Living person can only be compared to the disrobing of
Draugadi in full view of a great assembly of intellectuals, and
Kshatrias expected to protect the honour and life of the
helpless. Both demonstrate that people concerned look upon a
woman's body as a marketable commodity, thus showing contempt for
women.
The Supreme Court gave the green signal. How would the Court
have reacted if an honourable woman member of the judiciary or a
living woman-politician or an "artistic" woman had been shown in
a similar fashion? After all everybody has sex, not only Phoolan
Devi!
Fire takes a step forward. It shows the emotional suffocation of
two women safely enconced in a "respectable" household. One can
be either forced into home-sexuality or can become a homosexual
through natural inclination, or through being jaded by routine
sex or as in the present case, as a result of a set of
circumstances. Sex among human beings after all is partly a
matter of imagination.
The. artist in Deepa Mehta, found it necessary to show some
explicit scenes not only of two women having sex but also of a
man masturbating. Even a casual look shows that neither scene
was necessary. Ismaat Chugtai, a great Urdu writer, has dealt
with a similar theme, without recourse to such explicit
descriptions. But Deepa Mehta's definition of art is different.
Self-control
Art is all about tremendous self-control, self-restraint. Art is
not hysteria though it may depict hysteria in its own manner. If
artistes do not exercise self-restraint then to that extent their
art is weak and commercial. A pretentious blue film is not art
however popular it is and whatever the number of awards it
receives.
Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses belongs to the same category. He
is certainly not the first person to debate the question of
prophethood. One can either debate this question seriously or in
a frivolous manner. Salman Rushdie uses obscenity in almost all
his novels to reach at the characters he creates. Nudity or even
obscenity may sometimes be necessary. But in most of his works
obscenity is not an organic part of the story. It looks forced
and presents a pretentious posture. In Satanic Verses the name
Mahound is used as the name of a Prophet thus describing him as a
savage and roguish character. Prostitutes are given the names of
his wives. Neither shows that Salman Rushdie, as he claims, is
seriously interested in discussing the concept of prophethood.
The utter lack of seriousness is obvious from the very first page
inspite of his pretensions to the contrary though comedy too can
be serious probing.
Popularity and awards or lack of popularity and awards do not
prove anything, least of all the merit of a work of art.
Everybody knows how many mediocre writers were awarded the Noble
Prize for literature and how many great ones ignored!
The Indian situation is different front the situation prevailing
in other countries in the sense that every question here gets
mixed up with short term politics, specially with the question of
majority-minority, politics. The first attack on freedom of
expression came from communal minority leaders quickly followed
by followed by communal elements of the majority community.
Those who regard themselves as cultural 'leaders' also joined
tile fray, not as cultural figures, but as petty politicians.
Thus their credibility is totally destroyed and they are regarded
as a set of extremely communal characters.
Very few of the 'cultural figures' attacked the ban on Salman
Rushdie's Satanic Verses. Fewer still wen[ to the rescue of a
Malayali writer, a Christian, who was arrested and pert behind
bars for adapting, for the Malayali stage, a Nobel Prize winning
novel, The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ. They did not condemn
the attack on the Deccan Herald office for publishing an award
winning story by a Malayali Muslim writer which had allegedly
hurt toe delicate 'sentiments' of communal Muslims. Why did this
happen? Perhaps cultural figures from the majority community
waited for some signal, however feeble, from cultural figures
belonging to minority communities, which never came. Thus
cultural figures of all communities demonstrated that they are no
better than petty politicians out to grab political mileage.
They also showed that they are more worried about saving their
skins than cultural values.
The attacks on Akbar for producing a play based on the Ramayana,
Hussain's Saraswati and Fire came much later. Gandhians too have
joined the fray demanding a ban on a Marathi play on Godse, thus
proving that their Gandhism is not even skin-deep.
The utter vulgarity of the whole thing is demonstrated by the
fact that the question of Fire became linked to the BJP-Shiv
Sena's policies and 'Hindutva'. Do these so-called 'cultural'
figures realise, that the constant refrain of 'Hindutva' in every
matter is turning off even liberal Hindus who perceive rite whole
thing as an attack oil Hinduism? By mixing politics and cultural
issues they are doing disservice both to healthy politics and
cultural values. But it must be said that freedom is riot
negotiable. Though freedom of expression may not be an absolute
value all the same it is absolutely necessary. Whatever the
artistic value of The Satanic Verses, Fire, The Last Temptation
of Jesus Christ and the Saraswathi painting no attempt to ban
them should go unchallenged. Freedom is indivisible aid has to
be considered so irrespective of the insensitivity of the artist.
Those who play petty politics with such an important matter are
putting a hangman's noose around their own 'cultural' necks.
Back
Top
|
