The Media's Favorite Husain

The papers screamed out 'India's Picasso dies in exile'. And if the headlines weren't enough, the life and times of M F Husain were covered in vivid detail in the inner pages. All along, in my opinion, underscoring the very hypocrisy that defines us! Harsh? Yes. But true.

To be honest, I didn't really know about the whole controversy. I did know that MFH was involved in a 'nude painting' row that involved Hindu goddesses, but I didn't know about the quasi fatwa issued against him by Hindu factions, and I definitely did not know that these Hindu factions were epitomized by the 'holier than thou' entity who runs Mumbai as his fiefdom, who has taken the responsibility of safeguarding 'Indian culture and moral values' even if means of safeguarding involved vandalism and mindless rioting and disruption of law and order!

My thought and hence the purpose of this post was manifold! One, nudity in art is something we've known since caveman times. That painters, sculptors and photographers have a thing for the nude human form is a known fact. To the extent that I read somewhere that artistes make a distinction between 'nude' which is natural and free-flowing artistic, and 'naked' which is supposedly suggestive art, although both are to be considered aesthetic! Why they gloss over nudity, is something I can never understand. They say they are catering to a greater human consciousness, although I feel they're just pandering to a larger human population! But then again, I accept that I am not an authority on art, not even a novice! But we've all seen 'David' and studied about renaissance art in history books. So MFH really did not manage to do something pathbreaking like his predecessor Van Gogh who pioneered the use of the color yellow! So why did we create such a ruckus in the first place?

Second, why did MFH need to rile Hindu sentiments? Everyone knows that people in India take their Gods and Goddesses very very seriously. Our Goddesses are not akin to Greek Goddesses, who have forever been depicted in a certain way. So why not respect that part of what is intrinsically Indian and not 'firangify' everything! So if not for free publicity, what else could have been the motivation for such depiction? Why not call her Svetlana and the Veena? Making the picture just any picture, not necessarily tied to any religious sentiment! Ah! But that wouldn't have gathered so much publicity, including tomes being printed and published post his demise!

Third, why did we fly off the handle in 1996 about a picture that was actually painted in 1970! If not for blatant hankering for eyeball space by the media, who published the picture in the first place, and then again by political powers who suddenly found themselves turned into toothless tigers with no meat to chew on, what else could explain such unnecessary, irrelevant controversy creation? And then the whole 'death threat' circus. In what way are we any different from the clerics who issued a fatwa against Rushdie for Satanic Verses? How on earth can we adopt a 'holier than thou' attitude and preach about how intolerant those clerics were, that they could tolerate not even a word
against their religion! and if this is indeed our stance, why call ourselves sham secular with freedom of expression? No one forces us to be a free-for-all society like the Americans, who take their freedom very seriously! Let us agree that we have a thing against blasphemy! Nothing wrong at all!

And lastly, what a supreme level of hypocrisy we show, by feting the individual after he passes away! Extolling his virtues, forgiving his faults, reminiscing over the Maqbool Fida he was to various people and so on! News channels speak of nothing else all day. Newspapers publish tomes and tomes of MF times! The sheer blatancy of it all is appalling to say the least! Publicity, eyeball space, TRPs at all costs. Doesn't seem all too blatant, given the controversy-courting individual, who is the subject of the media's present fancy!

Demo CRAZY!!!

This week saw a coalition government in Britain for the first time ever. There was such a lot of hue and cry surrounding it, that people in India were at a loss over why! Since we have had coalition governments since eternity. And two years ago, the most bizarre form of coalition governance was seen in Israel, after every party claimed success! And if we look at all major past British colonies, a funny trend comes up.

The United States has a perfect two party political system with the Republicans and the Democrats. And by and far amongst all the biggies of the developed world, they have maintained this system for the past 234 years! Take Australia. They supposedly have a two party system, but sometimes, they are pushed to a 3 party system calling for coalitions at times. And now, the UK has stepped into the coalition game as well. Canada is another major player in coalition politics.

But look at India. 7 National Parties, 42 regional parties and 730 unrecognized, yet registered parties. So are we an example of democracy gone horribly wrong? True, democracy is precious. Thailand is a glaring example. People are arguing and fighting over the lack of a proper and transparent form of government. I remember Aghanistan, when people first stepped out to cast their votes post the tyrannical Taliban regime, there were luminous smiles on peoples' faces, they suddenly felt so empowered at being given the right to choose their own governments! The right to decide what happens to them as a country. But in India, the world's most populous democracy, the story is a tad bizarre.

Shepherding so many parties is a tough ask. Everyone has an agenda and a local mandate. Aligning these and being able to achieve significant development is a taller ask! And if you have leftist, fiercely communist parties as part of the group, like we did a couple of years ago, all semblance of capitalist development can be kissed goodbye, since they would be fiercely opposed! How we passed the nuclear 123 agreement is a story in itself. And then we have the numbers trading game. Outside support with withdrawal of support at the slightest provocation, a demand for certain ministries and portfolios, bargaining to have charges against someone dropped in order to hold a government together - it all happens.

A change is certainly in order. Outside support, ideologically different parties should not coalesce as per law. Several such changes would be ideal. But how can someone expect a parliament to bring about a constitutional amendment that may be detrimental to the passers themselves? I don't know. But before we begin commenting on how things should change and how government should be reformed, I guess the first thing needed is to do something to increase the voter turnout. For till then, we may call ourselves a democracy, but only one that does not represent the disillusioned, uninterested lot. Which unfortunately makes up the majority of our country!